Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate and pay tribute to Rear Admiral James Cutler Dawson, Jr., who performed in an outstanding manner as Chief of Legislative Affairs from October 1999 to March 2001. Rear Admiral Dawson did a fine job during his time in Legislative Affairs. Under his leadership, numerous events and actions surrounding the Navy were expertly managed including ship commissioning, christening, and naming ceremonies; Congressional travel; and official receptions on Capitol Hill. During his tenure, Rear Admiral Dawson also played a key role in working with the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to positively affect the future size, readiness, and capabilities of the Navy. Rear Admiral Dawson worked well with Congressional offices and created widespread opportunities to promote the Navy's message. He executed an outreach plan allowing senior Naval leaders to visit over sixty percent of the Members of Congress. He effectively managed a workshop, allowing district staff members to more efficiently perform casework, and he also managed difficult public relations issues and provided advice and counsel during more than 50 Congressional hearings. Recently it was announced that Rear Admiral Dawson has been nominated and will be appointed to vice admiral. He will be assigned as commander, United States Naval Forces, Central Command and command the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Mr. Speaker, I wish to expand my congratulations to Rear Admiral James Cutler Dawson, Jr., for achieving such success during his time as Chief of Legislative Affairs. I wish him continued success with his new assignment as Commander of the Fifth Fleet. I know that my colleagues in the House will join me in saluting this fine sailor.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, words are difficult at a moment like this, when we are all saddened and shocked at the loss of our friend Norman Sisisky, the true gentleman from Virginia. We will miss him so. I sat next to him on the Committee on Armed Services now for some 19 years and shared friendship, comments, wit, knowledge, and advice from him. And all of this will be a lingering memory not just for me, but for those of us who worked with him. The word ``great'' is used so often, particularly in this body, but Norman Sisisky was a great friend. He was a great legislator; Member of this body. He thought greatly. He had a vision for our national security, and yet he had great fondness for the young men and women in all uniforms. As has been spoken, he was such a champion of shipbuilding. But it was more than that. He was a champion for a strong and safe and secure America. We will long remember Norman Sisisky as a great person. Longfellow once penned in his poem ``Psalm of Life'' the words, ``Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime, and, departing, leave behind us footprints on the sands of time.'' Well, Norman Sisisky left some wonderful footprints along Virginia, here in Washington, D.C., in this Chamber, and in our country. Our sympathy goes to Rhoda, his four sons, and the rest of his family.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a long and exceptionally distinguished career in the field of education is coming to an end. Dr. E. Edward See, of Warrensburg, Missouri, will retire from Central Missouri State University on June 30, 2001. Dr. See has been a popular and highly respected educator in the state of Missouri for nearly forty years. A graduate of Central Missouri State University and Missouri University, Dr. See has specialized in theater and speech. Throughout his career he taught junior and senior high school in the Raytown, Missouri, school district, as a graduate assistant at Central Missouri State University and Missouri University, and as a professor and chair of the theater department at Central Missouri State University. In addition to his commitment in the classroom, Dr. See has directed approximately 45 plays at Central Missouri State University and served as president and on the board of directors for the Speech and Theatre Association of Missouri. He has been honored for endeavors in teaching and drama. He was nominated for the Outstanding Teacher Award by the Speech and Theatre Association of Missouri, directed a play which received commendation from the Kennedy Center/American College Theatre Festival, and saw the establishment of seven different scholarships. Mr. Speaker, Dr. See deserves the thanks and praises of the many students that he has served for so long. I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this exceptional teacher.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic budget and in the alternative, the Blue Dog budget. It is quite familiar for me to stand here and address the subject of military budgets. For many years under both administrations, Democrats and Republicans, I would point out where we believe this body and America as a Nation were failing to set appropriate priorities in the defense budget. Far too often I have known that we were trying to do too much with too little. So I was glad to see both candidates for President advocate increases in the defense budget. It was good news. But that is not what is coming to pass. I am disappointed with the President's defense budget for 2002 which the majority adopts in the budget resolution. The Bush budget provides about $325 billion for national security activities, of which $310.5 billion is for the Department of Defense. But then we have to take out the retiree health professions and then we have to adjust for inflation; and when that is done, we have an actual increase of only $100 million, $100 million. That will fix the gymnasium at West Point. So the $100 million increase in the defense budget makes a mockery of the President's campaign pledge that help is on the way. He must have meant spiritual help. In contrast, both the Democratic budget and the Blue Dog budget provide more money for defense. The Democratic alternative provides for $2.7 billion more in fiscal year 2002, $48 billion more in 10 years, $7 billion in fiscal year 2001 for a supplemental. The Blue Dog provides for $4.5 billion more in fiscal year 2002, $19.3 billion over 5 years, $7 billion in fiscal year 2001 for a supplemental. So despite the campaign rhetoric, the Republican administration has utterly failed to live up to its commitments. I thus speak in favor of the Democratic budget and, in the alternative, the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I returned from the West Coast where I visited several naval installations and talked with numerous Navy and Marine personnel. As a result, I am all the more convinced of the need for a supplemental appropriation now. Family housing roofs are leaking, aircraft are being cannibalized, and training is being curtailed or canceled. I am dismayed that the White House has apparently rejected the idea of a supplemental appropriation for 2001. Such a supplemental would pay for costs already incurred in operations around the world. It is not a matter subject to a strategic review of our future; it is paying for our past. Why it should be off limits to pay what we owe is a mystery to me. Mr. Speaker, it is a disquieting truth that our military services rely on supplemental funding when making their budgets. They are allowed to budget for procurement, research, pay and training. All of these costs are largely predictable. But they are not allowed to budget in advance for most operations because the nature and tempo of the operations can never be foreseen. In a way, the Navy includes some operations funding in its peacetime budget. Overseas rotations is part of its normal operating procedure, so deployments require little additional funding when they go into action. The Air Force is getting toward that concept as well, but even they need supplemental help to cover the cost of operations. Even if a supplemental is proposed later in the year, it is sort of like the fire department showing up after one's house has burned down. One reason I enjoy serving on the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Speaker, is that I get to speak regularly with our troops and their commanders. One message that has been coming through with exact clarity, from field commanders and service chiefs alike, is the need for an immediate supplemental. They have been forced to borrow against training money to keep operations going, and that bill has come due. As a result, training is slowing to a crawl or stopping. Some ammunition supplies are exhausted. Our military is not being kept up to standard. That is what I hear. It is not just one service; it is all of them. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we need an immediate supplemental. By immediate supplemental, I do not mean the check in the hand by the close of business Friday, although that would not hurt. But I do mean an immediate and public commitment that there will be a supplemental, a commitment that help is on the way. If the chiefs know a supplemental is coming, even one late in the fiscal year, they can resume full activity confident that their coffers will be replenished. Absent that assurance, though, the only prudent and, in many cases, the only legal thing for them to do is to stop training. This is a test of the new administration, Mr. Speaker, a test of their word and of their world view. If the military is to be sacrificed on the alter of a tax cut, if help is not truly on the way, then skip the supplemental. But if the Nation's commitment to our men and women in uniform is real, then they should step up and pay what is owed.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that an outstanding career in law enforcement has come to an end. Buddy Parrish, a Wellington, Missouri, resident, recently retired after 29 years of service as a sheriff's deputy. Mr. Parrish has diligently served the people of Lafayette County, for nearly three decades. His dedication to public service and to the citizens of the county is to be commended. A truly distinguished enforcement officer, Buddy was recently honored with a ceremony at the Lafayette County Courthouse. Over 80 people, including several respected civic leaders, paid tribute to Buddy's long and admirable career. Mr. Speaker, Buddy had an exceptional career in law enforcement. I wish him all the best in the days ahead. I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this fine Missourian.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of Representatives of the passing of my good friend Lt. Col. Ed Fiora, a resident of Lexington, Missouri. He was 68. Ed, a son of the late Edward Frank Fiora, Sr. and Mary Laura Fiora, was born in Lexington, Missouri, on December 9, 1932. He married Clara E. Sander on June 18, 1954. Ed was an officer in the United States Army for over 22 years and was truly a soldier's soldier. He served two tours of duty in Vietnam and was highly decorated. His military awards include: the Bronze Star, with four oakleaf clusters, the first oakleaf cluster being for valor, the Air medal, the Meritorious Service medal, the Army Commendation medal, the Combat Infantrymen badge, the National Defense Service medal and the Vietnam Campaign medal. Ed was a civic leader and model citizen. He was a member of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, the Lexington Elks Club, the Lexington Lions Club, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. Mr. Speaker, Ed Fiora will be greatly missed by all who knew him. I know the Members of the House will join in extending heartfelt condolences to his family: his wife Clara ``Betsy''; his son and daughter-in-law Major and Mrs. Edward L. Fiora; his sister Florine Frerking; and his grandchildren.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is quite familiar to me to stand here and address the subject of military budgets. For many years, under administrations of both parties, I have pointed out where we believe the House as a body and America as a Nation were failing to set appropriate priorities in the defense budget. Often, indeed far too often, I and other Members noted that we were trying to do too much with too little. In fact, last year I asked the Budget Committee to add $12 billion for the Department of Defense. That is why I was glad to see both candidates for President advocate increases in the defense budget. It was good news. That is the right step, regardless of one's party. If we can keep our promises to the troops and maintain an effective defense, I do not care if the money comes from Democrats, Republicans or Martians. That is why I have to say I am disappointed with the result. President Bush's defense budget for 2002 provides about $325 billion for national security activities, nearly $311 billion of that for the Department of Defense. That is a whole lot of money, to be sure. But then you have to take out the retiree health care provisions that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and I initiated and which were passed into law last year; and then you have to adjust for inflation. When you do that, guess what? The actual increase in the defense budget is $100 million from what President Clinton proposed. $100 million. If any of us won that much in a lottery, we would be rich. But in the Department of Defense, what does $100 million do? $100 million is a pay increase for every soldier of $1.85 per pay period. Or it is one-forty- fifth of an aircraft carrier. Or it fixes the gymnasium at West Point. Or it runs the ballistic missile defense program for 6 days. Or it is 1\1/2\ F-15 fighters. You pick whichever you like, because for that money you get only one. A $100 million increase in the defense budget is not really too much to write home about. When the President during his campaign said that help is on the way, he must have meant spiritual help, because $1.85 does not help anybody very much. But let us be fair. President Bush wants to increase pay by more than $1.85. On February 12, he told soldiers at Fort Stewart that he would increase pay by $400 million and add in other benefits for a total of $5.7 billion. And there is $100 million to pay for that. Well, let us not forget the budget included a $2.6 billion increase in research and development. Not a bad idea, as such. But add that to the pay increase of $5.7 billion, and that is $8.3 billion; and you have to get that out of a $100 million stone. I am just a country lawyer, but it seems to me if you increase spending by $8.3 billion, but have only $100 million more to do it, you have to cut something else to make the numbers work out. We do not know what is going to get cut yet. The department has not finished the first of a series of defense reviews. But what do the choices look like? You could cut procurement, if you can find a way to keep planes designed in the 1960s and built in the 1970s in the air safely; and if you are willing to let the Navy slide below 300 ships; and if you are ready to stop the Army's acquisition of armored vehicles for its current dismounted infantry. I am not willing to do any of these things, and I hope the Pentagon is not either. How about operations and maintenance costs? Well, if you are willing to train even less, and let your ammunition shortages grow, and cut flying hours more, and stop repairing the U.S.S. Cole, and live with the health care shortfalls, then you could cut operations and maintenance. I do not want to be the one to tell the troops that they are not going to get help to get them off food stamps, and I hope none of my colleagues would either. Then you could cut military construction. You could, if you were ready to give up on repairing dilapidated military housing, and stop adding protection against terrorist strikes. You get the idea. There just are not any easy choices when you have only $100 million to pay a $8.3 billion bill. That is before our tax cut. That is before increasing the budget for missile defense. It seems to me that part of the solution would be to enact a supplemental spending bill that recognizes just how hard our troops have been working. It would at least help close the gap. But that, too, has been ruled off the table for now. Mr. Speaker, I will admit, I was one of those who believed that whoever won the Presidency, the military would begin to get the relief it needs; and I know some of my Republican friends believed the same. I am sorry to say that it looks as if we were given false hope.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to express my deep sorrow regarding the training accident on the Kuwaiti bombing range and extend my condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured. I know full well how the crew and the air wing on the U.S.S. Harry S Truman must feel regarding this tragic occurrence. This accident underscores the risks that American service members take in order to master and to maintain the skills they need to keep our Nation safe and to protect our security around the world. The military is a dangerous profession, and we cannot take for granted the hazards that our men and women in uniform face on a daily basis, in times of war as well as in times of peace. Mr. Speaker, last month I visited some of America's troops overseas, particularly in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Germany. With me were two other Members of the House, both of whom are on the Committee on Armed Services with me. We were astonished by what we saw: the dedication, the sacrifice, and above all, the intense level of activity, even in peacetime. It of course was an eye-opener, and it does give one a new sense of appreciation of the military. It is the kind of education that I believe more Americans should have. As the population grows and fewer and fewer households have a picture on the mantle of a son or daughter in uniform, we do not have as many parents asking us to look after their Johnnie or their Janie who is in the service. We do not have as many Members of Congress with military experience. That, of course, concerns me, because I don't believe it is good for America to have its military services become separate from the society that supports them and that they in turn defend. I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is an unfortunate gap between civilian America and military America. Many civilians simply do not understand the role of people in uniform. It is an arduous profession, it is a dangerous profession, as I mentioned a moment ago, and the more civilians that can see our military, the better they can understand just how important a job they do. One way the military has traditionally tried to maintain a bond with the people in our country is to involve civilians in military activities. That takes many forms, from public airshows to allowing citizens to observe military operations up close. As we know, Mr. Speaker, the issue of how civilians should be involved in military activities is now subject to no small debate. I hasten to say, this is not a trivial matter. It is important for civilians to see how the military works, what they get for their money, and most of all, just what excellent men and women wear the uniform of the United States today. I can certainly understand why, following the terribly sad situation involving the U.S.S. Greenville, some might believe that civilians should not be allowed aboard ships or aircraft, or to visit active military facilities. Without addressing the role of civilian observers in that particular case, let me say that I believe closing the doors of military facilities to civilian observers would be counterproductive. To be clear, they should remain just that, observers. They should not be in control of any military hardware. Keeping hands off is no reason to keep eyes out. The Constitution provides for civilian control of the military, and that requires an informed public. Allowing responsible citizens access to the operating military is the most basic way of keeping the public aware of what the military life is all about, and what part the armed services should play in our society. Even more basically, the more civilians see the military, the more word gets around that our men and women in uniform deserve our support. It works the other way, too. Military personnel are glad to know that their work is being seen and appreciated by the people back home. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the military is on its way to becoming just another special interest group, an organization that sees its own interests as separate from the rest of society. But the military is an integral part of our society. Indeed, it is woven by tradition and constitutional design into the very fabric of America itself. To separate the military from civilian observation would be no less significant than separating our flag from the stars and stripes.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of Representatives of the passing of my good friend Gene Darnell, a resident of Lexington, Missouri. He was 68. Gene, a son of the late Ennis Mark and Hannah K. Elkins Darnell, was born in Dover, Missouri, on June 12, 1932. He married Leona ``Onie'' Clouse on March 6, 1954. Gene then served honorably and successfully in the United States Army. He was very proud of his service as a soldier. Gene was a deputy sheriff for Lafayette County from 1959 to 1964. In 1964, he was elected Sheriff of Lafayette County, and he was reelected six additional times. Gene was truly a unique and highly respected politician, a brilliant investigator, a masterful interrogator and a believable witness. He was founding member of the Missouri Rural Major Case Squad, and was Missouri Sheriff Pension Board Director. He was also a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy. Mr. Speaker, Gene Darnell will be greatly missed by all who knew him. I know the Members of the House will join in extending heartfelt condolences to his family his wife Onie and his siblings, Fred Darnell, Kathryn Hayes and Mary Ann Mais.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have at the desk a personal request.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to add that were I here tomorrow, I would be speaking and voting against the tax cut proposal. It is important that we in this House protect our farmers, strengthen our armed forces, preserve Social Security and Medicare, and invest in our schools and eliminate the Federal debt. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned we are getting the cart before the horse. We need a budget before we can make this important decision.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will attend and participate in a funeral for a long-time friend from my home area, former sheriff Gene Darnell, one of Missouri's truly outstanding law enforcement officers. It is with sadness that I report his loss, which is a great loss to our State. Vote Against The Tax-Cut Proposal

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of Representatives of the passing of my good friend The Honorable Lynn M. Ewing Jr. of Nevada, Missouri. He was 70. Lynn, a son of the late Lynn M. Ewing Sr. and Margaret Blair Ewing Coffey, was born in Nevada, Missouri, on November 14, 1930. After graduating from Nevada High School in 1948, Lynn attended Princeton University. He received an AB in 1952 and a Juris Doctor degree in 1954 from the University of Missouri-Columbia, graduating second in his law school class. Mr. Ewing was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Nu fraternity and Order of the Coif. He entered the United States Air Force and served as an attorney in the Judge Advocate General Corps until returning to Nevada in 1956 and joining the law firm Ewing, Ewing, Ewing, Carter and Wight. He continued to practice law with the Ewing law Firm until his death. Lynn was involved with the Farm and Home Savings Association for 24 years, serving as general counsel, board member and president. He was a life member of the American Bar Association, a member of the Missouri Bar Association and the Vernon County Bar Association, and a fellow of the American College of Mortgage Attorneys. He served on the Missouri Bar Disciplinary Committee. He was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court in 1961. He was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 1959 and served three terms representing the citizens of Vernon and Barton counties. Lynn formerly served as chairman of the Vernon County Democratic Central Committee. He was elected to the Nevada City Council in 1967 and served the city for six years, including two terms as mayor. He served on the board of directors of the Nevada Regional Medical Center, the Nevada Library Board, the Nevada Chamber of Commerce, the Nevada Planning commission and the Nevada Economic Development Corporation. He also served as a board member of Citizens State Bank, Nevada, Missouri. He was a member of the Nevada Rotary Club and was named citizen of the year in 1975. He received the Paul Harris Fellow Award from the Rotary. Lynn was a member of the All Saints Episcopal Church and served the church as a vestry member, senior warden and lector. Mr. Ewing was appointed by Governor Warren Hearnes to serve on the Missouri Land Reclamation Commission and by Governor Mel Carnahan to serve on the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, where he served as chairperson. He was a member of the Missouri Academy of Squires. He was a member of the Missouri Savings and Loan Association and the U.S. League of Saving and Loan Associations. He received a Faculty Alumni Award from the University of Missouri. He served on the Missouri Law School Foundation board of directors and was a member of the University of Missouri-Columbia Jefferson Club. He was a charter member of the University of Missouri-Columbia Law Society and Mosaic Society. Mr. Speaker, Lynn Ewing Jr. will be missed by all who knew him. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family: his wife, Peggy; his brother, Blair; his two daughters, Margrace Buckler and Melissa Arnold; his son, Lynn M. Ewing III--and his grandchildren.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for working so well and putting this bill before us. It is a fitting tribute to those young Americans that died 10 years ago in Desert Storm. I hope it is some solace to those families and not just to those families but to the other families who lost loved ones in that conflict. America is great, as Tocqueville once wrote, because America is good. And America was there in the Persian Gulf because we stood for good values. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for offering this resolution, because it does reflect the best that comes from America.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this, and I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 39. This bill is cosponsored by my two friends, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Weldon. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) on his efforts. This bill honors the 28 American soldiers who were killed by an Iraqi SCUD missile on February, 25, 10 years ago, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War. This missile attack caused more United States casualties than any other single incident during the conflict, and it is altogether fitting that we pay tribute to those who gave their lives for their country as a result of this attack. It is particularly poignant when nearly all of those killed come from the single unit, from a single geographic region, in a single State, in this case, the State of Pennsylvania. I might add that those 28 young Guardsmen all left families, all suffered the pain and anxiety of loss of a loved one. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I well remember experiencing a family going through that same agony. In April of 1941, Fort Hood, Texas, I was present when the parents of a young soldier named Cooper were presented a Silver Star posthumously as this young Cooper, as on that same occasion of Desert Storm, threw himself on top of a downed American soldier and incoming artillery shell killed him. So I understand. My sympathy goes out to the families. At this time, though, I would add, Mr. Speaker, that recognizing those specific ones that are mentioned here, or the ones that I mentioned, in no way diminishes the honor or the reverence that we hold for the other service members who were killed or were wounded during Operation Desert Shield or Operation Desert Storm. I publicly extend the same sympathy and thanks to all the families of those who lost loved ones during the Persian Gulf War. This is not just a commemoration, Mr. Speaker. By adopting this resolution, we resolve to support appropriate and effective theater missile defense so American forces deployed forward will not be vulnerable to similar missile attacks in the future. Improving our theater missile defense capability is and should be an integral part of our weapons modernization effort. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that since the Persian Gulf War, we have fielded the next generation of Patriot missiles known as PAC-3, and we are rapidly developing the Medium Extended Air Range Defense System which is known as MEADS. As a result, our forces today are far better prepared to defend against the theater missile attack than it was during the 1991 conflict. These efforts have enjoyed strong support on both sides of the aisle. This is a good bill. It honors outstanding Americans. It proposes a sound policy. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

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

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I have just returned from the Balkans, Bosnia and Kosovo with two other members of the Committee on Armed Services. Due to the ongoing debate in this House and elsewhere regarding the U.S. role, I offer Members a report on my observations. The situation in Kosovo is, of course, complicated. To be summed up broadly, Serbs inside Kosovo are afraid of the Albanian majority, while those Albanians are afraid of the nation of Serbia next door. These two groups have one thing in common: they are both glad the U.S. and European troops are there to protect them and provide stability. It is not well known that the U.S. provides a small minority of the force in Kosovo. Visitors who see only Camp Bondsteel and the American sectors can get the impression that the United States stands alone between ancient enemies. That is a skewed view. The fact is that American forces are only 18 percent of the efforts in Kosovo. General Ferrell told me that he intends to reduce the figure by some 15 to 20 percent. In fact, there are more American contractors building roads and schools, cooking meals, providing support for the troops than there are American soldiers. Let us talk about those soldiers, Madam Speaker. We hear a lot about bringing Americans home and how soldiers do not belong out there, so I asked the soldiers on the line, and they are proud of what they are doing. They told me they are proud to be peacemakers. They know why they are in Kosovo. In fact, the enlisted soldiers know more about the political situation in the Balkans than a lot of political scientists do here in Washington. The proof of their pride is that re-enlistment is higher among the units deployed in Kosovo than anywhere else in the Army. The soldiers are working hard and the tempo of operations is high. When our troops believe that they are doing what they came into the Army to do, they will come back, and they are. That is a strong message to all of us and especially to those who think peacekeeping is somehow below the dignity of American soldiers. Remember, too, that the soldiers on that line today will be the leaders and NCOs of the next conflict, if one comes. We are also working well with our allies, as well as the Russians. It is a fringe benefit that can pay off for the U.S. in the future. By the way, believe it or not, the Russians send troops to Kosovo as a reward for good service elsewhere. A French general told me that their involvement in Kosovo has been the best thing to happen to recruitment in a long time. We are making a difference. I asked soldiers of all ranks, What would happen if the U.S. pulled out of the Balkans? One said it best in a simple word: ``Boom.'' Kosovo today is not what it was even 6 months ago. One American sergeant told me that the local population has fought itself out, and that they are glad we are there so that they can stop fighting. But if we leave, the weariness will not prevail. The peace is clearly tenuous. I visited one village where the Serbian and Albanian children share the same schoolhouse. They go into different rooms through different doors, but the fact that they are in the same building is a breakthrough. On the other hand, there was an armed patrol of 16 Albanian guerillas leaving their training location, which is in an officially demilitarized zone, and that night a van was blown up, killing three Serb policemen. Passions clearly still run high. But the facts should not frighten the United States from its duty. As General Quinlan told me, Madam Speaker, there is no military solution to this situation; but our military presence is buying the time and space for a political solution. Yes, tension in the Balkans remains high, but America can be proud of our young men and our young women as they are keeping the peace and, more important, they are proud of it. Madam Speaker, I hope that every Member here is proud of them too. I certainly am.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I inform the House of the presentation of the Navy Captain Edward F. Ney Memorial Awards to two Navy ships with ties to Missouri. The U.S.S. Harry S Truman (CVN 75) was awarded first place in the aircraft carrier division and the U.S.S. Jefferson City (SSN 759) was awarded honorable mention in the submarine division. The Ney awards were established in 1958 by the Secretary of the Navy and the International Food Service Executives Association to improve and recognize quality food service in the Navy. The awards honor overall food service excellence by evaluating key areas in customer service, restauranteurship, cleanliness and management. An independent team that reviewed food preparation, management, administration, equipment safety, sanitation, plastic waste and disposal evaluated each category. Mr. Speaker, the men and women responsible for this exemplary service deserved to be recognized. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending congratulations to the servicepeople aboard these ships.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Andrew Carroll, a resident of Sedalia, MO. He was 43. Andrew Carroll, a son of Edgar S. and June Utz Carroll, was born in Kansas City, MO, on May 31, 1957. He graduated from Warrensburg High School in 1975 and enrolled at Central Missouri State University. At Central Missouri State University he was a recipient of a Regents scholarship and was voted outstanding undergraduate of the School of Public Service. He also participated in athletics, he was selected all- MIAA Track and Field and was a member of the honors program Phi Kappa Phi. Mr. Carroll graduated in 1978 Summa Cum Laude, and in 1981, he graduated from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. He began legal practice in 1981 with his father and later operated a solo practice in Warrensburg. Mr. Carroll was a member of the Missouri Bar Association, American Bar Association, Johnson County Bar Association, Pettis County Bar Association, Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association, Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, and the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. He served as Active General Counsel for CMSU and as city prosecutor for the city of Warrensburg. Mr. Carroll also was an elder at Broadway Presbyterian Church, a member of the Board of Legal Office Management at State Fair Community College, and a member of the board of directors of the Children's Therapy Center and the Sedalia Boys and Girls Club. He chaired the 1997 Osage Trails District Friends of Scouting Fundraiser and was a member of the board of directors of Warrensburg Main Street, Inc., serving as president in 1999-2000. Mr. Carroll was the recipient of the Leadership Award 2000 and a member of the Tax Increment Financing Commission for the city of Warrensburg, serving as chairman from 1998-2000. He was also a past member of the Warrensburg and Sedalia Lions Clubs. Mr. Speaker, Andrew Carroll will be greatly missed by all who knew him. I know the Members of the House will join in extending heartfelt condolences to his family, his wife Linda, and his three sons, John, Nicholas, and Jacob.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Washington sometimes speaks with its own language. We talk in this town of taking risks, laying it on the line, or getting out on the edge, when the only cost of failure is to our pride or perceived prestige. Out there beyond the Beltway, in many cases beyond America's shores, are people who really do take risks. They lay their lives on the line every day and they do so because we ask them to. They are, of course, America's finest, our men and women in uniform. And while some in this town may spare them a passing thought now and again, they are thinking of us, and Americans like us, every day. That is what devotion to duty means. It is unfortunate but correct to note that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are never more prominent in our thoughts than when something goes wrong. Our hearts went out to the families of the sterling sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole. We mourned the loss of brave Marines lost in recent aviation mishaps. And today our thoughts are with the families of soldiers killed and injured in an Army helicopter accident. There is a message in these events, if we care to hear it. It is that even in times of greatest peace, the profession of arms is fraught with hazard. The world demands that we train hard, and realistic training brings real dangers. American interests require that our forces be forward, and those distant waters can mask unseen threats. And the requirement for technological leadership means that flaws in new systems can occasionally take a fearsome price. So let us give thought on this Valentine's Day, this day dedicated to love, to those men and women who put love of country above all. We are free to speak our minds in this Chamber because, out there, they have accepted the job of keeping us free. We are able to run what we call political risks because they take on mortal risks. We talk at some length about how to properly compensate our men and women in uniform. That debate goes on. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we owe a humbling debt to America's servicepeople that goes far beyond the monetary. Indeed, it is not too much to say that, in the framers' phrase, they defend our lives and our sacred honor. Such a gift is truly beyond price.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, for the most part, Congress looks at national defense with a bipartisan eye. I am proud to say that I have served with five chairmen of the Committee on Armed Services of both parties and of various viewpoints. The number of substantive disagreements on matters of national security have been rewardingly few. That is why so many of my colleagues and I were encouraged to see both candidates for President urging increases in funding for national defense. That is why President Bush and Vice President Cheney's declaration that help is on the way sounded welcome to many congressional ears. That is also why it does not sit too well with us to hear that the President has now decided that no increase is needed, either for next year's budget or to pay the bills already clogging the Pentagon's in- box. I have to say that it probably does not sit too well with a lot of the military officers who broke tradition to publicly endorse the President, either. But the issue is not ``I told you so.'' It is, instead, about how are we going to get our parents, siblings, and children who are in uniform the resources they need to do their jobs. The world is an unstable place, and the United States cannot afford to ignore any part of it. That is why our military is working so hard. That is why the cost of keeping our people trained, fed, and properly equipped is so high. We do not get good people by neglecting their needs. An immediate supplemental appropriation to cover last year's activity and a responsive budget to meet the Nation's needs in the year ahead are both part of the price of American leadership. Delay paying that bill and training stops, ammunition runs out, and good people decide to say good-bye to the service. Already, the Army reports that it is essentially out of 9-millimeter ammunition used in personal sidearms, and they have cut training because of it. Our commander in Europe, General Ralston, recently told me he has received word to curtail training because the money is running out. Just this week, a new report indicates that the Navy's top fighters cannot meet their wartime schedules, again because of insufficient resources. In Washington, resources is spelled ``m-o-n-e-y.'' Troops that cannot train, planes that cannot fly, and an army out of bullets, if that does not justify supplemental funding, I am not sure what does. I do not believe we can afford any of those consequences. If the President wants to reconsider some of the high-cost programs that interfere with our ability to take care of America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, that is his prerogative. He has announced a review to do so. But it is not realistic for him to say, stop the world, America wants to get off. The world will not wait for our strategic review. Neither will the creditors, the men and women in uniform to whom the bills are owed. Without the support that it deserves and that was promised, our military cannot do its job. That, Mr. Speaker, makes nobody proud. It is not partisan to say that we are disappointed. I know the Members on both sides of the aisle would applaud if the President were to reconsider his decision and make our service people whole. That is not only making good on a promise, it is just the right thing to do.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate the ``Marching Across Missouri'' community relations initiative at Fort Leonard Wood. On January 31, 2001, at a ceremony held in Washington, D.C., this outstanding program was recognized as one of the Army's top community relations efforts. Maj. Gen. Larry D. Gottardi, Chief of Public Affairs, presented this award at the Army's Worldwide Public Affairs Symposium. The ``Marching Across Missouri'' initiative exceeded the Army's community relations objectives. Those objectives are: to increase public awareness of the Army, inspire patriotism, foster good relations with the various publics, maintain the Army's reputation and support recruiting. Community relations officers at Fort Leonard Wood showed great skill in achieving these objectives. Mr. Speaker, community relations are vital to the U.S. Armed Services. The superb actions taken by the men and women who serve at Fort Leonard Wood, under the direction of Commanding General Andrew Aadland, promote good relations with civilian communities in Missouri. I know the Members of the House will join me in extending congratulations to the service people at Ft. Leonard Wood.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a remarkable public servant, the Honorable Norma Lea Mihalevich, Mayor of Crocker, MO, will retire from her post on April 7, 2001. A graduate of Waynesville High School and the Missouri State Teachers College, Norma Lea Mihalevich has dedicated her life to public service. For the past 23 years, she has diligently served the citizens of Crocker, MO, as their mayor. During her tenure in office, she has always unselfishly devoted her time and energy to the betterment of her community. In addition to her service as mayor, Mrs. Mihalevich has been a member of the Crocker R-2 Board of Education, first being elected in 1952. During her time on the School Board, she served on the Board of Directors of the Missouri School Boards Association, receiving their 1998 ``Recognition of Commitment'' award. Additionally, in 1986, she was recognized as a ``Pioneer in Education'' by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Mrs. Mihalevich, a member of the Crocker Baptist Church for 59 years, has also worked for community betterment by serving as a member of the Pulaski County Hospital Board, the Pulaski County Health Department Home Health Agency, and the Pulaski Board for the Handicapped. Norma Lea Mihalevich is truly a role model for young public servants. As she prepares for quieter times with her husband, Dr. John Mihalevich, I am certain that all Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to Mrs. Mihalevich's outstanding commitment to public service.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, as we begin the 107th Congress and our debate turns to our national security, I want to remind our colleagues that we must remain vigilant in protecting the greatest asset in our defense arsenal, our military personnel. Without our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, we cannot sail our ships, fly our fighters, or put boots on the ground to protect our Nation's interests here and abroad. Our highly qualified, well-trained military personnel are the core of our Nation's defense. I am concerned that the new administration will rush to fund high visibility weapons systems with important political constituencies, like the National Missile Defense, at the expense of ensuring that our military personnel remain the best in the world. I believe we must make every effort to continue to recruit quality service members to ensure the continued success of our Armed Forces. With the good economic times, rising numbers of high school graduates going on to college, low unemployment, myriad job opportunities in the private sector, and a whole host of other factors, it is no secret that the military services have been experiencing difficulties in recruiting and retaining enough qualified individuals. Last year, all of the services reached their yearly recruiting goals for enlisted active duty personnel, but this success was not easily achieved. For example, the Air Force, which historically has an easier time recruiting, had to establish a special task force in order to improve its recruiting program. This year, the services are forecasting that they will each make their active duty recruiting goals for enlisted personnel. Time will tell. Active duty recruiting is not the only challenge facing the services. Maintaining a suitable reserve force to provide the additional support for our military is also a daunting challenge. Last year, two of the seven reserve components, the Navy Reserve and the Air Force Reserve, missed their enlisted recruiting goals. Currently, the Army National Guard and the Naval Reserve are both on a path to miss their projected goals for this fiscal year. Both the Army and the Air National Guard are struggling to meet a higher recruiting mission with fewer recruiters than last year. With our growing dependence on the Guard and the Reserve, these difficulties are a cause for serious concern. Unlike years past, our military cannot operate effectively without the participation of the National Guard and Reserve. So we must do everything possible to ensure that we devote sufficient resources to Reserve and Guard recruiting. Retaining those highly trained service members who are already in the military is also vitally important. We cannot afford to lose the investment we make in our service members by failing to provide adequate education, training, working conditions and quality of life to make military service an attractive career option. Today, highly skilled, motivated individuals are being enticed to leave the military and to use their skills and expertise in the private sector. We simply cannot allow this trend to continue if we hope to remain the world's most foremost military power. Last year, enlisted retention was a particularly acute problem for the Air Force. In the officer corps, the Army missed its officer retention goal by 1,069 while the Air Force was short 523. Many officers who leave are in the junior officer ranks. These are the leaders of tomorrow; and if we hope to keep them in the military, we must be responsive to their needs and concerns. Spending on high-tech weapons systems is important, but we simply cannot afford to neglect the people side of our defense equation. The personnel and compensation systems of today are based on outdated notions which do not make sense for the 21st Century. For example, the up or out promotion system may not make the most sense in an era where we have computer experts who aspire only to work with computers for their entire careers. We need to revisit how the services fill critical specialty positions. The current retirement system, which penalizes those who do not stay for a full 20-year career, clearly merits scrutiny. And although the Committee on Armed Services addressed retiree health care last year, it is clear to me that the TRICARE system, which also serves the active duty and reserve communities, is broken and needs to be fixed. If we do not attend to these people programs, all the sophisticated weapons systems in the world will not do us any good because we will not have enough people who are smart enough and well trained enough to operate them. We simply cannot afford to let that happen. Therefore, as we begin this new millennium, let us renew our commitment to the dedicated men and women who serve in our Nation's military and to ensuring that our Nation's Armed Forces continue to be the best trained, most highly qualified force in the 21st Century.