Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I offer unfortunately is not protected against points of order, as I had hoped it would have been, by the Committee on Rules. Nevertheless, my amendment would address acute funding shortfalls that all the military services are experiencing. It would increase the funding for the Department of Defense by $2.7 billion. It is no secret that the armed services are doing a magnificent job protecting the interests of the United States. This amendment would add $2.7 billion for all additional defense appropriations. Of this total, the vast majority of it, about $2 billion, would be for operations and maintenance and, of course, flying hours and spare parts, real-property maintenance, depot maintenance, uniforms, the unglam- orous nuts and bolts essentials that really make our military work. Another $400 million would fund military personnel priorities, subsistence allowances to keep our service members off food stamps, housing allowances, and to pay for unbudgeted National Guard and Reserve costs. It would also provide, Mr. Chairman, $300 million for high-priority procurement costs. It would add $65 million to replace the EP-3 that is being cut to pieces on Hainan Island, China; also an additional $49 million to expedite the repair of the U.S.S. Cole. All of these items, plus others, such as rebuild Apache helicopters and for ammunition, are all emergencies. These are high-priority funding, and they are all recommended by the chiefs of staffs of the military services. Mr. Chairman, last year, during the hearings that we had, request remained of the service chiefs to give us their unfunded requirements to get them through the coming year, and they did so. I reviewed that list, and being conservative, I offered an amendment of merely $2.7 million which, of course, could have been much more. It reflects some of the differences between the service chiefs' unfunded requirements lists and the portion of items that we have addressed in this bill today. These are legitimate needs. I only wish that the amendment could have been fully debated and fully voted on by this House. I know that my amendment is vulnerable to a point of order, and at the appropriate moment, according to my discussion with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who has reserved the right to object, I will withdraw it at the appropriate moment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule considering the supplemental appropriation bill that is before us. Although many of my colleagues are upset because the rule does not permit various amendments as it relates to the energy crisis or disaster relief, my reason for opposing the rule is quite simple. It does not permit an amendment that would allow us to do more for our American men and women in uniform. This is a serious matter. At the outset, I want to note that the $5.6 billion included in the bill for the Defense Department by the Committee on Appropriations, which is recommended by the OMB, is helpful but not adequate to address acute funding shortfalls that all the military services are experiencing. I proposed an amendment to the bill to increase funding for the Department by $2.7 billion. That amendment has not been made in order by the rule and protected against points of order, and that is a shame. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret to anyone that the armed services are called on to perform a myriad of missions all around the world, many of them on short notice. Whether it is defending against adversaries like Saddam Hussein or protecting our allies in Korea, or building a democracy in the Balkans, our military does a wonderful job, a great job, of protecting our national security interests. We owe it to our servicemen and women to ensure that they are trained and ready to perform those missions, that they have the best equipment we can provide and have adequate compensation and quality of life for their families. The roofs are leaking on the family housing. The spare-parts bins are empty. The training is being curtailed, and unfortunately this supplemental bill as reported does not go far enough in meeting these goals, and follows the OMB recommendations. My amendment would add $2.74 billion to the bill all for additional defense appropriations. Of this total, the vast majority, about $2 billion, would be for operation and maintenance for flying hours and spare parts and real property maintenance and depot maintenance and uniforms, the unglamorous nuts and bolts, essentials that really make our military work. Another $400 million would fund military personnel and priorities, subsistence allowances, housing allowances, to keep our service members off food stamps, to pay for unbudgeted National Guard and Reserve personnel costs. My amendment would also add about $300 million for high-priority procurement costs. For example, I would add $65 million to replace the EP-3 that is being cut to pieces on Hainan Island, China, and $49 million in additional funds to expedite the repair of the U.S.S. Cole. Finally, my amendment would appropriate additional funds for ammunition. I oppose this rule.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Colonel Weldon Wilhoit, former Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, for the service he has given to the state of Missouri for over 30 years. Colonel Wilhoit graduated from Shelbina High School in 1962. He honorably served in the United States Army from 1962 until 1965 and attended Central Missouri State University. In 1969, he began a long and distinguished career with the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Colonel Wilhoit's first assignment was with Troop H, serving there from 1970 until 1987. Nine years after his first assignment he was promoted to the rank of Corporal and was also designated the Assistant Zone Commander. In 1985, he was promoted to Sergeant and designated Zone Commander. Col. Wilhoit was promoted to Lieutenant and transferred to Troop B in 1987. He attended the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, from January 1991 through March 1991 and in April of 1992, Col. Wilhoit was promoted, to Captain and designated Commanding Officer of Troop B. In 1993, Col. Wilhoit was promoted to the rank of Major and was transferred to General Headquarters, Field Operation Bureau. In 1996, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and designated Assistant Superintendent, and in September 1997, Governor Mel Carnahan appointed Col. Wilhoit as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Mr. Speaker, Col. Wilhoit has dutifully served for four years as the Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. As he prepares to spend more time with his wife Helen and his children, Mark, Brian, Angela, and Kelly, I know the Members of the House, will join me in expressing appreciation for his dedication to the people of Missouri.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. As a co-sponsor of the bill, I urge its passage. This legislation continues our efforts to improve the education program for our men and women in uniform. The bill provides an increase in benefits, including raising the monthly educational stipend to $800 a month for fiscal year 2002, to $1,100 by fiscal year 2004. I remember well the beginnings of what was later known to be the Montgomery GI bill. It was shared between the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the House Committee on Armed Services, and I remember playing a part in making sure that it reached the floor at that time. The gentleman from Mississippi, the Honorable Sonny Montgomery, was the author, is the author; and we should remember his efforts as we improve on that bill today. This legislation is the right step toward enhancing this bill for our veterans. We must continue to take advantage of opportunities to provide our veterans a truly meaningful and substantial educational program. Full funding for tuition and fees and a monthly stipend for living expenses in exchange for a service commitment would dramatically improve the GI program and would bring parity with other scholarship and tuition assistance programs currently available to young Americans. Efforts by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to build upon improvements under the Montgomery GI bill will greatly improve this education program for our men and women in uniform, and I hope that his efforts on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will continue and that they will be able to pass additional educational benefits, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) so desires. Now while it is important that the House consider this legislation, the process by which it is brought to the floor concerns me. It is deeply disturbing that no member of the Subcommittee on Benefits or of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been given the opportunity to engage in a full and open debate on this measure or vote on the bill before today. I hope procedural abuses like this do not occur again, because it is not fair, either to the Members of this body or to the veterans for whom it is intended to benefit.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 154. I urge that all of us in this body vote for it. This resolution honors the Army National Guard combat units in Bosnia, recognizes the sacrifices of Guard and Reserve families, and expresses appreciation to employers of the Guard and Reserve members for their critical support. The Guard and Reserves have become increasingly critical to our national security through the years. Guard and Reserve personnel have been deployed around the world for numerous missions, including peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Madam Speaker, in recent weeks I have had the opportunity to visit with a good number of National Guard units in the Fourth Congressional District of Missouri, and soon I will have visited all of them. I must tell my colleagues that I am so proud of them. They are there because they want to be there. They take their training seriously; they take their mission seriously. When I asked them how many had been deployed in recent years, my colleagues should see the number of hands that are raised. I thank them for their sincerity and their dedication to the State and to our government here in the United States. The October 1999 announcement by the Army to mobilize and deploy National Guard combat divisions to command active and Reserve forces in Bosnia was an historical landmark. Other various Guard combat support and combat service support units have been participating in Bosnia since December of 1995. For example, the 1137th Military Police Company from Kennett, Missouri was mobilized for Bosnia in December of 1995. Since then, the 70th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment and the 135th Military History Detachment from Jefferson City and the 40th Operational Support Airlift Command Detachment from Springfield have also seen service in Bosnia. These Missouri National Guardsmen and women have joined the thousands of guardsmen and reservists from across the Nation who have served the Nation so well.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to pay tribute to Francis M. Fulkerson, Jr. who has retired from the Army Corps of Engineers in Napoleon, MO. In 1956, Mr. Fulkerson began his federal career as a student trainee with the Corps. Mr. Fulkerson accepted a full time position in 1958 as a Surveying Technician at the Napoleon Office Area. During his career, Mr. Fulkerson served the Glasgow Area Office, the New Orleans District, the Kansas City District Office, the Jefferson City Resident Office, and then returned to Napoleon in July, 1988. Mr. Fulkerson has served for over 40 years. Mr. Speaker, Francis Fulkerson's federal career has been far reaching. I know the members of the House, please join me in expressing appreciation for his years of service.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate Major General William J. Lennox, Jr., who was recently promoted from Director of the Office of Congressional Legislative Liaison to Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. General Lennox began his service in the military in 1971, following graduation from the United States Military Academy. Throughout his career General Lennox has continued his formal education. He holds a Masters Degree and a Doctorate in Literature from Princeton University. His military education includes the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, the Infantry Officer Advance Course, the distinguished graduate from the United States Army Command and General Staff College and the Senior Service College Fellowship at Harvard University. General Lennox has held many command assignments and honorably served the American people throughout the world. He served as a Forward Observe, Executive Officer, and Fire Support Officer in the 1st Battalion, 29th Field Artillery, and as Commander, Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division. He was the Operations Officer and Executive Officer for the 2nd Battalion, 41th Field Artillery, 3rd Infantry Division. He commanded the 5th Battalion, 29th Field Artillery in the 4th Infantry Division and the Division Artillery in the 24th Infantry Division. General Lennox has also served in a number of staff positions including White House Fellow, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, and Executive officer for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. He served as Deputy Commanding General and Assistant Commandant of the U. S Army Field Artillery Center, Chief of Staff for III Corps and Fort Hood, and most recently, Assistant Chief of Staff CJ-3, Combined Forces Command/ United States Forces Korea and Deputy Commanding General, Eighth United States Army. General Lennox's awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; the Legion of Merit with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters; the Meritorious Service Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster; the Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters; the Army Achievement Medal; the Korean Order of Military Merit, lnheon Medal; the Ranger Tab; the Parachutist Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge. Mr. Speaker, General Lennox has had an impressive career in the military. As he takes post as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, I know that the Members of the House will join me in wishing him the best in the days ahead.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to give the commencement address at the US Army War College on June 9, 2001. It was a terrific honor. My speech to that group is set forth as follows: Military History and the Battlefield of the Future A couple of years ago, I prepared an article with the assistance of the Congressional Research Service entitled, ``Learning on the Job: Applying the Lessons of Recent Conflicts to Current Issues in Defense Policy''. It was the premise of my article that a careful look at significant U.S. military operations over about the past twenty years--roughly the period of time that I have served in Congress--can help shape answers to a surprisingly large number of contemporary issues in defense policy. Lessons Learned My research revealed at least twelve military operations during my tenure in Congress, ranging from the small-scale 1985 interception of an aircraft carrying the Achille Lauro hijackers to the Persian Gulf War in 1991. We discovered that there were lessons learned in each of these military operations. I won't go into all of these lessons or all of these military operations, but let me summarize just a few of them: In Lebanon, 1982-1984, we learned that we need force protection measures wherever we deploy our forces. In Grenada, 1983, we discovered shortcomings in the ability of our forces to plan and execute joint operations. Panama, 1989-1990, taught us that night operations could be conducted successfully and that stealth technology could work in an operational setting. The Persian Gulf War, 1990-1991, showed that tactical, operational and strategic thought, derived from the study of yesteryear's conflicts, pays off on the battlefield. It also demonstrated the devastating efficacy of high technology munitions like smart bombs, the success of stealth technology, the importance of establishing air supremacy, and the advantages of disabling the enemy's infrastructure and command, control, and communications ability. The war also made clear that the threat of the use of chemical and biological weapons is real. It is also interesting to note how General Schwartzkopf used the lessons of history in at least three instances in his successful Desert Storm campaign: First, the thorough 40- day air campaign which preceded the ground war recalls the failure to conduct adequate bombardment at the island of Tarawa in November of 1943. The price paid for that failure at Tarawa was heavy Marine Corps casualties. In the Gulf War, the ability of Iraqi forces to offer opposition to our forces was severely reduced. Second, consider the successful feint carried out by the 1st Cavalry Division prior to the actual start of the ground war. This recalls Montgomery's strategy in 1942 at the Battle of the Marinth Line in North Africa against the German Afrika Corps. This action was a prelude to the decisive battle at El Alamein. Third, by utilizing a leftward flanking movement when he launched the ground war, General Schwartzkopf was taking a page from the book of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson at the Battle of Chancellorsville. As you will recall, Jackson's forces conducted a brilliant flanking maneuver and completely surprised Union forces under General Joseph Hooker, in the May 1863 battle. Somalia, 1992-1993, taught us that we should strive to avoid mission creep, and that requests from on-scene commanders for additional equipment, personnel, or other resources must be given appropriate attention by the national command authority. In summary, my research revealed that even apparently limited military operations have required a very broad range of well-trained and well-equipped forces. We don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what missions to prepare for. And all of this is expensive--we cannot expect to have global reach, or to be engaged in Europe, Asia, and other places around the world, on the cheap. We learned that while we still have much to work on--making the Army more deployable for one thing, how to move from peacekeeping by military forces to nation-building by largely civilian institutions for another--we have actually done a lot right. The U.S. military has shown the ability to absorb the lessons of each new operation. Improvements have been made in command arrangements, in operational planning, in tactics and doctrine, in training, and in key technologies. Precision strike capabilities have matured. Congress, yes Congress, has sometimes helped. Congress's establishment of an independent Special Operations Command in 1987 has been vindicated by the continued critical importance of special operations forces in a host of military actions since then, and by the marvelous performance of those forces when called upon. Congressional passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 clearly helped to clarify and strengthen command arrangements. Korea, 1950 What caused me to think back on a now two-year-old article was the information that a group of Korean War Veterans would be in the audience today. No veterans from any war suffered more from the failure to heed the lessons of history than the veterans of the Korean War. Let me quote a passage from a book by former journalist Robert Donovan which describes the experience of elements of the 24th, Division upon their arrival in Korea in July, 1950: ``Out-gunned, lacking in heavy antitank weapons, unfamiliar with the terrain, ill prepared for combat after the soft life of occupation duty in Japan, the 24th Division soldiers were disorganized and confused, hampered by early-morning fog, exhausted by midday heat, and frustrated by faulty communications. Mis-directed mortar fire from one unit caused injuries and death in another. Chronically, supplies of ammunition ran low. Men were ambushed or were completely cut off in strange villages and never seen again. Mortars and machine guns were abandoned in the bedlam of battle . . .'' This was the experience of Task Force Smith and the other units which were among the first to deploy to Korea. Historians can argue over why we were so unprepared for conflict in Korea. Perhaps it was overconfidence after our great victory in World War II. Perhaps it was the tendency of the U.S. to ``bring the boys home'' immediately after a war-- a tendency then-Major George C. Marshall noted in a 1923 speech--which led to cuts in the military that were too deep in a still-dangerous world. Whatever the reason for our unpreparedness, there can be no disagreement on this: No group of Americans ever fought more bravely than those we called upon to serve in the Korean War. In the past decade, a lot of people have stepped forward to take credit for winning the Cold War. Let me tell who should get the credit. It is these Korean War veterans who are with us today. Their courage, their sacrifices, drew a line in sand against Communist expansion. There would be other battles--in Vietnam and in other places around the globe. But in Korea, a country most Americans had never heard of before 1950, the message was sent. America would fight to preserve freedom. We owe you a debt of gratitude we can never repay. Indeed, the whole world owes you a debt of gratitude. It is not enough, but I just want to say, ``Thank you.'' The Battlefield of the Future Recently, I visited TRADOC headquarters at Ft. Monroe, and received an excellent briefing from General John Abrams and his staff, especially Colonel Maxie MacFarland, on the ``Battlefield of the Future''. Allow me to summarize that briefing from my perspective--a country lawyer who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, and who is an avid student of military history: It should be obvious that we are not the only military that has learned lessons from these U.S. military operations which I discussed earlier, and from others around the world, such as Chechnya. The U.S. military is the most studied military in the world. All major U.S. field manuals and joint doctrinal publications are freely available on the internet, and indeed, U.S. military internet sites are frequently accessed by foreign organizations. Foreign military students from 125 countries around the world attend U.S. military education institutions, such as this one, or specialized U.S. military schools under the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs. Our openness and reliance on information systems means that our adversaries in the future will have a greater depth of knowledge about the capabilities and operational designs of U.S. military forces. We have advantages now in air, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and other technology, and we will likely continue to have these advantages in the future. Our potential adversaries know we have these advantages and they will seek to offset them in some of the following ways: They will seek to fight during periods of reduced visibility, in complex terrain, and in urban environments where they can gain sanctuary. They may use terrorist organizations to take the fight to the U.S. homeland, and they could possibly use weapons of mass destruction, or attacks on infrastructure and information systems. They will attempt to confuse U.S. forces so that the size, location, disposition, and intention of their forces will be impossible to discern. They will try to make U.S. forces vulnerable to unconventional actions and organizations. To offset the U.S. technological overmatch, they will use selective or niche technology, perhaps even commercially- obtained technology, to degrade U.S. capabilities. As an example, during the first Chechen War, the Chechens bought commercial scanners and radios, and used them to intercept Russian communications. They will endeavor to exploit the perception that the American will is vulnerable to the psychological shock of unexpected and unexplained losses. Their goal will be a battlefield which contains greater psychological and emotional impacts. In this environment, U.S. forces may no longer be able to count on low casualties, a secure homeland, precision attacks, and a relatively short duration conflict. Conflict may occur in regions where the enemy has a greater knowledge and understanding of the physical environment, and has forces which know how to take advantage of it. They will seek to avoid environments where U.S. abilities are dominant. They will have more situational awareness than possible for U.S. forces. My briefers at TRADOC referred to this kind of conflict as ``asymmetric warfare''. And as I listened to the briefing, I thought back on my military history and I realized the truth of the old cliche that there is ``nothing new under the sun.'' Asymmetric warfare is not something new. In fact, it has been a part of American military history. Let me give you a couple of examples: The first is from that series of conflicts that we collectively refer to as the Indian Wars, and it has a direct relation to the place we are standing right now. On July 18, 1763, during Pontiac's War, Colonel Henry Bouquet left Carlisle in command of a British army force of 400 men to relieve Fort Pitt, 200 miles to the west. On August 5 near a small stream known as Bushy Run, Bouquet's forces were attacked by Indians who were part of Pontiac's forces. If you go to the Bushy Run Battlefield State Park today, as I have done, you will see open fields--perfect terrain for the mass formation warfare that Europeans knew how to fight. But on August 5 and 6, 1763, the area around Bushy Run was old growth forest offering limited fields of fire. This was a physical environment that the Indians knew and understood, and they took advantage of it. They forced Colonel Bouquet's forces back into a defensive position on a hilltop. The Indians attacked this position repeatedly, but never waited for a counter attack. They simply faded into the forest, as was their style, suffering few casualties. By the end of the first day of battle, however, sixty of Bouquet's troops had been killed or wounded. As fighting continued on the second day, British losses were mounting and the situation was becoming desperate. At this point, Bouquet saved his forces with a brilliant maneuver, borrowed from Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae. First, he feigned a retreat. As the Indians, sensing victory, left their cover and charged in, they came under devastating fire on their flanks and rear from Bouquet's redeployed forces. Bouquet's strategy had caused the Indians to abandon their asymmetric tactics, and leave the cover of the forest. They were quickly routed and fled the battlefield. One other interesting point regarding Bushy Run: The official history says that Bouquet's forces were engaged and surrounded by Indian forces at least equal in size to his own. However, when I toured the battlefield, Indian re- enactors, who have studied the battle extensively from the Indian point of view, maintained that the Indians numbered no more than ninety, and that the tactics they used in the forest made their numbers seem larger. Recall that my TRADOC briefing mentioned as an element of asymmetric warfare that adversaries would attempt to confuse U.S. forces so that the size of their forces would be impossible to discern. Example number two. Just south of here is the site of the largest battle of the War Between the States. At Gettysburg, two large armies faced off in what was, by the standards of the time, conventional, or symmetrical, warfare. But in Western Missouri, where I grew up and still live, the War Between the States was far different. In that border state, where loyalties were divided, large battles fought by conventional forces were the exception, not the rule. Most engagements were fought between small units, usually mounted. The fighting was brutal, vicious, and the civilian population was not spared from attack. In this theater, Union forces suffered from some distinct disadvantages: Many of the Union units were infantry, which were useless in a conflict where most engagements were lightning cavalry raids. Union cavalry units were equipped with the standard issue single shot carbines and sabers. As I will later explain, this armament was ineffective against their adversaries. Because Union leaders considered Missouri a backwater, Union troops got the leftovers--the Army's worst horses, officers deficient in leadership skills, and poor training. Not surprisingly, these Union Army units suffered from poor morale and lacked unit cohesion. In contrast, guerrilla units fighting on behalf of the Confederacy did not have leaders trained at West Point or field manuals to teach them tactics. But they did have strengths that they were able to take advantage of: Their troops did not need training. They were tough, young farm boys, already skilled in riding and shooting. Their basic weapon was the best revolver in the world--the six-shot Colt .44 Navy. Most guerrillas carried four Colts, some as many as eight. Through trial and error, they discovered that they could shoot more accurately with a smaller charge, without sacrificing lethality. Moreover, this saved powder, a precious resource to the guerrillas. Thus armed, no guerrilla was ever killed by a Union cavalry saber. Western Missouri was then noted for its fine horses, and the guerrillas got the pick of the lot in terms of speed and endurance. They did not adhere to traditional ways of fighting. They preferred ambush and deception, often dressing in Union uniforms in order to get within point-blank range. They had been raised in the area and knew the terrain, and how to travel on paths through the woods to conceal their movements. The Union troops traveled mostly on the main roads. They received assistance from the local population--horses, clothing, food, intelligence, shelter, medical care. When the Union army tried to punish the locals for giving this assistance, these repressive measures only made the locals more supportive of the guerrillas. Well, by now this should sound familiar. One does not usually find the term ``asymmetric warfare'' used in connection with Missouri in the 1860's, but you can see many elements in common with those mentioned in my TRADOC briefing on the Battlefield of the Future. The Study of Military History No doubt during your time here at the Army War College you have had the opportunity to read and study a great deal of military history. Let me urge you to make that a lifetime commitment. In 1935, the newly-elected U.S. Senator from Missouri visited a school then known as Northeast Missouri State Teachers College. While there he was introduced to a young man who was an outstanding student and the president of the student body. The Senator told the student, ``Young man, if you want to be a good American, you should know your history.'' That young student, the late Fred Schwengel, went on to become a Member of Congress from Iowa, and later, President of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. And, as you may have guessed by now, that newly-elected Senator went on to become President of the United States. The school is now named for him--Truman State University. I can't say it any better than Harry S. Truman. The main praise for building an increasingly flexible and effective force must go mainly to the generation of military officers that rebuilt U.S. military capabilities after the Vietnam War. This generation has now almost entirely reached retirement age. The task of the next generation of military leaders is to learn as well as its predecessors. You are bridge between those generations. You have served under the Vietnam generation. You will lead, train, and mentor, the generation to follow. If you do your job well, some future leader in some future conflict will be able, like Colonel Bouquet at Bushy Run, like General Schwarzkopf in Desert Storm, to call on a lesson from military history to shape the answer to a contemporary problem. Gratitude The Roman orator Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of virtues. Those of you who serve in uniform, your families, and our veterans who have served in uniform and their families, deserve the gratitude of our nation. I know sometimes you feel unappreciated. Yes, there are days set aside to officially honor our service members and our veterans: Veterans Day is set aside to honor those who have served in our nation's wars. But is only one day. On Memorial Day we pay our respects to those who have given that ``last full measure of devotion''. Again, one day. Armed Forces Day is dedicated to those currently serving in uniform. One day. And, because it is not a national holiday, most people don't know the date of Armed Forces Day. I want you to know that many Americans do appreciate you every day. They don't need a holiday to do it. So, let me express gratitude to you personally, and on behalf of the American people, for all that you do, and all that you have done. And, let me ask you as senior leaders to do your part to show gratitude. Let me tell you why: The difference between keeping someone in uniform and losing them might just be an encouraging word at the right time. So, when you go out to your next assignments, and that junior officer or that young NCO puts in those extra hours, or does something that makes you look good, take the time to express your gratitude. Let them know how much they are appreciated. Thank you and God bless you.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to give the commencement address at Wentworth Military Academy on May 19, 2001. As a graduate of Wentworth and a lifelong resident of Lexington, Missouri, Wentworth's home, it was a distinct honor. Accompanying me was General John Abrams, Commanding General at United States Army TRADOC, who commissioned 14 Second Lieutenants. My speech to that group is set forth as follows: First, let me thank General John Abrams for being with us today. His participation in this event marks this as an historic moment for Wentworth, but more importantly honors the 14 new Army second lieutenants. This day will be a treasured memory for all of us for years to come, and we are truly grateful for General and Mrs. Abrams' presence this morning. Thank you. Whenever I come to the Wentworth campus, my alma mater, memories of yesteryear flood my mind--rounding the far corner of the cinder track, the staccato history lectures of Captain Bob Heppler, standing in formation with my fellow cadets, and reading the inscription on the Administration Building-- ``Achieve the Honorable''--and wondering what in the world it meant. But as Kipling wrote, that was ``long ago and fer away.'' I am honored to have the opportunity to speak at today's ceremonies, but I have to confess that a graduation speech is a difficult assignment. With all of the excitement, and with the pride of individual and class-wide achievement that surrounds graduation day, few can be expected to remember what the speaker had to say. But I am not going to let that prevent me from sharing a few words of wisdom that have meant something to me and I hope will give you something to think about as you leave here and move into the next adventure of your lives. Graduation day celebrates the steps each of you have completed to prepare for the future. It is a day to look forward. I can remember when I was in school, a guest speaker at an assembly told the students, ``you are the leaders of tomorrow.'' At that point in my life, it was very easy to shrug off that statement. It's hard to imagine your buddies grown up and raising families, operating their own businesses, participating in civic life, leading a platoon of soldiers, or running for political office. But somehow it happens. Today, with your degree, you are on the brink of that tomorrow, and people will be looking to you for leadership. Some time ago, I hosted a small breakfast for the famous historian and author Stephen Ambrose. You will recall that he wrote the books, D-Day, Citizen Soldier, and a book entitled Undaunted Courage, which details the saga of Lewis and Clark, who traversed the continent from 1804 to 1806. That morning, I asked Professor Ambrose what it was that made America so great and so different. I was expecting his answer to be something along the lines of America's frontier westward movement, or our abundance of natural resources, or our great diversity of people. But this was his answer. ``Look at Russia. Russia has more natural resources than all of North America. Russia has a hearty workforce. But Russia did not have a George Washington, a John Adams, a Thomas Jefferson, or a James Madison, all of whom established our American values.'' So what makes America so different and so great? Our values. We have been uncommonly blessed with leaders whose vision has allowed America to grow and prosper for over 200 years. The democratic system of government that our Founding Fathers set into motion has served us very well. It is a common creed, not common ancestral roots, which binds us together as a nation. These are lasting values. They do not change. These are values that were instilled in me growing up in Lexington and during my time at Wentworth. As we approached the year 2000, a great deal of attention focused on millennium celebrations all over the world. Any time we begin a new century, people tend to look back nostalgically, examining what life was like in the good old days. In America at the turn of the last century, only one out of seven homes had a bathtub, one in thirteen had a telephone. Today, every home not only has a telephone, but also more than two televisions per household. Undeniably, the technology that we use in our everyday lives has changed a great deal over the last hundred years, but I believe that the values we hold dear remain constant. This fact was reinforced for me when I recently re-read a copy of the graduation address to the Wentworth Military Academy graduates of 1900. The speech was given by a then prominent young Lexington lawyer, Horace Blackwell, a graduate of Wentworth High School ten years earlier, a member of the Class of 1890. As you may know, the junior college was not added to Wentworth until 1923. From reading the speech I was reminded of Mr. Blackwell's enormous talent as an orator. I knew Mr. Blackwell. He was successful in his profession and a leader in his church and in civil affairs. He signed my application to become a member of the Missouri Bar, and I was a pall bearer at his funeral in 1956. I can still visualize him, early in the morning at the barber shop for his daily shave, wearing his black suit, his celluloid collar, and his maroon bow tie. In Mr. Blackwell's address on that June day over one hundred years ago, he advised the graduates to adopt two American values that have stood the test of time and are still important to us. The first was ``be courageous.'' The dictionary defines courage as ``the state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger with self- possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.'' Horace Blackwell said that being courageous ``is half the battle.'' This institution has produced many so filled with courage. From the Wentworth ranks we can find a Medal of Honor recipient as well as a four-star general. The cornerstone of our country has been courage: Those who sailed from Europe and landed at Plymouth Rock, those who established the colonies, those who fought in our revolution, those who moved west into the uncertainties and dangers of the wilderness, those inventors and industrialists who did not have the word ``can't'' in their vocabularies, those who fought at Chateau Thierry, like Wentworth's late Colonel J.M. Sellers Sr., in the First World War, those who stormed the beaches of Normandy and Tarawa in the Second World War, those who fought the spread of communism in Korea, those who braved the jungles of Vietnam, those who fought the Iraqi Army just ten years ago. The other value Horace Blackwell charged the graduates to adopt was to ``be industrious''. Blackwell stressed the importance of hard work, work that involves not only the body but also the brain. The steady industriousness of the American people has led our nation to become the bastion of freedom in this world and the greatest civilization ever known. Some students think that once they leave school, there will be no more reading assignments. That's not true in my office. In fact, when new staffers come to work for me, a story entitled ``A Message to Garcia'' is required reading. This story tells the tale of a fellow named Rowan. During the Spanish American War, Rowan was asked by President McKinley to take a message to an insurgent leader in Cuba named Garcia. Nobody knew where in the wilderness Garcia was hiding, no mail or telegraph message could reach him. But Rowan took the letter, and without complaint, without asking how or why, embraced his assignment and set out to find Garcia, which he did. The story says that it isn't so much book-learning that young people need, but a ``stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, to concentrate their energies: do the thing-- `Carry a message to Garcia!''' This persistence and industriousness will take a person far in life. It is interesting to note that Horace Blackwell's lessons on being courageous and being industrious were not lost on his two sons. Both became prominent attorneys in Kansas City, one of them becoming the President of the Missouri Bar Association and the other a recipient of the Silver Star in World War II. Both sons were junior college graduates of this school. In addition to Mr. Blackwell's counsel which I pass along to you, a new generation, I would like to give you a few more words of advice. My friend, the late Congressman Fred Schwengel, told me about meeting then-Senator Harry S Truman in 1935 while Schwengel was a college student in Missouri. Truman advised him that to be a good American, ``. . . you should know your history.'' Knowing the lessons of history will serve you well, just as it did for Truman during his Presidency. At the end of the day, we as Americans must face stark realities. The world is far more dangerous than ever before. The end of the Cold War has fostered instability in regions heretofore unheard of. American diplomacy and the military will be called upon to keep the peace, settle disputes, and defend our interests. Americans will be challenged to the best that is in us. But America needs more than military might and diplomats. America needs strength on the home front. Strength of character, strength in civic affairs, and strong communities. The core of America--its heart and soul--needs to be just as courageous and industrious as those on the front lines of international affairs. America must fulfill its potential to be a great civilization that is respected by the peoples of all countries. Your years at Wentworth have taught you American values, and as you graduate and enter another phase of your life, it is my hope that you will take your place as so many other Wentworth graduates have, bearing the banners of courage and industriousness that will pave the way for you and for a brighter future for our country and peace-loving nations. As you go forth in life, I charge you to: take responsibility for your actions; be honest and direct in your dealings with others; humble in your demeanor; thoughtful and considerate of others; loyal to your friends; devoted to your family; determined in your endeavors; know the history of our country; appreciate humor; proud of the uniform you wear; and love America. Keep in mind one more thought. President Truman, who once visited this campus in the 1950s, liked to tell the story about the grave marker in Tombstone, Arizona, that read, ``Here lies Jack Williams. He done his damndest.'' Missouri's President always strived to do just that--to do his damndest--that is, to do his best. So I charge you to heed the wisdom of that epitaph by doing your damndest. By doing so, your dedication will ensure that American freedom continues to shine like a polestar in the heavens. Congratulations, and God bless.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this is June 6. Fifty-seven years ago today, June 6, 1944, a day that we now refer to as D-Day, was the day that the American and Allied Forces invaded Normandy, France and began the arduous task of winning Europe back against the Nazi tyranny. And they did this, and they did it well. World War II in Europe came to a close, beginning with the Normandy invasion on June 6. I wonder how many people across our country remember today? There are those that were there, those that parachuted in, those that landed at the beach and fought their way through France and Belgium into Germany. But many hardly know the word ``Normandy'' or what it stands for. Mr. Speaker, we think of our veterans and those that were lost in the conflicts of yesteryear on Memorial Day; we honor the veterans on November 11, Veterans' Day; but, in between, we do not seem to remember them. There seems to be a gap between civilian America and military America, whether they be veterans or whether they be the active duty and National Guard and reservists who wear the uniform at the present time. I hope that we can pause for a moment and pay tribute to the valor of those who stormed the Normandy beaches, who parachuted into France that day and began to end the tyranny of Hitler's rein. And I hope that in the days ahead we can pay tribute to those, not just the veterans of yesteryear, but those who are serving in the Armed Forces, Guard and Reserve today, for without them we would not have nor be able to celebrate the freedoms that we enjoy.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Corporal Everett Morgan, of Lafayette County, Missouri, recently retired from the Missouri State Highway Patrol after 35 years of outstanding service. Corporal Morgan has dutifully served the citizens of Missouri for three decades. He was born in Corder, Missouri, and later graduated from Corder High School. Corporal Morgan then attended Central Missouri State University. In 1963 Everett joined the U.S. Army and served for six years at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Fort Still, Oklahoma. While serving in the U.S. Army, Corporal Morgan attended and graduated from Missouri State Highway Patrol Recruit Training. Corporal Morgan's first assignment was to Troop A, in Jackson County, Missouri. He served Zone's 1 and 4 before being promoted to Corporal and assigned to Zone 7. Corporal Morgan served the last five years in the Gaming Division until retiring on April 1, 2001. Mr. Speaker, Corporal Morgan has dedicated 35 years to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, serving with honor and distinction. I know that the Members of the House will join me in wishing him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about this bill jeopardizing Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, but somebody needs to speak for the American soldier. I am on the Committee on Armed Services. I take this work very, very seriously. This bill jeopardizes dollars for defense, as so aptly pointed out by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) just a few weeks ago. Later on this year, during either the appropriation process or an amended budget process, I will take this floor, Mr. Speaker, and I will do my best to get additional dollars for the American soldier, because the roofs are leaking on the family housing, the spare parts bins are empty, training is being curtailed. As a matter of fact, in Missouri there are more non-flyable helicopters because of lack of spare parts than those that fly. I think this jeopardizes the national security. We must look at that.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Herschel J. Gaddy, of rural Marshall, Missouri. He was 81. Herschel Gaddy, a son of Homer and Effie Treon Gaddy, was born in Fair Grove, Missouri, on July 23, 1919. He graduated from Missouri University, where he was a member of FarmHouse fraternity, in 1941. Herschel married Dona Nella Stiles on February 1, 1941. After graduating from college he joined the U.S. Army and was stationed in Missouri, Oklahoma and Oregon. He then served as Lieutenant Colonel in Sicily and North Africa during World War II. After completing his tour of duty, Herschel served as Assistant County Agent in Saline County, for the University of Missouri Extension in Bethany and as Saline County Agricultural Agent. Mr. Gaddy also spoke about agriculture issues on a weekly radio show on KMMO radio in Marshall. Herschel completed his Masters degree from Missouri University in 1969. He was then appointed Area Agronimist for Saline, Chariton and Carroll counties. When Herschel retired in 1975, he had served the area for 27 years. Herschel was also a member of many local clubs. He served as president of Marshall's Chamber of Commerce and was a 50-year member of the Trilumina Lodge, Number 205 of the Order of Masons, the Order of Eastern Star Marshall Chapter 408. He was also involved in the local American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Herschel was a longtime volunteer for the Friends of Arrow Rock and was commander of the historic reenactment group, the First Brigade, First Regiment, Missouri Militia. As a longtime member of the First Christian Church, Herschel taught Sunday school and served as chairman of the church board. He was a board member of the Missouri School of Religion's Center for Rural Ministry. Herschel also served as county campaign manager for many of my elections. Mr. Speaker, Herschel Gaddy will be greatly missed by all who knew him. I know that Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this means to honor Marcia Thompson, of Lexington, MO, for being chosen as the Lexington R-5 school district's Teacher of the Year. Mrs. Thompson has dutifully devoted 28 years of her life to educating America's children, the last 16 serving the youth of Lexington. She is a computer and business instructor. Mrs. Thompson was chosen at the 2001 teacher appreciation dinner, sponsored by the Lexington Lion's Club. The award's winner is chosen from the five schools in the Lexington R-5 district. Mrs. Thompson has been a member of many organizations and received numerous awards. She has served on the Central District Business Educator's Association board as Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer and President-Elect. She has also been named to Who's Who Among Missouri Business Educators. Mr. Speaker, Marcia Thompson dedicated 28 years to educating our youth, serving with honor and distinction. As she continues her role in the development of America's future, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in wishing her all the best.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) so much for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his leadership on this bill and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for doing this important legislation. It appears to me that after some 60 years, the veterans of what we now call the Second World War should be rightfully honored here in the District of Columbia. We have a memorial to the Vietnam veterans. We have a memorial to those who fought in Korea. It is the generation that Tom Brokaw, the NBC author and anchorman, calls the greatest generation, yet there is no memorial to them. This bill puts an end to the discussion, the disagreements. After 22 public hearings on its site and design, it is something that needs to be done. Growing up in the era of the Second World War, my heroes were those who fought, who came home, such as my best friend's older brother, Walter Savio, when he came over to the grade school with his uniform on and his gas mask attached to his side; others like Hector Polla, who did not come back; others like Raymond Howard, who was captured at Corregidor; George Steir, who was shot down while flying his B-17 over Europe. He was a prisoner of war. So many of them should be honored, and this will be an honor that will pass on to later generations. They will know them as the members of the greatest generation. It is time we put an end to the disagreement and the discussion and do something about it. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); and I thank them for their efforts. I know there are many, many World War II veterans that will be pleased to know that finally the discussion is over. There will be a memorial to them, and I know they will be very grateful.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I announce that Scholastic Incorporated, of Jefferson City, Missouri, has been named Missouri Industry of the Year. Scholastic is Jefferson City's largest private employer. Scholastic, which ships paperback books to students throughout the nation, was recognized at Missouri Industry Day. Missouri Industry Day was designed to help young people, legislators and the general public become more aware of the role of business and industry in Missouri's state economy. Criteria for the award include use of company resources to contribute to a municipality where the company is located, showing entrepreneurial spirit in the community and providing innovative leadership relating to products or services. Scholastic excelled in all of these areas. They created an additional 1500 new jobs in Missouri, employing a total of 3000 Missourians. Scholastic offered on-site training programs for employees including English As a Second Language, GED classes and computer application classes. Scholastic employees are also eligible for 50 percent tuition reimbursement for post-high school education. Employees of Scholastic are involved in locals Chambers of Commerce, March of Dimes, United Way and other organizations. Scholastic and the Missouri General Assembly collaborated for the ``Missouri Reads'' program. An initiative where legislators read to students and the students receive a free copy of the book. So far Scholastic has donated over 80,000 to Missouri's children. Mr. Speaker, Scholastic Inc., of Jefferson City, Missouri, has been an example to industry throughout Missouri and the Nation. I wish Scholastic and its employees all the best in the days ahead. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating such a fine company.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on the upcoming retirement of Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. In the very near future, General Christman will retire after over 30 years in the Army. He has distinguished himself, the Army and our nation with dedicated service. General Christman began his service in the military in 1965, after graduating first in his class from the United States Military Academy. Throughout his career General Christman has continued his formal education. He received masters degrees in both civil engineering and public affairs from Princeton University and a law degree from George Washington University. General Christman has held many command assignments and honorably served the American people throughout the world. He served as United States Representative to the NATO Military Committee. He served as Commander of the Savannah District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Commander of the 54 Engineer Battalion, Company Commander in the 326th Engineer Battalion and Company Commander, 2nd Engineer Battalion. General Christman also served as Staff Officer in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Department of the Army and as a Staff Assistant with National Security Council. In both of these positions General Christman was responsible for advising the Army Chief of Staff and senior staff on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Prior to his current assignment, General Christman served for nearly two years as Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili. He served for a year and a half as Army advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William J. Crowe and as Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States for National Security Affairs. General Christman also served as Director of Strategy, Plans and Policy in Department of Army Headquarters. During this duty he briefed former President Bush, allied heads of state and the NATO Secretary General. He has also testified before Congress on numerous issues, including Conventional Forces in Europe, our NATO commitments and Army force structure. Most notably, I personally got to know Dan Christman during his time as Commanding General, United States Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood and Commandant, United States Army Engineer Schook, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. During that time, I witnessed Dan as a remarkably talented military leader at the base and in the surrounding communities. His contributions to Fort Leonard Wood will truly be one of the many positive legacies he leaves to the Army. Mr. Speaker, General Christman has had an impressive career in the military and established a great relationship among the civilian community. I know that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this fine soldier.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, has anyone seen the defense supplemental appropriation? I seem to recall that during the recent Presidential election, much was made of the needs of our men and women in uniform. ``Help,'' we were told, ``is on the way.'' Now we know of helicopters that cannot fly, roofs on family housing leaking, training missions being canceled or deferred, and even major procurements being modified, all because the supplemental that was promised, the supplemental that was planned for, has not arrived. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld is in the middle of a wide-ranging strategy review and I know that he has put most of the Department of Defense on hold while the review runs its course. I will have more to say about that soon in another venue. But a supplemental appropriation has nothing to do with our future strategy. The shape of tomorrow's force is not the issue. The supplemental is supposed to pay for what our military has already done. So surely, Mr. Speaker, there must be a supplemental around here somewhere, and I would appreciate hearing from any other Member who happens to stumble over it. I have risen on this floor several times in the Congress to point out the need for such a supplemental. Even the commitment to having one would be enough to let commanders carry on, secure in the knowledge that their costs would be reimbursed later. But even that simple assurance has not been forthcoming. And our military services are paying the price today. Readiness is lower, aircraft are being scavenged for parts, and all because we cannot find that darn supplemental. Mr. Speaker, if you see it, would you please let me know?

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Nicholas Inman, of Marshfield, MO, will be retiring as host of the Webster County Opry on May 4, 2001. In 1997, as a 15 year old boy, Nicholas had a vision to bring quality entertainment and a new tradition of Ozark music to Webster County. Although he faced many obstacles and challenges Nicholas' dream has grown into a reality, known today as the Webster County Opry. His many accomplishments include increasing the Opry membership from eight to 50, welcoming numerous local celebrities and hosting and producing every show in the four year history of the Opry. Nicholas has also received and deserved praise from the late Governor Mel Carnahan and former First Lady Barbara Bush. Mr. Speaker, Nicholas Inman dedicated himself to the establishment and growth of the Webster County Opry. The joy he brought to so many is indeed commendable. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in wishing him all the best.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, it is no secret that missile defense is perhaps one of the most significant national security issues facing the House this year. How our country decides to pursue reducing that specific threat affects how much we will be able to spend on other aspects of defense, how we will deal with our friends and allies, and how America participates in shaping the world. I do not oppose missile defense. Neither do many Democrats. But I believe, as with any aspect of national security, that our expenditure should be proportional to the threat posed. My friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), has laid out some very sound principles by which I believe we should proceed in considering our system, and that is a significant one. Reducing the missile threat should be a cooperative undertaking involving the United States, nations that wish us well, and nations that do not. Every missile not built is one we do not have to defend against. Developing our policy should also be a cooperative process, Madam Speaker. I hope the President will work with Congress in that effort. This is an area where I can assure the President that a bipartisanship is possible. I look forward to hearing from the expert, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I also compliment the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on his seminal work in this area. I thank him for that. Let me speak first about the threat as it involves military intelligence. Missile defense, if nothing else, is at the terminal end of military operations. Its use represents a failure to deter, and perhaps, more to the point, a missed opportunity to have assessed accurately intentions and activity of a potential enemy. There is no substitute, and I will repeat it, there is no substitute for comprehensive intelligence-gathering and analysis if the preventative value of missile defense is to be maximized. Now, there are several points that should be brought out that can be termed as principles on missile defense. The deployment of missile defense systems to protect our country and its interests is a decision that should be considered in the following context. First, missile defense investment must be measured in relation to other military requirements. Missile defense must counter a credible threat. Missile defense will require an integrated, fully-funded military and intelligence effort, and I will repeat, that reliability and timely intelligence is critical to the success of any missile defense system. Missile defense must be proven to work through rigorous, realistic testing prior to any final deployment decisions. In other words, it has to work. Missile defense must improve overall United States national security. This is fundamentally a question as to whether deploying defenses will encourage opponents to deploy counter-offenses, encouraging in the process a global missile proliferation race. Missile defense must be deployed with an understanding that those benefiting from its protection will share in its costs. That is, if the benefits of a missile defense system are extended to share with American allies in Europe or elsewhere, equitable burden-sharing arrangements need to be made. Finally, deployment of missile defense will be debated in relation to the provisions of the antiballistic missile defense system. Madam Speaker, the whole issue of missile defense will be a serious issue this year. The President is making a statement regarding that later today. It is an area where bipartisanship is needed. It is an area that I feel very certain that bipartisanship will happen, but we need to be thorough and not rush to judgment and do something that is wrong or inaccurate, or something that does not work or meets the threats that are obviously apparent. Again, let me commend our friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), on his efforts. I look forward to hearing our friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who has done a great deal of work in this area.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the crew of the U.S. Navy EP-3 aircraft for their outstanding performance of duty following the collision with the Chinese F-8 fighter on April 1 and during their subsequent detention by Chinese authorities on the island of Hainan, China. I want to make several points about this incident. First, our plane and its crew did nothing to precipitate this incident. They were flying straight and level, on autopilot, at a slow speed in international airspace. They were performing a routine and legitimate reconnaissance and surveillance mission similar to those performed by many other countries around the world. It was the Chinese jet that flew in front of and dangerously close to our EP-3 aircraft. It was the Chinese pilot who displayed poor and unprofessional airmanship, causing his plane to collide with ours. To me, it is simply implausible to suggest a slow and level flying multi-engine turboprop airplane could fly into a fighter jet aircraft. I do not think there is any question about who was really at fault in this accident. It was the Chinese pilot. Once the collision occurred, our pilot and crew did everything they could do. They transmitted multiple ``Mayday'' signals to alert others to their in-flight emergency. They tried to alert the Chinese that they would have to divert for an emergency landing in China. And our plane landed on Hainan Island only because it was an emergency. Our pilot and crew deserve high praise for safely landing the aircraft despite severe structural damage and in attempting to follow procedures to minimize the compromise of sensitive national security information. They also deserve credit for behaving so professionally during the 11 days they were detained against their will by Chinese authorities. Beyond the crew and this incident, there are also broader issues here about which we should all be concerned. I refer, of course, to the Chinese demand that the United States should cease reconnaissance and surveillance flights off the coast of China. We should not. Our flights are lawful and are carried out in international airspace and are important to the national security of the United States. Moreover, the Navy EP-3 aircraft should be returned. It is clear under international law that under the circumstances under which this collision and the emergency landing of our plane occurred, the Navy EP-3 airplane is the property of the United States. It should be returned to us. Finally, if Chinese aircraft continue to intercept and employ aggressive tactics against our airplanes when we resume our reconnaissance surveillance flights, as we surely will, they run a grave risk. They run the risk of jeopardizing the important relationships that now exist between the United States and China. Despite ideological and governmental differences between the governments of our two countries, the last several years have shown that our countries can get along and have beneficial relationships, cultural, educational and economic. The Chinese Government should realize that the beneficial relations that now exist between our countries could deteriorate if they continue to harass our airplanes when we are operating lawfully in international airspace. I have introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 106, that expresses my commendation of the crew of the Navy EP-3 aircraft for the exemplary performance of their duties. The resolution also expresses the sense of Congress that reconnaissance and surveillance flights should continue, that our plane should be returned to us, and that continued interception of our flights may have broader political consequences. I invite Members of the House to cosponsor my resolution. Mr. Speaker, Americans are immensely proud of the 24 members of the EP-3 crew and share the joy of their families and friends on the crew's safe return to the United States. Our men and women in uniform make personal sacrifices and take great risk every day to keep our Nation free. We should not take them for granted. In this case, we should all be grateful that the 24 service members of the Navy EP-3 have returned safely. I applaud them for their professionalism and performance of duty under most arduous circumstances.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Mary Lou Raynes, who will retire from Central Missouri State University on July 31, 2001, after more than 31 years of devoted service to the Army ROTC Fighting Mules Battalion. Mrs. Raynes began her service to the Fighting Mules Battalion in August of 1969. During her first decade at CMSU, she served as the university-hired secretary of the department. Later, she was promoted to government service, spending over 20 years as the department's Military Personnel Technician. Mrs. Raynes has continually gone above and beyond the call of duty. She has received numerous cash awards, two consecutive Annual Formal Inspections with laudatory ratings and received commendation from Cadet Command for excellence on six different occasions. She is continually cited as the ``subject matter expert'' in Cadet Personnel Management and has been praised many times for ``far exceeding the standards expected of a civil service employee.'' Mrs. Raynes has been a loyal ally of the ROTC Fighting Mules Battalion, even when the group was severely shorthanded in both instructors and administrative support. On top of her overwhelming support to Central Missouri State University's Army ROTC program, Mrs. Raynes has been successful in other areas. She was recognized as the Warrensburg, Missouri, American Business Woman of the Year. She was also commended for organizing the community Christmas Store and the radio show KOKO Expo Home Show. Mr. Speaker, Mary Lou Raynes' passion for excellence in Central Missouri State University's Army ROTC has made a difference in the lives of students and teachers. I know all Members of Congress will join me in paying tribute to her outstanding service to the Army ROTC Fighting Mules Battalion.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, events are once again turning the world's eyes to the Pacific. Indonesia continues to be unsettled. North Korea is abandoning its move towards conciliation. And every American is aware of the provocative actions recently undertaken by China in holding 24 Americans captive. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that this administration will put a new emphasis on the Pacific. That is wise. But to carry out that intention across such a broad expanse of water will require ships. Demand for naval forces has not gone away with the Cold War; it has increased. Yet, at current build rates, the overall fleet will sink below 300 ships before the decade is out, on a course for Davy Jones' locker. We are already missing missions today. How dire will the situation be with a 200-ship fleet? I am not much given to dramatic statements, Mr. Speaker, but let me say this clearly: America should rebuild its Navy, and we should begin now. To rebuild requires far more than simply stabilizing the size of the fleet. The Navy does not get anywhere by treading water. Instead, we have to reverse the trend in shipbuilding. A wise man used to say that the Navy is moving to a smaller fleet to meet its worldwide commitments, but the world is just as wide. That man's name was Norman Sisisky, and nobody in this House, nobody was more dedicated to reversing the trend in shipbuilding than our good friend from Virginia. By the way, I believe that ``Norman Sisisky'' would make an excellent name for a capital ship. Why build more ships? Because it is presence, American presence, that helps avoid war: presence in peacetime, at pierside, showing our allies tangible proof of American support; and presence in the theater, exercising, working with allied navies, and serving notice to all that America is not thousands of miles away, it is just over the horizon. Naval presence is an open hand that can quickly become an iron fist should the need arise. We can focus on the Pacific all we like, but maintaining a strong naval presence there requires more ships than we have now. Then, what of our commitment to Europe, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Middle East? Ships require sailors. Sea duty is hard and challenging. It can be heartbreaking. The sailor is the backbone of the Navy. While some question whether sea duty is still that service's highest calling, there is no doubt in the mind of this son of a sailor that it should be. It is not just the duties at sea that make the sailors so valuable, it is their presence in foreign ports, showing citizens around the world that Americans are open, friendly, and interested in their country. That is as much a benefit of naval presence as the speedy response to crises that may emerge. A rebuilt Navy should be able to operate from shoreline to shoreline, on the surface, above, and below. That will require a range of ships: small ships, to operate in close; medium ships, to provide cover for the smaller ships in shore, but able to keep station with battle groups as needed; submarines, capable of operation in all waters and able to carry land attack missiles and support special operations forces; and heavy capital ships, to maintain freedom of the seas. Ships do not just happen, we must build them. We must equip them. We must provide a trained and ready crew. That all takes resources and commitment, resources from Capitol Hill and a commitment, beginning with the CNO and including every sailor in the fleet. That is why a larger Navy must be in the budget from the start, particularly this year. The Navy cannot rely on Congress to add money above the top line to make up for its own budget shortcomings. For years, we in Congress added money to the administration's defense budget. I do not believe that we will so readily revise the new administration's plans. But I do not doubt that with support in the administration budget, Congress will follow. As Members of Congress, the purse is our responsibility. Without a doubt, ships are expensive. Building more ships is more expensive, but not being where we are needed when we are needed there is the most costly of all. I believe in my heart that one ship flying the American flag alongside one foreign pier makes friends, warns enemies, and ultimately reduces the need to send many more ships out on the high seas. To provide presence, we need hulls. To engage in littoral, we need hulls. To do the job we ask the Navy to do, we need hulls.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Yokum Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church, of Malta Bend, Missouri, which will be celebrating its 120th anniversary on May 20, 2001. Yokum Chapel Church may not have the largest membership but it has continued to serve the people of Malta Bend for the last twelve decades. Malta Bend is a small town with an African-American population of less than five percent. This church and its dedicated congregation have become an integral part of the community that it calls home. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the congregation of Yokum Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church for their outstanding accomplishment. It is with great pride that I honor their achievement on their one hundred and twentieth anniversary.