Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), particularly on that part of the markup involving prescription drugs and the work the gentleman did overall to help this move forward. Of course, we do not agree on whether it went far enough, but I compliment the gentleman on a major step in that direction. We thank the gentleman for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the young men and the young women in uniform. Largely based upon what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has said, this is one time a year when we consider the defense bill. It is our time to tell them, through our words and through our votes, that they are important to us; that those in uniform who sacrificed daily, hard training away from home, away from family, pay could probably be better, although we have done better here in Congress lately, all of those items cause us to have the deep admiration for the young men and women in uniform. True, there are series challenges when it comes to recruiting and serious challenge when it comes to retention, but I hope this bill this year will give added confidence to those who are considering joining the military and to those who are in the military to look at as possible because they are so important to our country, so important to the future of this grand democracy and this land that is known as the grandest civilization ever known in the history of mankind. But I have a concern, Mr. Chairman, that because of the victory in the Cold War, because fewer and fewer families are being touched by sons and daughters and cousins and aunts and uncles who wear the uniform, that the fact that there is a need for a strong national security might be out of sight, out of mind. So this is our one chance to say on this floor to those folks who serve us well, whether they be in Bosnia, Kosovo, aboard ship, in the Far East or here in one of the posts or camps or bases in this country, that we appreciate their efforts; that we hope that the work that we do today will meet with their approval; that they will continue to serve and those that are considering serving will think possibly upon the challenges of the military. Mr. Chairman, it is a true opportunity for those of us who serve on this committee to work with and for the young people. And many of us make trips to visit with them aboard the ship at the post, the bases. I had the opportunity along with my wife, Susie, to have Thanksgiving dinner in Bosnia and Kosovo with the young folks, and they are tremendous. The morale is good. We hope to keep those folks doing what they do so well for our country, and this is our one chance in this bill, this bill named after the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, that we can give added confidence to those young people who are in uniform to let them know that we work with them and for them, and that we wish them continued success as they serve the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to add a postscript to the very, very hard working staff of the Committee on Armed Services. Without exception, they do yeomen's work, and we would not be where we are today but for their bipartisan, lengthy, arduous efforts. So I wish to just salute them for the work they have done to help us get to this point in this very important legislation.

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kasich amendment. This amendment would have the perverse effect of holding our national security interests in Europe, and indeed the safety and well-being of our military forces there hostage to what other nations do. I do not believe that how we exercise our national security policy should be determined by the actions of other countries. Moreover, this amendment would be unlikely to encourage our European allies to do more burdensharing. I believe it would invalidate the trust that our allies and NATO have in us, it would undermine American leadership worldwide, and would encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in that sad part of the world, the Balkans. We all understand and I agree that our European allies should take on a larger share of the costs and the risks associated with the conduct of military operations and efforts to secure sustainable peace in Kosovo. And I firmly believe we should continue to press our allies to do more to live up to their commitments in the region. But we should not act precipitously and undo the gains we have made just because our allies do not quite measure up on time, though they have done a relatively good job of doing so. I am convinced that this amendment does much more harm than good. It sends exactly the wrong message to both our allies as well as our adversaries. By setting a specific deadline for the pullout of American forces, the amendment would signal to the Albanians the limits of national security guarantees providing for their protection. Mr. Milosevic would know that all he needs to do is wait, and after the first of April next year, he can effectively resume his campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide, leading to an additional holocaust. The people of Montenegro, who have thus far resisted Serbian hegemony, would become vulnerable to takeover. The conflict could spread to Macedonia. At the same time, our European allies will see this measure as a unilateral move that splits 50 years of shared efforts in NATO. There is no doubt that European stability will be compromised. While it purports to send a message that the Europeans must bear a greater share of the burdens leading to regional peace, it transmits counterproductive ultimatums. It fails to realize that our European allies already make substantial contributions to alliance security, and those contributions have significantly increased over the last several years. I have communicated my concerns to General Ralston, the NATO commander, and he essentially shares my views. In addition to the adverse implications this amendment would have on U.S. leadership in the region and in the world, he is concerned about the impact of this amendment on the morale of U.S. military forces who have unselfishly, under conditions of extreme hardship and personal sacrifices, contributed so much to achieve peace in that sad part of the world. This amendment sends a message that can only undermine the confidence of our service members about our national resolve and will inevitably call into question the sacrifices that we have already asked them to make. The simple fact is that the United States is the world's lone superpower. All over the world, nations look up to our country. We are their inspiration. We are their role model. We are their hope for the future. The likelihood of NATO enlargement, led by the United States, and the prospect of expanding the peace and stability in Eastern Europe, as well as in the Balkans, would be gravely jeopardized by this amendment. The stabilizing force that NATO represents would be undercut by this amendment, which would effectively curtail U.S. commitment and influence in Europe. This is an ill-conceived amendment that is not in our national interest. It should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to reduce the notification period for changes in the definition of supercomputers. Modern computing was born in the United States of America. The technology leaders in the field are among the firms most strongly driving our economy today. We may all be familiar with Moore's law which states that the amount of computing power available at a given price doubles every 18 months. Today, though, before the government can legally recognize any advancement in computing power, it must wait for 180 legislative days. That is 6 of those 18 months. In 6 months, foreign competitors can leap ahead of our technology. In 6 month, buyers can be attracted to other products. In 6 months, companies restrained from filling already closed deals can find themselves in great financial difficulty. Even worse, we all know that a legislative day is not a day in any conventional sense of the term. It can be as long or as short as we wish. We can perform the miracle Joshua described, to stop the sun in the sky. While that may be useful for legislation, it can stretch the waiting period far beyond the 6 calendar months that can already be so difficult for America's companies, and do so beyond the capacity of any seer to predict. This amendment recognizes the reality of technology. I would note also that this amendment does not reduce the time available for approval of particular export transactions. All of those controls remain in place. I hope that all of my colleagues will join us in recognizing the unique pace of technology development endorsing the rationality and predictability in government regulations.

Mr. SKELTON

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

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the gentleman's dialogue.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I am wholeheartedly in support of this rule. I suppose the politic thing to do would be to say I will vote for this rule and await the second rule. But I feel constrained to express my reservation, because there is no assurance that one of the most important issues will come before this body, that which deals with military retirees. Even though this rule does not touch upon that, and there is the possibility of the second rule being adopted with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) therein, I have no such assurance. I feel constrained to voice my reservation. This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is an excellent bill, by and large, with some exceptions. And I also wish to tell the Members of the House that in honor of our chairman, it is named the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and it is a very, very proper recognition of this fine gentleman from South Carolina, who does such a fair and decent job for us in the committee, for us in the House. I wish I could say on this very first part of the split rule that I could support the rule, but I do not have the assurance. Now, if I have that assurance in the next few minutes, that would be fine, but I do not have that. I do not see it forthcoming, because I cannot very well bifurcate the two rules, and as a result, I would have to vote against this first rule because of the lack of assurance that the second rule will contain the amendment that is so important to military retirees.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak very briefly on an amendment that is en bloc that I have offered, No. 25, which requests a GAO study of the value of the United States' military engagement in Europe. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about burdensharing. Much has been said about American interests and troops being stationed in Europe. In an effort to understand where we are today, were we to look back in history, and had American and allied forces formed together as we have today in the NATO alliance, the Second World War would never have come to pass. I think that a full study explaining the definitions and all the ramifications and include our Armed Forces and our strategies and the attempt to shape the international environment, a study such as this should be included. I urge the adoption of the en block, which, of course, includes No. 25. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I add but a word: In my years in Congress here, I have had the opportunity to serve with many outstanding Representatives. One of the finest during my era and during all time is that of G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, not only an outstanding Member of Congress who represented his district well, kept our country strong as a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services, as chairman and then later ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Further than that, he is a wonderful friend, not just to me but to so many. So this is a very, very fitting and proper tribute to a wonderful man.