Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this supplemental appropriation bill. We are here because there has been an outrage to decency, to American decency, by the attacks of September 11. We today are reflecting by our debate and by our votes the outrage of all Americans. I realize that the words of condolences and the words of anger and outrage have nearly all been said, but we are here to act today. We are here to act by considering this legislation and passing it, hopefully unanimously, so that we can support the staggering loss of life and the symbols of American prowess in the world that have been damaged or destroyed. We are saddened for that. But never let there be a doubt that we as Americans will retaliate, and that those who perpetrated this or harbor those who perpetrated it will long remember that they should never touch America again.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The tragic attacks on Americans took place on Tuesday, September 11, in New York and here in the Washington area at the Pentagon, the seat of the military of our country. The following evening, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who is chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and I, as the ranking member, went to the Pentagon for a briefing that we received from three admirals. And then we went around to the west side of the Pentagon where the crews were working, still putting out the fires and to try to find any survivors. Then the next day, in that very spot of disaster, a garrison-sized American flag was draped on the side of the Pentagon, an American flag, that said we are still here, the military of our country is still in business, and we are Americans. So I compliment those that sent that message to the world at the Pentagon of the United States. It was during the War of 1812, Mr. Speaker, that an occurrence took place in the Baltimore harbor. At that time there were a number of British ships anchored in harbor with a good number of British troops thereon and a doctor had been taken captive by the British military and held aboard one of the ships. He was a noncombatant but they thought he was; and one of his friends, a young lawyer, rode out to the ship and asked that he be released so he could go back and tend his patients in the city of Baltimore. The British admiral said, yes, you may take your friend, but not now, not until tomorrow. And then he pointed toward Fort McHenry which guards that harbor, and he pointed to the American flag of the day. And he said, You see that flag? It will not be flying there tomorrow, but the British Union Jack will be flying, for tonight we will attack Fort McHenry and the British will take it. All night long, this young lawyer and his doctor friend watched from the British ship while the rockets glared and the bombardment occurred over the ramparts of Fort McHenry, and from time to time they could see amidst the burst the American flag was flying. The following morning, the sun rose, the battle had ended, and the American flag still stood, for the American forces had repulsed successfully the British attack on Fort McHenry and they had won that battle. True to his word, the British admiral did turn the doctor loose and his lawyer friend, and he went back by row boat to Baltimore. The young lawyer was so moved that he penned a poem that was later put to the music of a drinking song of the day; and that poem, written by the young lawyer named Francis Scott Key, is today the national anthem of our country. What we learned from that episode and from that poem and song tells us that we still are the grandest civilization ever known in the history of mankind, and that this American flag still flies, though we have detractors and those who would attack us. So let us, in compliance with the suggestion and urging of this resolution, as Americans fly our flags, let us fly them for 30 days, and let children know as well as all other Americans what this country stands for, and that we shall not be daunted, that we as Americans will remain great and free. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate and thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), for pioneering this resolution. I have a special thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. It is a pleasure and an honor to cosponsor this with my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one that will have hopefully a healing power for Americans, one that asks each American to renew his or her allegiance to our country. Every day when we come into this Chamber, we pledge allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Of course, we are also led in a prayer by the Chaplain. This flag symbolizes so much. It has reflected so much goodness and greatness through the years, that in times of stress and sorrow we feel a special need and obligation to rally around it. That is the purpose of this resolution. This flag was originally flown in a different form, of course, by those in the Revolution, down through the years, the War of 1812, out of which came the story of the poem, later put to music which we now sing as the Star Spangled Banner. Down through the years of the challenges and conflicts our country has sustained, our flag has flown high over this free and wonderful land. This is America. This is the history of the American flag. In this past century, we have led with this flag in fighting tyranny, not once but twice. We now refer to those episodes as the First World War and the Second World War. Since that time, freedom has been challenged and the American flag has held the way. Consequently, it is up to us today in this very troubling, difficult time for us, as Americans, to rally around the American flag once more. If nothing else comes out of all of this sadness and turmoil, maybe, Mr. Speaker, there will be an added appreciation for young men and young women who wear the American uniform. It is they who protect the rights and freedoms of our country and all that the American flag stands for. Our young men and young women are in various camps and posts, not just here in our country, but in far-flung parts of this world, bringing stability, bringing peace, and the American flag is leading the way. Cicero, the great Roman orator, once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues, and this is an opportunity for us as Americans as we fly this flag to remember those Americans, both in New York and those who were wearing the uniform at the Pentagon, who paid such a terrible price for being Americans. So let us show appreciation for our country, especially for those young men and women who wear the uniforms of the United States of America. A number of years ago, the famous folk singer Johnny Cash wrote a ballad entitled the ``Ragged Old Flag.'' I wish to repeat that today as a reminder of the history of our country and the flag that has flown so proudly over our land. As Johnny Cash penned it, ``I walked through a county courthouse square; on a park bench an old man was sitting there. I said, your old courthouse is kinda run down. And he said, no, it will do for our little town. ``I said, your old flag pole has leaned a little bit and that's a ragged old flag you got hanging on it. ``He said, have a seat, and I sat down. ``Is this the first time you have been to our little town? I said, I think it is. And he said, I don't like to brag but we're kinda proud of that old ragged flag. ``You see, we got a little hole in that flag there, when Washington took it across the Delaware. And it got powder burns the night that Francis Scott Key sat watching and writing, ``Say Can You See?'' And it got a bad rip in New Orleans, with Packingham and Jackson tuggin' at its seams. And it almost fell at the Alamo beside the Texas flag, but she waved on through. She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville, and she got cut again at Shiloh Hill. There was Robert E. Lee, Beauregard, and Bragg; and the South wind blew hard on that ragged old flag. On Flanders Field in World War I, she got a big hole from a Bertha gun. She turned blood red in World War II, she hung limp and low a time or two. She was in Korea and Vietnam. She went where she was sent by her Uncle Sam. She waved from our ships upon the briny foam, and now they have about quit waving her back here at home. This old flag is wearing thin, but she's in good shape for the shape she's in. So we raise her up every morning, and we take her down every night. We don't let her touch the ground, and we fold her up just right. On second thought, I do like to brag, 'cause I'm mighty proud of that ragged old flag. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the darkest day in American history. Pearl Harbor pales in comparison. I join all other Americans who are shocked and outraged by the terrorist hijackings and attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. Last night I saw firsthand the carnage resulting from the attack on the Pentagon. Let there be no mistake, the United States Government will investigate and pursue those who were behind this cowardly attack. These terrorist attacks were truly acts of war, and we will respond forcefully and appropriately. The United States will take action against the terrorists and punish those governments that support and harbor such criminals. This incomprehensible tragedy is a terrible reminder that we must take the threat of terrorism seriously. If Congress and the administration are willing to develop an overall strategy and commit adequate resources, we can prepare an effective defense to protect our American people. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families of the victims, and I especially express my gratitude to all emergency and law enforcement personnel and other volunteers, many of whom have lost their lives. I urge all Americans who have a flag, to fly it high and demonstrate we stand united in this moment of tragedy.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, people touched with evil brought hate and darkness to a land of light and freedom. I need not recount the details of their crimes. Those will forever be too familiar. I saw some of the damage firsthand at the Pentagon last night. The lives that they took, structures that they damaged were not the true target. Here is what they attacked: the idealist Nation that guaranties all of its people equality in law and enforces it in deed; the determined Nation that time and again deploys its finest men and women to restore peace where it does not exist and maintain peace where it does; the generous Nation that gives more selfless support to other countries than any other in history; the steadfast Nation that is the first one called when disaster strikes, when tragedy erupts, when fortune's heart turns cold. That is what they attacked. They killed many Americans; but they did not kill, they could not kill our idealism, our determination, our generosity, our steadfastness. They could not kill what makes America America. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, the commander of the Japanese forces, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, mused, ``I fear we have roused a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.'' Those who assisted in perpetrating this deed should take those words to heart, because resolve, too, is in our national character, as Admiral Yamamoto learned to his eternal regret. We do not go weeping through the streets. We do not wail and beat our breasts. We just set about methodically and with great certainty to bring justice. To those who devised and plotted the attack, I say, you will not find haven in the world of decent men and women. And the hearts of many others will be turned against you. If you believe, as the attackers did, that your own life has no value, America will be glad to cash that check. And any country that dares harbor you will pay its due. At the same time, I hope that all Americans will remember another lesson of the Second World War; that not everyone who looks like our idea of the enemy actually is the enemy. Tragedy is no excuse to create new injustice. Let me extend my sympathies to those of the Congress and to all the families of the victims, and particularly those who were killed or wounded while responding to give aid to others. I ask prayers also for anyone with a loved one in uniform. Indeed, if there is a positive to be found in all of this, it is that Americans may rediscover their respect for our military forces. Toward that end, and as a sign to our attackers of their futility, I ask that every American who has an American flag to take it outside and fly it. And if you do not have one, I hope you will get one. We have been in a quiet war against terrorism for some time. The difference today is that now everyone knows it. As today's debate will show, anyone hoping to sow discord or profit from political division will be disappointed. There are no Republicans or Democrats today, there are only Americans, proud, somber, resolute and looking forward.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Floyd Spence was a true southern gentleman, a good friend, a dedicated Congressman, and a champion of a strong national defense. I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with him on the Committee on Armed Services during his chairmanship, and I found that he always worked for the betterment of our men and women in uniform and for our national security. I will miss him. I will miss him very much. Almost a year ago, an overflow crowd gathered in the Committee on Armed Services hearing room for the unveiling of Floyd's portrait as chairman of the committee. Often we do not have the chance to let friends know how we feel about them before they are gone, so I am very grateful that we had that evening together to enjoy Floyd's company, and to let him know personally how much he meant to us. Floyd Spence began serving this country as an active duty member of the United States Navy Reserve during the Korean conflict. That service continued until the end of his life. Our former chairman understood that our Nation needs a strong national defense, and he worked tirelessly with Members on both sides of the aisle to strengthen our Armed Forces and to take care of the men and women in uniform and their families. No one spoke out more forcefully on the need to maintain readiness. On rare occasions we disagreed, but never disagreeably. Our relationship was one of mutual respect based upon values which we both learned in small towns named Lexington, one in South Carolina and one in Missouri. During the years Floyd Spence served on the Committee on Armed Services, he blessed us with his leadership, honored us with his friendship, and inspired us with his courage. Floyd Spence was courteous, he was thoughtful, he was respectful of others. It was a pleasure for me to serve in Congress with this decent, fair, and honorable man. We are all the richer for his years of dedicated service to the Committee on Armed Services, the Congress of the United States, the people of South Carolina, and our Nation. I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife, Debbie, to his four sons, and to his entire family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address a crucial issue for the future of our Nation, the military strategy that will govern our armed services. In 1923, then-Major George C. Marshall was asked to give a speech on national defense. He briefly recounted the history of the Army's end- strengths since the Revolutionary War and noted a consistent pattern. After every conflict the United States immediately and significantly decreased the size of the Army, only to have to increase it dramatically the next time a conflict broke out. U.S. leaders continued to act as if the absence of an immediate threat justified a dramatic decrease in the size of U.S. forces and the defense budget. The astonishing fact, Marshall said, is that we continue to follow a regular cycle in the doing and undoing of measures for national defense. Nearly 80 years later in the aftermath of the Cold War, we find ourselves caught in the same pattern. Our active duty military has shrunk from 2.1 million people in fiscal year 1989 to 1.4 million for the coming fiscal year, a decline of 34 percent. Some in the administration may argue that this decline is reasonable and that further forced cuts are justified because we do not face a global peer competitor, but neither did the United States in 1923. Yet less than 20 years later it found itself at the center of a massive global conflict. Mr. Speaker, this pattern must stop. Why must we as Members of Congress think about questions of national strategy? My first answer goes back to that 1923 Marshall speech that Congress and the administration must bring stability to the size of our force and the resources that support it, both in the current budget and in the out- years. Stability ensures the United States can counter any threat to its interest, can fulfill its responsibility as the world's lone superpower, and can live up to the trust all those who serve in the military should have in their government. Second, the Constitution charges the Congress to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces. This is a sacred duty that transcends merely authorizing and appropriating annual funds for defense department and military services. Remember, it was Congress that crafted the Goldwater-Nichols legislation that strengthened the chain of command to U.S. benefit in conflicts like the Gulf War, and Congress had upgraded professional military education. We must now give thoughtful consideration to where our Nation is heading and what the proper role and size of our military is in this current world. Third, I have had the great fortune of serving on the Committee on Armed Services for over 2 decades. In that time I have participated in scores and scores of briefings and hearings and have conferred widely with active duty and retired military officers, defense experts, military historians and, most importantly, our troops. Through their wisdom and generosity, I have learned quite a bit; and I have come to some opinions about what our military should be doing for our country. It is an old speech-writing ploy to say that the United States stands at a unique moment in history, but in this case it happens to be true. There is no single overwhelming threat to the United States and its interests. There is no political-economic ideology to rival our democracy in capitalism, the United States the world's leading military and economic power. It has brought not only economic progress, but democracy and stability to many parts of the world. On balance, the United States has provided great benefits to the world through its leadership. We should feel a great sense of accomplishment at that. But this elevated position creates responsibilities. The United States must continue to lead; we must consciously fan the fire of our leadership to serve as a beacon for those friends and allies who would follow us. We must work with them as partners without arrogance, recognizing that together we can make the world a better and safer place. Leading in the 21st century means leading globally. The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly critical to our future security because of its population, growing economic strength, advancing military capabilities, and potential for conflict. Yet our leadership cannot focus on this region at the expense of others where U.S. interests remain strong, particularly Europe and the Persian Gulf. In addition to requiring global leadership, our world position makes us a tempting target for those who would attack us. We may face direct challenges, attacks on our homeland, our citizens and soldiers overseas and our military and commercial information systems. We may face indirect challenges as well as those who resent our leadership seek to increase the cost of our global position and seek to block access to the ports and battlefields of the future. We may face challenges to our allies and friends in conventional and unconventional forms that affect our own national interest. We may continue to face challenges associated with being a global leader as others ask us to contribute troops to keep the peace and stem violence. Given the breadth of these challenges, our national military strategy continues to matter, and the size and strength of our military matter as well. A good force structure with the wrong strategy is useless; so is a good strategy with the wrong forces. Getting the strategy right requires asking what the military must be able to do. In basic terms, we ask the military to prevent attacks on U.S. interests and to respond if prevention fails. Mr. Speaker, let us look at each in turn. I use prevention to mean two broad categories of activities that together protect U.S. interests, maintain U.S. world leadership, and minimize the likelihood that the military will have to fight. The first preventive element of our military strategy is the protection of the U.S. homeland as it is our most fundamental national interest. We know of a number of states and nonstate actors that may seek to counter U.S. conventional strength through attacks that may involve weapons of mass destruction. To counter these threats, the United States needs a comprehensive homeland security strategy, and I have called for this in legislation. To be sure, a limited missile defense system is part of such an effort, but the obsession of national missile defense by some as a ``Maginot line in the sky'' has become theological. Secretary Rumsfeld rightly points out that we cannot predict all of the threats that we will face, just as no one predicted Pearl Harbor or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But yet his strategy lacks the flexibility to deal with a range of threats when it puts such significant emphasis and resources on a single threat to be countered with missile defense. Missile defense systems should be treated as a weapons system like any other, and it should be only one part of the U.S. approach to protecting its citizens. Homeland security must include continued support for nonproliferation programs, including cooperative threat reduction programs with states of the former Soviet Union. It must include great resources for intelligence and coordinated response mechanisms among a range of government agencies. Comprehensive homeland security, not merely the one element represented by missile defense, should be the focus of our efforts. Beyond physical attacks, the United States is now vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated information warfare capabilities targeted at our military communications or at critical domestic infrastructure. The diffusion of technology allows many states and nonstate actors to target the United States directly through cyberspace at a fraction of the cost of confronting us with conventional forces. Our own information operations war games, like 1997's Eligible Receiver, showed that even a small group of attackers could break into the power grids of major American cities and disrupt military command and control systems. In such a scenario, our very technological superiority becomes a weakness with potentially devastating consequences for both infrastructure and the lives of our citizens and troops. In considering how to deal with information warfare, the United States must build robust offensive and defensive capabilities and ensure that the information and communications that enable combat operations is secure. To do this, the Department of Defense should focus on integrating information operations into broader operational planning and on updating information operations doctrine. The second preventive element of our strategy is shaping the global environment through active U.S. military engagement. The absence of this requirement in current administration rhetoric deeply troubles me. To speak of the importance of engagement is not simply a liberal effort to make the world a better place, it is one of the best means of maintaining alliance relationships, deterring adversaries, encouraging civilian control of military in foreign countries, and gathering vital intelligence throughout the world. If we want to reduce the number of contingencies to which the United States is asked to send troops, we must pursue engagement as a means of preventing such conflicts before they happen. This vital engagement function takes two forms. First, it requires presence, both through permanent basing and temporary deployments and ports of call. The changing global landscape may require basing in new locations. We should consider the use of an Indonesian island, greater presence in Guam, smaller deployments throughout Southeast Asia, and the shifting of more European forces to the southeast of that continent. We must also be creative in how we use bases, adopting more of a lily-pad approach to basing that will allow us to use forces without overly stressing local communities. Frogs do not live on lily pads, but they use them when needing to get where they want to go. Beyond presence, engagement must involve continued military-to- military exchanges and international military education. This is our best means of affecting the senior leaders' leadership of other countries and of building expertise in their cultures and doctrines. These relationships should be the last thing we cut in times when we are trying to send a political message. Cutting contacts discourages the positive changes we are seeking to effect in many countries. In the end, our ability to shape the global environment to the benefit of our national security depends on a multifaceted approach, the linchpin of which is continued engagement and collaboration with other countries. If our strategy takes these preventive actions for the homeland and through global presence, it must then focus on required military capabilities if prevention fails. Without a credible, overwhelming warfighting capability, the United States cannot deter would-be aggressors and cannot maintain global leadership. There is no simple, elegant proposition for the warfighting element of the strategy to replace the two-major-theater-war construct, but let me offer a notional ``1-2-3'' approach. One, we must be able to fight and win decisively at low risk a major regional conflict. Two, we must be able to conduct serious military actions in at least two other regions simultaneously to deter those who would take advantage of our distraction in a major conflict. Three, at the same time, we must be able to undertake at least three small-scale contingencies throughout the world. Our recent history has shown that this level of demand is simply a reality. Therefore, we should plan for it and accept it as the price of global leadership. I have agonized, Mr. Speaker, over the risk of abandoning our two- major-theater-war force-sizing approach. While I know we do not currently have the troops to support it, I still believe we must determine our strategy first and only then determine the size of our force. Our vital interests are spread throughout Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, and therefore we must maintain the ability to undertake significant military action in any combination of these three regions. Many States continue to plow resources into conventional and particularly antiaccess capabilities. While it is true that Iraq's capabilities have been eroded by sanctions and North Korea's by economic stagnation, both countries maintain significant conventional strength. The Taiwan Straits remain a potential flashpoint. The U.S. military has not given sufficient consideration to how the United States might have to respond if a large-scale conflict broke out between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. These are the presently foreseeable regions in which a major regional conflict seems most likely to occur. Now, I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld that the likelihood of any two of these happening at any given moment is remote. Yet the United States must continue to have a multitheater capability. We must have enough forces to deter an attack of opportunity if we are engaged in a major theater war. For these reasons, I believe any move to a one-MTW capability must be accompanied by the ability to undertake significant military actions in two other places as well. These would not be ``holding'' actions, but a credible capability to deter adventurism and to protect crucial interests in those regions. The third element of the ``1-2-3'' approach to countering conventional threats to U.S. national interests is, the United States will continue to take part in small-scale contingencies in areas of lesser concern. At any given moment, there may be more or less than three such contingencies. The evidence of the last 10 years shows such a tempo is likely, particularly if you consider the continued deployments to keep peace in the Balkans and to maintain the no-fly zones in Iraq. Military planning should be able to contend with at least that number. Many voices have called for scaling our commitments back and limiting the duration of U.S. involvement. We in Congress will continue to ask tough questions about how we get involved and how to complete the mission, but being involved is the price of global leadership. We must acknowledge this fact and plan our forces accordingly. Finally, getting the strategy right means communicating that strategy effectively throughout the military services. Doing so means incorporating national strategic thinking into the outstanding professional military education system which already exists. Those in our intermediate and senior war colleges must understand how the tactics, operational art, and battlefield strategy they study fit within the broader national military strategy their civilian leaders devise. We have the world's best military education system; an effective military strategy must ensure that excellence continues. As William Francis Butler so aptly said, any nation that separates its fighting men from its scholars will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards. When taken together, Mr. Speaker, these strategic elements are similar to those put forward by Secretary Rumsfeld. With the most notable exception of his downplaying of engagement activities, I believe he has gotten much of the strategy right. He has also rightly put attention on the need to transform a percentage of our forces and to invest in certain critical capabilities. The United States must be able to protect space-based communications and other systems. It must search for increasingly effective intelligence capabilities. It must procure sophisticated stand-off capabilities to ensure that we can deliver firepower when confronted with antiaccess strategy. Finally, the Department must further joint warfighting through approaches like standing joint task forces. The Secretary has already articulated these requirements effectively. What he gets wrong is his approach to the troops. Technology is critical, but in many cases it cannot substitute for boots on the ground. Cutting forces directly would be dead wrong. The alternative approach of forcing each of the services to make their own cuts is even worse. This approach would force each service to make cuts in a vacuum, and would abrogate America's responsibility to match force structure to the strategy it prescribes. The stability then-Major George C. Marshall spoke of requires force structure consistency within an acceptable range for the health of our armed services. These services are only as good and effective as those they can entice to serve. Recruitment and retention efforts are damaged when end-strength numbers vary widely. Why should a young person commit to serving if he or she knows they may lose their jobs when the government next cuts the size of the military? Keeping faith with those who serve means maintaining a stable military base. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the strategy I have articulated here requires significant forces, in some cases more than we have today. The United States requires an Army, an Army of forces to fight a major theater war, to deter a second such conflict, to undertake peacekeeping operations, and to take part in engagement operations. If you consider that we used the equivalent of some 10 ground force divisions in the Gulf War, it is hard to see how we could fight one major conventional war while taking on any other missions with our current force. This and the reality of high current OPTEMPO rates argue for additional forces. At a minimum, we should secure an increase in the size of the active duty Army by 20,000 soldiers to an end strength of 500,000, while maintaining 10 active duty divisions. Just last month, Secretary White and General Shinseki testified before our committee that the Army could use 520,000 to meet the requirements of today's missions; 500,000 is the minimum force size needed to implement this strategy. In addition, we should support Army transformation efforts. The Army has given careful thought as to how it must face future challenges; these efforts deserve administration and congressional support. Our strategy will continue to put great demands on the Navy for presence, ensuring access to conflict areas, and to providing firepower to those fighting on the ground. In this service, a greater number of ships, along with a modest increase in end strength, is desperately needed. The Navy currently has approximately 315 ships. Over time, given our current replacement shipbuilding rate, that figure would drop to 230. Such a decline is appalling for a global naval power with global requirements. The scope of our commitments argues for a 400-ship Navy. This should be our goal. At a minimum, however, we should build toward the Navy's articulated requirement of 360 ships. We must also devote resources to developing innovative ships capable of operating in the littoral--such as a Cebrowski-class of ``streetfighters''--as a complement to our fleet of capital ships. Such new platforms may well have great war-fighting value, provide presence on the cheap, and serve as a counterforce to others' anti-access capabilities. The Air Force is currently well-sized for the present strategy and will continue to play a vital role across the spectrum of conflict. The Aerospace Expeditionary Force concept is essential for allowing the Air Force to deal effectively with the tempo of current operations. While the Air Force does not require greater force structure, it will need additional capabilities. The Air Force will need to recapitalize its aging fleet. In addition, the distances involved in a strategy more oriented toward Asia must involve greater airlift and more long-range capabilities, like the B-2. Finally, the Marine Corps is well suited to both contingency operations and major theater war in the 21st century. In addition, they are developing urban warfare capabilities highly relevant to future conflicts. While Marine force structure is appropriate to their missions, they require a modest increase in end-strength to allow fuller manning of existing units and a relief to some OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO demands. We must ensure that the Marine Corps continues to be able to provide the swift, forward action required by future challenges. Taken together, these changes result in a larger force. The administration is right to say that we currently have a mismatch between strategy and force structure, but the answer is not to explain away the requirements of our global role. The answer is to size a force appropriate to the roles we must play. Some might argue that we can accomplish these missions with fewer forces if we accept larger risks. This is a fool's economy. We must give the services the tools they need to fight and win decisively within low to moderate levels of risk. We must also lower risks to readiness by ensuring adequate forces for rotations. Mitigating these risks by modestly increasing the size of the force is the best way to provide the stability in U.S. forces that then-Major George C. Marshall sought in 1923. Only then will we be prepared to meet any challenge that will confront us. Budgetary concerns alone should not determine our national military strategy. However, we must acknowledge the difficulty of both modernizing our forces and ensuring they have the capabilities needed to fight on any 21st century battlefield, without cutting force structure. Alleviating these pressures will require effort on both sides. We in Congress must keep national strategy in mind when allocating defense resources. President Bush recently expressed his hope that ``Congress' priority is a strong national defense.'' I can tell you that for many of us, Democrat and Republican, this is the case. But for its part, the administration must make the priority of national defense as or more important than a tax cut. The military truly requires and deserves a greater budgetary top-line and a larger percentage of discretionary spending. The Department must follow through on the management reforms that Secretary Rumsfeld and the service secretaries have rightly highlighted to achieve cost savings. At the end of the day, my approach is nothing more than Harry Truman common sense. Implementing effective strategy requires inspired leadership by the President and Secretary of Defense. I say again, inspired leadership. I hope the current administration will provide it. Conversations about strategy tend to stay within policy elites. But at its most fundamental level, the impact of this strategy we make is felt by every member of the service. They must have confidence that their leaders will consistently fund defense at levels that allow them to do their jobs proudly and effectively. If we fail to do that, we undermine not only our strategy but all those Americans we should inspire to serve.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to commend the gentleman for introducing this resolution mourning the death of Mr. Ron Sander of Sunrise Beach, Missouri, and welcoming the other victims of this kidnapping incident home from South America. Ron Sander was one of 10 people who were seized by terrorists last October while they were working for an oil company in Ecuador. In what can only be termed a tragedy, Sander was found murdered in late January, shot five times in the back by his captors. While it appears to be clear that those who kidnapped Ron Sander and nine other were merely part of a gang of criminals, the act of kidnapping is fast becoming a tool which is employed by those violent actors who are involved in the Colombian civil war, and increasingly, in the countries which neighbor Colombia. The oil-rich areas of Ecuador attract many American companies and other firms that employ Americans. It is my hope that we in the Congress can help to find a peaceful resolution to the conflicts of the region and can thereby hope to lessen the possibility that Americans would be kidnapped in a cowardly act of violence not unlike the one that took the life of Ronald Sander. My heart goes out to the families of all the kidnapping victims who waited for their loved ones' safe return; but most of all, I want to express my deepest sympathy to Mr. Sander's family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to the Whiteman Air Force Base 509th Bomb Wing emergency response team. On July 12, 2001 the team successfully helped a TWA flight divert a tragedy by acting with precision and expertise. The 509th Bomb Wing emergency response team is made up of firefighters, security forces, medics, transportation, chaplain, legal, public affairs, and services. Nearly every unit at Whiteman AFB played a role in the successful execution of this mission. After an emergency landing the team was on hand to help safely unload every passenger and transport them to the community center. At the community center passengers were offered an array of services and support, including meals, free phone calls and entertainment. Members of the team did sign language for a hearing impaired family, spoke Japanese to three passengers that spoke no English and spent there own money on snacks for the travelers. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the members of the 509th Bomb Wing emergency response team for such outstanding performances during the recent unexpected commercial landing. These men and women went above and beyond the call of duty and deserve our praise. I know that Members of the House will join me in sending the 509th Bomb Wing emergency response team a heartfelt thank you for a job well done.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to David Curry of Sedalia, Missouri, who was recently named the Missouri Economic Development Council District 4 Volunteer of the Year. The Missouri Economic Development Council is an association of professionals and volunteers that is dedicated to improving the economic climate of Missouri through programs of professional development, public policy, marketing and communication. The Missouri Economic Development Council recognizes that professional developers have an enormous task. It is only by the work of volunteers that these professionals and their respective communities are successful. Mr. Curry has been involved with Pettis County, Missouri, economic development since the early 1970s. He was instrumental in forming the first industrial development group that brought many industries to Sedalia. Today, these businesses serve as the basis for the area's economic well-being. Currently, Mr. Curry serves as President of the Sedalia-Pettis County Community Service Corporation. Mr. Speaker, David Curry deserves to be recognized for his tireless commitment to the betterment of Sedalia. I know that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating him on a job well done.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to praise the Missouri National Guard for the integral role that they are playing in keeping the Army's Apache helicopters in the air. The 1107th Aviation Classification and Repair Activities Depot, or the MO-AVCRAD, has been the only National Guard group selected to help with this mission. Recently, an AH-64 Apache lost a tail rotor blade and then the entire tail rotor hub assembly. The good news is the skilled pilots were able to land the helicopter, the bad news is that the cause of the accident is not know. When these accidents happen, several agencies attempt to find out what happened and why. As a precautionary measure a Safety of Flight is issued, mandating that all tail rotor blades be inspected. This inspection is crucial to ensure that our soldiers are as safe as possible and the MO-AVCRAD is making that happen. The MO-AVCRAD is helping to inspect every tail rotor blade, including those in storage bins. Mr. Speaker, the soldiers responsible for this critical work deserve to be recognized. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending a big thank you to the soldiers of the 1107th Aviation Classification and Repair Activities Depot.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to inform my colleagues on the upcoming retirement of Rear Admiral Gwilym H. Jenkins, Jr., Deputy for Acquisition and Business Management for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. In the very near future, Admiral Jenkins will retire after over 30 years in the U.S. Navy. He has distinguished himself, the Navy, and our nation with dedicated service. Admiral Jenkins began his service in the military in 1966, when he enlisted in the Naval Reserve. Throughout his career, Admiral Jenkins has continued his formal education. He received a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from Pennsylvania State University. He received masters degrees from the Naval Post Graduate School and is a graduate of the University of Southern California Program for Executives. Admiral Jenkins has held many command assignments and honorably served the American people throughout the world. Admiral Jenkins has served on the U.S.S. Savannah, U.S.S. Raleigh, and U.S.S. Puget Sound. He has also served as Supply Officer and Comptroller, Ship Repair Facility, Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines; Procuring Contracting Officer for the A06E TRAM and Business and Financial Manager of the CH- 46 and CH-53 Marine helicopters, Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C. As Director of Contracts at Navy Supply Center, Jacksonville, Florida, and while working at the Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he championed the use of electronic bulletin boards in contracting. Admiral Jenkins also served as Executive Director for Procurement at the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, where he was responsible for the implementation of the electric commerce mall on the World Wide Web, significantly reducing unnecessary Department of Defense logistics infrastructure. Through his work in Navy acquisition, Admiral Jenkins has consistently reached out to communities and to small business owners throughout the United States and has helped bridge the gap between military and civilian America. Admiral Jenkins, through his unique and amiable style, has worked to make this intimidating process easier for Americans to understand. I am especially grateful to Admiral Jenkins for traveling to Warrensburg, Missouri, to take part in my annual Federal Procurement Conference held each year at Central Missouri State University. I know the residents of Missouri's Fourth Congressional District join me in sending their appreciation for Admiral Jenkins's contribution to Missouri's small businesses. Mr. Speaker, Admiral Jenkins has had an impressive career in the military and has established great relationships among the civilian community. I know that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this fine sailor as he enjoys his retirement with his wife, Nell, and their four daughters Ellen, Caitlan, Andrea, and Kagan.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate and pay tribute to Colonel Timothy M. Daniel, who recently retired from the United States Army Corps of Engineers where he served as Chief, Commander's Planning Group. He has distinguished himself, the Army, and our nation with dedicated service. Colonel Daniel, originally from Wyoming, enlisted as a soldier in 1970. Following his tour of duty as a construction surveyor and instructor, he returned to the University of Wyoming where he graduated in 1975. He accepted a ROTC commission and reentered active duty in July 1975. Colonel Daniel is a graduate of the engineer officer basic and advanced courses, Command and General Staff College. He holds a bachelor's degree in International Relations. A master's degree in Public Administration and attended Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government as a fellow in their national security program. Prior to his assignment as Chief, Commander's Planning Group, United States Army Corps of Engineers, he served as the Garrison Commander of the United States Army Garrison, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. His other commands include the 35th Engineer Battalion and company command at the United States Army Engineer Center, serving again at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Other assignments of Colonel Daniel include Long Range Planner, Strategic Plans and Policy Division, Office of the Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans at Headquarters, Department of the Army: Area Engineer for Israel: executive officer, 14th Combat Engineer Battalion, TRADOC Liaison Officer to the French Corps of Engineers, Angers, France; and Group Engineer, United States Army Artillery Group, Cakmakli, Turkey. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Daniel has dutifully served our nation. As he prepares to spend more time with his wife Carol and his children, Thomas and Kelly, I know the members of the House will join me in expressing appreciation for his years of service.

Mr. SKELTON

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to add my best wishes to Anne Holcombe as she leaves and also say farewell to Cindy and Vicky for the work that they have done. Regarding Anne, I was sitting here thinking of the old Irish tune that has the melody of ``When Johnny Comes Marching Home.'' A phrase in there is ``Johnny, we hardly got to know you.'' It just seems like you came last week, and time flies so fast, and we hardly got to know you. You have done so well. You have been very friendly. You have been very particularly kind to me in making sure the podium is at the right height. Your professionalism, your competency is beyond match. So we thank you for your efforts, your hard work. We wish you the very best in your next chapter of life, and do not forget us. God bless.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate Sergeant First Class Deborah Thorn, of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, who was recently named as the 2001 Army Drill Sergeant of the Year. SFC Thorn was chosen out of 2400 drill sergeants across the active Army. The Army's drill sergeants are responsible for all initial entry training for the Army's 120,000 new recruits annually. SFC Thorn enlisted in the Army on her birthday, 3 September 1993 and has served in Fort Huachuca, Arizona and Germany before moving to Fort Leonard Wood to become a drill sergeant. She has served as a drill sergeant for the last 25 months in Alpha Company, 795th MP Battalion, 14th MP Brigade. She will attend the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course in July. Following her completion of the course, she will then serve a year at Training and Doctrine Command headquarters as an advisor to the commander on drill sergeant and basic training matters. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of this body will join me in congratulating SFC Thorn for her outstanding dedication and service to the U.S. Army. She is a tremendous role model for soldiers, not only at Fort Leonard Wood, but across the entire U.S. Army. I join her husband Lee and daughter Samantha in wishing SFC Thorn all the best in the days ahead.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my colleague, and the other Members of the Texas delegation for introducing the resolution to recognize those who have helped the people of Texas during the recent flooding. It is so important to take time to express gratitude to those who have brought relief to the people of Houston during the flooding and its aftermath. I know that Missourians who have experienced flooding, particularly the devastating floods of 1993 and 1995, understand what an effort it takes to recover from such a disaster. Mr. Speaker, we must not take the contributions of volunteers for granted, for their selfless efforts often come at a great price. If I can bring to this body's attention one particular Red Cross volunteer who answered the call to help the victims of Tropical Storm Allison, Mrs. Sherry Mateja of Warsaw, Missouri, who was killed in a tragic accident last week while helping another volunteer move bags of ice from a tractor-trailer to a Red Cross van at a church in Humble, Texas. A Red Cross volunteer since 1999, Mateja was an active volunteer with the Pettis County Chapter of the American Red Cross in Sedalia, serving in a leadership role on the chapter's board of directors. She was instrumental in providing Red Cross services in her local community, including the chapter's disaster relief and learn to swim programs. Her assignment to help relief efforts for Tropical Storm Allison in Texas was her first national disaster assignment. Mrs. Mateja is survived by her husband, John Mateja; three sons, Marc, Nick, and Eric; two grandchildren; her brother, Charles Maggard; and her mother, Margaret Maggard. While recognizing the work of all the volunteers helping the Houston community, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying special tribute to Sharon Mateja, expressing our gratitude for her contributions to her community and for her selfless efforts to help the people of Texas. I send my sincere condolences to her family and to her friends.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to Chief Master Sergeant Dale E. Buckingham upon his retirement from the United States Air Force. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham has served our nation with honor and distinction for over 30 years, and his performance throughout his career has been characterized by the highest standards of professional ethics and commitment to the military. He grew up in Lowville, New York, and graduated from Lowville Academy and Central School in 1970. He entered the Air Force in 1971 and attended basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham was assigned to the 4642 Air Defense Squadron (SAGE) at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, in 1972. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham's record of service is outstanding. In 1976, he was selected to be a recruiter with the 2543rd USAF Recruiting Squadron where he was named rookie recruiter of the year. In the following year he received the gold bald eagle signifying top recruiter and recruiting excellence. In 1983, Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham was assigned to Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Offutt AFB, Nebraska. While there, he served with the 1st Combat Evaluation Squadron and Strategic Air Command Bombing and Navigation Division. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham, in 1987, was selected for the Defense Attache System being posted at the American Consulate in Hong Kong. Two years later he was reassigned to the American Embassy, Ankara, Turkey, as the Operations Coordinator. Following the completion of his tour in Ankara, Turkey, he was then assigned to Whiteman AFB, Missouri, and the 509th Bomb Wing. At Whiteman, he served as the base's chief of information management responsible for over 100 information managers. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham was then assigned as the superintendent of the information systems flight in the Communications Squadron. In March 1998, he developed and established the First Term Airmen Center to help ease the transition for young airmen moving to Whiteman. He became the Command Chief Master Sergeant in March of 1999. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham's awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal with four oak leaf clusters and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham is married to the former Christina Kay Rockey of Hiawatha, Kansas, and they have two daughters. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing Chief Master Sergeant Buckingham and his wife, Christina, all the best. We thank them for over 30 years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment for the aforestated reasons.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again I must express my disappointment over the fact that the Committee on Rules did not make the amendment in order. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I might add at this point that there is sufficient funding in the contingency fund for this, according to the CBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre!).