Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is a limitation on time, but I wish to point out to my friend from California that the wording herein is a reflection exactly of the matter that was passed in the United States Senate unanimously. I might also say that, because of what we did, the horrors, the deaths, the starvings, the burned homes, the rapes, and all the tragedies have come to an end because of what we, our leadership, our Armed Forces, and our allies did. So this is an effort to commend all of them in urging the House to adopt section 1207. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that we have remaining on this side, please?

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that a rose by any other name is still a rose, and I say, Mr. Speaker, today that victory by any other name is still a victory. We won this for a number of reasons; the troops. Representing the Fourth District of Missouri, I feel compelled to compliment the 509th Bomb Wing of the United States Air Force led by Brigadier General Leroy Barnidge, for the magnificent job that they did. They, and many others, won by the air war; and also but for the Army and what they did, their presence, the Navy and what they did and its flying missions, all of them did a good job. I think we are losing sight of what this instruction is. We all voted on this amendment. It passed the House unanimously. So I say let us vote on the instruction. The other arguments are side issues. A victory is a victory, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this year, at the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military leaders, Congress has taken some critically important steps to improve military pay and benefits. Both the House and the Senate have now approved versions of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Bill that provide higher than requested pay raises for service personnel and reforms the pay table to better reward personnel who have performed particularly well and that repeal reductions in military retirement benefits enacted in 1986. Although there remain minor differences between the two chambers on some details, service members can be assured that these much needed and much deserved improvements in pay and benefits are on the way. I hope that the fine young men and women who serve in our Nation's military will see this as evidence that we appreciate what they are doing, that we are aware of how hard they are working, and that we understand, to some degree at least, the tremendous personal sacrifices we ask them to make for our country. Having addressed pay and benefits, it is now time for the leaders in the military services and for the Congress to consider other critical steps to ease the burdens of military service. First and foremost in my mind is the need to stop imposing dreadfully excessive day-to-day demands on large parts of the force. The Congress is approving better pay and benefits in the hope that these measures will help stem the hemorrhage of high quality people from the force and ease recruitment of some new high quality people. Pay table reform in particular is designed to encourage the best of the best, the people whose work has led to rapid promotion, to stay in the service for a full career. But service members are not leaving the force simply or mainly because they are not being paid enough. Nobody makes the armed forces a career because of the financial rewards. Rather, too many good people are leaving because we are wearing them out. Let me emphasize that point again, Mr. Speaker, we are wearing them out. While it is not true of all parts of the force, for too many service members and too many key military specialties, their lives have become a never-ending and often unpredictable cycle of stand-ups and stand-downs; of preparation for exercises, exercises and recovery from exercises; of preparation for deployment abroad, deployment in often tense missions overseas, and of recovery from deployment; of temporary duty assignments to fill out units engaged in exercises or in missions abroad, or of working doubly hard at home to take up the slack caused by the loss of people on temporary duty assignments, and on and on. Unless we take steps to reduce the number of days many service members spend away from home, unless we ease the intensity and constancy of periods of overwork, unless we improve the predictability of periods away from home, unless we do all of these things, the extra pay and benefits we are providing will have but little effect in preserving a high quality, well-trained, ready military force. All of the military services suffer from the problem of overwork to one degree or another. And all of the services are taking steps to try to ease the workload. Today, however, I want to talk in particular about the state of the Army, where I believe the underlying problems are most deep-rooted and where measures to ameliorate the problem will have to be most far reaching. To put it bluntly, the Army today is too small. It is not big enough to carry out all of the responsibilities assigned to it without wearing out too many of its best people. We need a bigger Army. How much bigger? I will not at this time venture to say. I do not know whether we need 5,000 more people in the Army or 20,000 or 40,000. But I know we need more. For the record, in testimony before the House Committee on Armed Services in January 1996, Lieutenant General Ted Stroup, who was then the Army personnel chief, said the Army should be at 520,000 active duty troops, which is 40,000 more than is currently authorized. I believe as well that we cannot afford to follow through on measures to reduce further the size of the Army National Guard and Reserve components. They, like the active Army, have been reduced enough. Instead of shrinking them further, we need to work on measures to improve the way in which reserve components can help, even more than they have, to ease the strains on the active part of the force. To his credit, the new Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, has begun already to raise the issue of personnel levels. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee 3 weeks ago, General Shinseki opened the door to a discussion of troop levels, saying, ``It would be a bit premature for me to tell you that raising the end strength right now is the right call. But I think it is a legitimate concern.'' He clarified that comment a bit more last week in his first press conference as Chief of Staff when he said that he suspects the Army will decide it needs more troops after it completes its current review of Army requirements, called ``Total Army Analysis-- 2007,'' over the next few months. While I look forward to the results of ``TAA-07,'' for me the question is not whether the Army should pursue an increase of some significant magnitude in its personnel strength--the question is how much and how fast. And I think the sooner the Army leadership begins to make the case for a necessary increase, the better Congress will be prepared to address it, and, more importantly, the sooner the troops will feel that some relief is coming. To explain my reasoning, I want to walk through, step by step, how shortfalls in Army personnel levels have developed in the post-Cold War period and how they have affected the people in the service. To begin with, like the other services, the Army has drawn down force levels substantially since the end of the Cold War. At the end of fiscal year 1987, the Army had 780,000 active duty troops. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the Army's authorized end-strength will be down to 480,000 troops, which is 38% less. In fact, the Army is actually falling considerably short of its authorized troop level--as of April 30 of this year, there were 469,314 active duty troops in the service. The Army's cut in end-strength is roughly commensurate with cuts in the size of the force structure, that is, in the number of units in the force. Over the last 12 years, the Army has come down from 18 active divisions to 10, which is a reduction of 44%. The number of brigades has come down somewhat less, because almost all Army divisions are now wholly filled with active duty units rather than some being filled with round-out units from the National Guard, as in the past. As it has turned out, however, simply shrinking Cold War troop levels in proportion to cuts in the Cold War force structure has not been appropriate in coping with post-Cold War demands on the force. The root cause of the problem is that the Army has deliberately maintained--in the post Cold-War environment as it did during the Cold War--a somewhat larger force structure than it has people to fill. If you take a table or organization for the entire active duty Army today, and count up all the jobs in the organization--including combat jobs, headquarters staff, training, medical, and other support positions--you will come up with a requirement for about 540,000 full time uniformed personnel. As I said, the Army actually has an authorized end-strength of 480,000, which is 60,000 troops, or about 11 percent, below the level need to fully man the organizational structure. During the Cold War, and to some degree even today, it made sense to fall somewhat short of filling all the Army's positions. As the Defense Department has said in its annual ``Manpower Requirements Report,'' During peacetime, it is neither necessary nor desirable to fill all positions in all units. Some units may not be staffed at all, due to a lack of funding or because we can fill them in an expeditious manner following mobilization. Some units may be staffed with a combination of active and reserve people. As a unit is tasked to perform more in peacetime, the proportion of full-time people, whether active, reserve, or civilian, may be expected to increase. This explains the underlying premise of the manning policies of the Army, and, to differing degrees, of the other services. In peacetime, units deployed on missions and units designated to deploy early in a conflict, are maintained at full or close-to-full manning levels, while units designated to deploy later and many support activities are maintained at lower levels. In the event of a conflict, critical needs can be filled by reassigning people within the force or by tapping other sources of personnel--including recent retirees who still have an obligation or members of the individual ready reserve, IRR, which is mainly composed of people who have not reenlisted after completing their contractual tours of duty, but who also have a period of obligation remaining. This system makes sense if you are preparing for an all-out war with the Soviet Union and its allies, as in the Cold War, or for two major theater wars, as planners initially assumed in the post-Cold War era. If the prospect of a major conflict arises, then you do whatever it takes to get the force fully prepared--you take people out of the training system and put them into combat units; you mobilize reserve units and assign some personnel to active units to fill them out; you call back recent retirees and members of the individual ready reserve as needed to fill critical positions. The fully manned Army organization is really a wartime organization, which is not necessary to maintain in peacetime. In the post-Cold War period, however, we have found that peacetime is not what it used to be. It is not a period in which the Army--or the other services--can focus simply on preparing for the most demanding conflicts in the future. The world is a dangerous place--now. Iraq and North Korea have simmered, threatening to flare into regional crises. India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons and are currently engaged in a territorial dispute. Peace in Bosnia and Kosovo confound a neat, easy solution. Terrorism still rears its ugly head. Since the end of the Cold War, our military has responded to an average of one crises or contingency a month, a pace of operations 300% greater than during the Cold War. Some may argue that we should simply decrease our pace of operations. They would be wrong. The United States must remain engaged in the world. Our global engagement prevents the growth of malevolent powers that could threaten our security. Our engagement provides stability in a world more globally dependent than at any time in history. The world's stability affects our stability. It is simply in America's interests to shape the peace. The post-Cold War era is a period in which forces have been required to prepare for major theater wars and also to participate in recurring peacekeeping operations, to maintain a constant, active forward presence, and to engage in an extraordinarily broad range of exercises and other activities, with long-time allies and former foes, as part of a policy of international engagement. Senior Army officers have said that this so-called ``peacetime'' has actually been as demanding for the force as a major theater war would be. There is, of course, one big difference--unlike a war, the current demands never go away. There is the strong possibility that if we continue with the high operational tempo, and I foresee no let-up, we will truly end up with a hollow Army. A policy of not fully manning later deploying units and of not fully manning many critical support functions would make sense if peacetime were actually peaceful, such as during the 1920s and 1930s. But such a policy does not make sense when a wartime level of demand is constantly being imposed on precisely the forces that are deliberately being undermanned on the assumption that they can be built up in the event of a crisis. The effects of this policy have been very deterimental for large parts of the Army. Last year and this, subcommittees of the House Armed Services Committee held a number of hearings to explore the impact of the demanding post-Cold War pace of operations on personnel readiness in different services--including hearings in Norfolk, in Naples Italy, and in San Diego. Last year, at the request of the Committee, the General Accounting Office also surveyed personnel readiness in later-deploying active Army divisions. While I won't go into great detail on what we learned from these investigations, I will highlight a few points that illustrate what I see to be the general situation. First of all, the Army, as I said earlier, has followed a policy of most fully manning early deploying divisions, while later-deploying units and many support units are less fully manned. The problem is that later-deploying units, by definition, are the units expected to be available for contingency operations, such as those in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and now Kosovo. In particular, later-deploying Army units include brigades deployed in Europe, where forces are expected not only to deploy to Bosnia and elsewhere, but also to be actively involved in engagement exercises with allies and others in the region. When a Europe-based brigade sends part of its force into Bosnia, the units being deployed there have to be fully manned to carry out the mission. But this will further deplete a brigade that to begin with is manned at only 90% of total authorized strength. The problems become particularly acute because troop shortages are never evenly distributed. So if there is an Army-wide shortage at certain grades or in certain specialties, later-deploying units will be even shorter in those positions. Spending part of the force on a mission can virtually strip the remainder of the unit of key personnel. And because there is an Army-wide policy of not fully manning certain support positions, including positions as important to mission support as intelligence and communications, shortages in some areas leave some units with virtually no capability on hand. The General Accounting Office survey I referred to gave some dramatic examples of the effect: At the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, only 16 of 116 M1A1 tanks had full crews and were qualified, and in one of the Brigade's two armor battalions, 14 of 58 tanks had no crewmembers assigned because the personnel were deployed to Bosnia. In addition, at the Division's engineer brigade in Germany, 11 of 24 bridge teams had no personnel assigned. [C]aptains and majors are in short supply Army-wide due to drawdown initiatives undertaken in recent years. The five later-deploying divisions had only 91 percent and 78 percent of the captains and majors authorized, respectively, but 138 percent of the lieutenants authorized. The result is that unit commanders must fill leadership positions in many units with less experienced officers than Army doctrine requires. For example, in the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry division, 65 percent of the key staff positions designated to be filled by captains were actually filled by lieutenants or captains that were not graduates of the Advanced Course. There is also a significant shortage of the NCOs in the later- deploying divisions. Again, within the 1st Brigade, 226, or 17 percent of the 1,450, total NCO authorizations, were not filled at the time of our visit. [T]o deploy an 800-soldier task force [to Bosnia] last year, the Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team had to reassign 63 soldiers within the brigade to serve in infantry squads of the deploying unit, strip nondeploying infantry and armor units of maintenance personnel, and reassign NCOs and support personnel to the task force from throughout the brigade. These actions were detrimental to the readiness of the nondeploying units. For example, gunnery exercises for two armor battalions had to be canceled and 43 of 116 tank crews became unqualified on the weapon system. Mr. Speaker, I know that other Members of the House have gone on their own fact-finding trips to Europe, and almost everyone comes back with the same story--that Army personnel would talk their ears off about shortfalls in personnel and the killing effect this has on the day-to-day operational tempo. These concerns come not mainly from forces actually deployed on missions, but from forces left behind to take up the slack. I am here to tell you that these are not just a few isolated cases--they reflect a very wide-spread situation in later- deploying Army units, because there just are not enough people to go around given the operational requirements. To test that proposition, I asked the Army Legislative Liaison office to provide me with a rundown of the current personnel situation in each of the 10 active divisions. They did a good job of it--in particular I want to thank Lt. Col. Joe Guzowski and Lt. Col. Craig Deare for putting together very useful, well organized data very quickly. I am afraid I may have contributed a bit to the overwork problem I'm discussing here today, but, as usual, they came through. The information they collected shows especially severe personnel shortfalls in units deployed in Europe, more isolated and less serious problems in some other later-deploying divisions, and generally good personnel levels in early-deploying divisions. Here are a few excerpts: 1st Infantry Division (Germany) The Division is 94% assigned strength and 88% available strength and 86% deployable strength. Available senior grade is 88%. They have a shortage of 436 NCOs, 73% of their required Majors and 84% of required Captains, which continue to cause junior leaders to fill vacant positions. The Division remains critical in maintenance supervisors, to include Aviation maintenance warrant examiners . . . which remain at 0% fill. The Division's MI Military Intelligence battalion is below for the eleventh consecutive month and without extensive augmentation is not capable of performing sustained combat operations. 1st Armored Division (Germany) [Which will take on the KFOR mission in Kosovo] [Due to] shortages of soldiers in critical division competencies resulting from deployment on contingency operations, the division cannot deploy to meet assigned . . . missions without augmentation and training time. Personnel trained in critical division competencies are deployed on contingency operations. These training issues make the division unable to function effectively for division level operations without extensive assistance. The continued downward trend in NCO strength (85%, short 724 NCOs) hinders the division's ability to provide adequate supervision and training. 4th Infantry Division (Fort Hood, Texas and Fort Carson, Colorado) The division remains at borderline . . . Senior grade shortages continue to be primary concern. The [overall] personnel strength percentages continue to mask critical shortages. Captains and Majors are short . . . NCOs are short . . . [by] 450. 10th Infantry Division [Which is preparing to deploy to Bosnia] The division's aggregate strength and infantry squad manning are at the highest levels in over 18 months and continue to improve. . . . NCO shortages were the primary reason for . . . failure. The shortage of field artillery NCOs . . . is placing junior soldiers into critical positions that require a greater experience base to effectively lead gun crews. Of the 44 howitzers authorized, all are combat capable, but only 22 are fully manned and qualified. [We] project [that] some subordinate units preparing to deploy will improve and units remaining on Fort Drum will decrease their overall C [readiness] ratings. Mr. Speaker, the shortages in personnel in later deploying units and in many support positions is, in my view, seriously damaging the overall readiness of the Army. General Shinseki essentially acknowledged that in his confirmation hearing. The Army, he said, is currently able to meet its primary strategic mandate, which is to be prepared to prevail in two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. But the requirement to prevail in the second theater, he warned, could be accomplished only with ``high risk.'' In the vernacular of the military in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, this is a carefully crafted way of saying that the situation is not acceptable. To say that the mission is ``high risk'' is to say at the very least that the Army would suffer unacceptably high casualties in the event of a conflict. Just as importantly, in my view, it is to say that the units involved are not able to attain the standards which the service has established. For the professional men and women who serve in the force, this is a terribly frustrating situation. It is reflected in complaints that units sent for exercises to the Army's combat training centers in California, Louisiana, and Germany are not as capable as they used to be because shortages have limited the extent and quality of preparatory training at their home bases. It is reflected in the difficulty the service has had in retaining its most highly skilled and accomplished personnel. It is reflected, as well, in evidence of increasing strains on military families caused by frequent and unplanned deployments and excessive workloads when people are at home. Mr. Speaker, the Army has tried valiantly to adjust to the demands of the post-Cold War environment by managing shortfalls in personnel as best it could. The leadership of the Army has tried to ensure that first-to-fight units have what they need, and, for the rest, they have demonstrated remarkable creativity and flexibility in allocating personnel to fill urgent requirements created by contingency operations and other demands. They have done a good job. The U.S. Army remains the best in the world, and perhaps, the best Army ever in this country or elsewhere. When called upon to perform difficult and demanding missions, the Army has responded magnificently. But this has come at a price. The continued high pace of operations, the continued turbulence in the force, the continued need to assign hundreds and even thousands of people to temporary duty, the need for others to work harder to make up for shortfalls--all of this is eroding the readiness of the force. The Army needs to work with Congress beginning today to fix the problem. We need to add enough personnel to the force to meet the demands of the post-Cold War world without wearing out so many of the wonderful men and women on whom our security depends. We are wearing them out, Mr. Speaker. It is up to Congress to correct the problem.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great patriot, a man amongst men and a Marine's Marine. After almost forty years of devoted service to this Nation, General Charles C. Krulak, 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps, will soon receive his final orders directing him to stand-down and retire from active duty. His departure will signal an evolutionary change--the first time in 70 years that a Krulak will be absent from the roles of the United States Marine Corps. After graduating from the Naval Academy in 1964, General Krulak had an illustrious career that spanned four decades of faithful service to this Nation. During his service to our country General Krulak commanded a platoon and two rifle companies during two tours of duty in Vietnam; he commanded a Marine infantry rifle battalion; was the Commanding General for 10th Marine Expeditionary Brigade; Assistant Division Commander for 2d Marine Division, Fleet Marine Forces Atlantic; Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group; Commanding General, 6th Marine Expeditionary Brigade; commanded the 2d Force Service Support Group during the Gulf War; commanded Marine Forces Pacific/ Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, and on June 29, he was promoted to General and assumed duties as the 31st Commandant on June 30, 1995. General Krulak's decorations and medals include: the Silver Star Medal; Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V'' and two gold stars; Purple Heart with gold star; Combat Action Ribbon; Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry; the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; and the Kuwait Liberation Medal. It is during his tenure as the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps to which this body has come to know and appreciate the many virtues of this modern day warrior. His accomplishments as Commandant will resonate long and far into the next millennium, ensuring the Marine Corps remains the world's premier crisis response force. A professional force that is committed, capable, and reliable to meet any challenge, under any circumstance, anytime and anyplace in the world. The challenges which will confront this Nation in the 21st century will be varied and often unpredictable--a time of asymmetry, uncertainty, and chaos. Fortunately, General Krulak had the wisdom and foresight to understand the emergence of this fluid and unstable environment. He understood the necessity to field an agile and adaptable force--a Corps of Marines who could prevail against the multifaceted threats which would challenge our Nation's security and its interests. General Krulak understood the situation at hand. He understood, not merely the importance to modernize the force, but to develop new concepts and techniques which will ensure decisive victory in the ``savage wars of peace.'' He forged his Corps of Marines through unrelenting sacrifice, initiative, and courage . . . He labored extensively within the naval services to develop common operational concepts to support the strategic vision expressed in ``Forward . . . From the Sea.'' He diligently exercised oversight of the Marine Corps in its roles as lead or executive agency within the Department of Defense for Military Operations Other Than War, Military Operations on Urban Terrain, and Non-Lethal Weapons. He promoted the institutionalization of the Combat Development System and the Concepts Based Requirements System in the Marine Corps. These systems ensured that Marine Corps doctrine, organization, training and education, equipment and supporting activities were all driven by, and working toward achieving, a common operational warfighting concept. He created the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory as a standing forum to serve as the cradle and test bed for the development of enhanced operational concepts, tactics, techniques, procedures, and doctrine which would be progressively introduced into the fleet Marine Forces in concert with new technologies. He directed the creation of the Marine Corps' Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force to assist in filling a void in the Nation's ability to manage the consequences of a chemical or biological incident. This force has been employed on several instances at the national level, and has prompted the development of additional consequence management capabilities throughout DoD. He created and implemented the ``Transformation Process'' of making Marines--a holistic approach to recruiting and developing young men and women to ensure they have the skills and basic character needed to effectively meet the asymmetric 21st century threat. Transformation, which begins with a prospective recruit's first contact with a Marine recruiter and continues throughout a Marine's service, constituted a major enhancement to the way the Marine Corps recruits and trains Marines. He labored extensively to institutionalize the Marine Corps' ``core values'' of honor, courage, and commitment while maintaining--and in many cases elevating--performance standards in every aspect of Marine Corps' recruiting and developmental processes--be they mental, physical or moral. There are many more accomplishments that could be enumerated upon here--accomplishments that speak to programs and doctrine, to systems and platforms. But, to focus on these, as daunting as they are, would be an injustice to the most important aspect of General Krulak's storied career--the care and nurturing of the Marine Corps family. He created the Personnel and Family Readiness Division within Headquarters Marine Corps to account for the fact that personal and family readiness are inseparable from combat readiness. General Krulak not only pursued making better Marines, capable of winning our Nation's future battles, but also to make better Americans. He promoted a focus on character development and high ethical and moral standards. He stressed core values of honor, courage, and commitment as a way of life in the Corps. They are attributes that will serve them well, long after they have hung up their uniforms. A key contributor to the Marine Corps family and a person General Krulak owes much success to is his wife, Sandy Krulak. She gave dignity and grace to the maturation of the Marine Corps family. She has devoted her life to her husband and to the Corps. Her sacrifice and devotion has served as an example and inspiration for others. Later this month the Corps will lose not one, but two very exceptional people. In closing I want to recognize General Krulak for his uncompromising integrity to always do the right thing, for the Nation and his beloved Corps. His unwavering conviction that ``Semper Fidelis'' is a way of life, not just a motto, speaks powerfully to the citizens he serves. It has been my good fortune--it has been the House good fortune--to witness the resolve of a person who believes so strongly about the institution to which he serves. Now, to some that might seem old fashioned and out-of-step with societies norms today, but to General Krulak it is the life and blood that sustains the Corps. He fought hard to address readiness and modernization issues before the Senate Armed Services Committee when it was not always popular to do so. He challenged the logic and assertion by many of the benefits concerning integrated training during indoctrination into the military. Today, the Corps is meeting its recruiting requirements, forty-eight months consecutively and achieved its retention goals--a testimony to the wisdom and foresight of General Krulak. General Krulak, the Marine Corps is a better institution today than it was four years ago. Your sacrifice and devotion to duty have made it so. You have provided a significant and lasting contribution to your Corps and to this Nation's security. Through your stewardship there is a renewed sense of esprit de corps. Those who follow your example will be a testament to the legacy you leave behind. I want to wish you and your family fair winds and following seas as you step down as the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps. Your distinguished and faithful service to our country is greatly appreciated. You will be sorely missed, but surely not forgotten.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the City of Lebanon, Missouri, celebrated ``Dr. J.M. Saeger Appreciation Day'' on June 16, 1999. Dr. Saeger was honored by the City of Lebanon for his 30 years of service on the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority, where he also served as board president for many years. Dr. Saeger has a long history of public service. A veteran of World War II, he faithfully served his country in the military. He also served as the official Lebanon weather observer for the National Weather Service for 26 years. Dr. Saeger, who holds a doctorate in chiropractic medicine, continues to practice. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to Dr. Saeger for his dedication to his community and selfless public service. [From the Lebanon (MO) Daily Record, June 17, 1999] Dr. Saeger Honored for 30 Years of Service Dr. J.M. Saeger of Lebanon was honored by friends, family and the Lebanon community Wednesday at St. Francis De Sales Family Center during a surprise birthday party. Dr. Saeger and his family include Joan Harris, Ken Harris, Joey Harris, 7, and Jake Harris, 6, of St. Charles, Dr. Saeger of Lebanon, Angela Prost, and Tom Prost of Columbia, IL, Rita Cole, and Hayley Cole, 2, of Springfield, and Vivian Smith of Kansas City. Lebanon Mayor Bud Allen, State Sen. John T. Russell and State Rep. Beth Long attended the celebration where a proclamation was signed making June 16, 1999, Dr. J.M. Saeger Appreciation Day in Lebanon. Dr. Saeger has served on the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Lebanon for 30 years, serving as board president for many years. He served his country in the military and as a veteran of World War II. He served as the official Lebanon weather observer for the National Weather Service for 26 years. Dr. Saeger earned his doctorate in chiropractic medicine and continues to practice.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Arlie Wayne Neal, 59, City Manager of Nevada, Missouri. Mr. Neal was born Aug. 18, 1939, in Higgenson, Arkansas, to Ira Earl and Viola Pearle Cole Neal. He married Patricia Walters on July 19, 1960, in Uxbridge Middlesex, England. Mr. Neal joined the Air Force in 1959. He served in the Viet Nam conflict and two tours in Germany and Thailand. He served for 31 years, retiring in 1990 at the rank of Colonel. His decorations include the Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, the Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters and the Legion of Merit Medal. Mr. Neal was the City Manager in Frontenac, Missouri, prior to his move to Nevada, Missouri in 1993. He served as City Manager of Nevada from 1993 to present. Mr. Neal was active in the community. He managed the Nevada Boxing Club for the past four and one-half years. He was also a member of the All Saints' Episcopal Church in Nevada, Missouri. He belonged to many running clubs in Germany and Mississippi, participating in numerous marathons. He was a member of the Kansas City Golden Gloves Boxing Association, and coach of the year in 1997. Survivors include his wife, Patricia; his four daughters, Carol Ann Michaels, Donna Davenport, Patricia New, and Sara Lundin; his mother, Pearle Neal, three brothers, Earl, Jimmy, and Archie; one sister, Rita Davis, and six grand-children. Mr. Speaker, I know this body joins me in expressing sympathy to the family of this great Missourian.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Colonel (Retired) Theodore Wilson Guy, United States Air Force, of Sunrise Beach, Missouri. Colonel Guy was born April 18, 1929, in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Theopholus Wilson and Edwina LaMonte Guy. He was a highly decorated fighter pilot in Korea and Vietnam and was a prisoner of war for five years and one month in Laos and Vietnam. In March, 1968, his plane went down in Laos and he was the first military officer captured in Laos. He was eventually interned in North Vietnam and spent over four years in solitary confinement while a P.O.W. Colonel Guy received the Air Force Cross, Silver Star with one oak leaf cluster, the Distinguished Flying Cross with three oak leaf clusters, the Air Medal with 12 oak leaf clusters and the Purple Heart with one oak leaf cluster. Colonel Guy retired from the Air Force in 1973. He then became national adjutant for the Order of Daedalians and in 1977, became associated with TRW, with subsequent assignment in Iran as the senior tactical advisor to the Commander, Iranian Tactical Air Command. Colonel Guy graduated from Kemper Military College in 1949, and immediately entered the Air Force, becoming a pilot in September, 1950. Except for senior service schools, his entire career was spent in Air Training Command and Tactical Air Command in the operations field. He amassed 5,700 hours of flying time--all in fighter or fighter trainer aircraft. Colonel Guy was a frequent speaker at local schools, colleges and universities throughout the United States. Colonel Guy is survived by his wife, Linda; his two sons, Ted Jr. and Michael; two stepdaughters, Elizabeth and Katherine; one brother, Donald; and three grandsons. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Guy was a dedicated airman and true patriot. 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, Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Garrett R. Crouch of Warrensburg, Missouri. Mr. Crouch was born on November 5, 1921, in Bethany, Missouri, the son of Ben G. Crouch and Nina M. Traxler Crouch. On August 29, 1948, he married Sue Robinson in Warrensburg, Missouri. Mr. Crouch was a veteran of WWII, serving in Europe with the United States Army. He was a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia, receiving a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration in 1947, and a Juris Doctor degree in 1949. He was admitted to the Missouri bar in 1949. At the time, he moved to Warrensburg, where he practiced law until 1999. He was City of Warrensburg Municipal Judge from 1981 until 1992. Mr. Crouch was active in the community. He served as Commander of Warrensburg American Legion Post No. 131 and in 1956, as State of Missouri Department Commander. He was a member and past exalted ruler of the Warrensburg Elks Lodge No. 673, a member of Central Missouri State University Board of Regents and from 1989 to 1995, served as President of the Board. He was Director and Past President for Central Missouri State University Foundation and a recipient of the Central Missouri State University Distinguished Service Award in 1995. He was also past President of the Warrensburg Rotary Club, a Paul Harris Fellow, and a member of the Missouri Bar and Johnson County Bar Association. He was a member of First Presbyterian Church of Warrensburg and a life member of the American Legion. Mr. Crouch is survived by his wife, Sue; two sons, Garrett and Jeff; and one grandson, Drew. Mr. Speaker, Garrett Crouch was a true friend through the years, to both myself and my father. He will be missed by everyone who had the privilege to know him. 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 has come to my attention that after 31 years, five Missouri state championships, 10 Missouri River Valley Conference Championships, and 13 district titles, Gil Rector of Lexington, Missouri, is retiring as Lexington High School's Head Football Coach. Coach Rector came to Lexington in 1965 as a student teacher. Upon graduation, he moved to Carrollton where he worked as an assistant coach until 1968. He returned to Lexington as head football coach during the 1968-69 school year, upon the retirement of William ``Bill'' Hamann. Over the years, Coach Rector has coached many young men on the fundamentals of football and how to become champions. One of the many highlights of his career was in 1980 when the Lexington Minutemen won the State Championship. Lexington High School had been denied a shot at the state title the previous year, despite an undefeated season, because of a point system which kept the team for qualifying for the State Championship. In 1980, the team continued its winning streak, going on to win a co-championship with John Burroughs High School of St. Louis, Missouri. Coach Rector knows exactly what it takes to have a competitive program. His statistics include a 25 game winning streak from 1975-81. This accomplishment is the longest streak in the history of Lexington Football, and is still untouched by any other team in the Missouri River Valley Conference. Mr. Speaker, Coach Rector was a winner who will be sorely missed by all who knew him at Lexington High School. I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this fine Missourian.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to recognize the outstanding service to our Nation of General Dennis J. Reimer, the Army's 33rd Chief of Staff who will retire on June 21, 1999. General Reimer's career spanned over 36 years during which he distinguished himself as a soldier, leader, and trusted advisor to both the President and the U.S. Congress. As chief of Staff, General Reimer prepared our Nation's Army well for the challenges of the 21st Century. He leaves the Army trained and ready, a disciplined force that supports our Nation and its interests in 81 countries around the globe. In a period fraught with leadership challenges, General Reimer defined the Army's values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage throughout the total force. As a result of his efforts, he created a seamless force which maximizes the unique and complementary capabilities of its three components--Active, Army Reserve and National Guard, creating a ``Total Army.'' He can take great pride in the Army's accomplishments and preparedness. General Reimer created the vision and set the stage for the Army of the 21st Century, a strategically responsive force. Throughout his career, General Reimer distinguished himself in numerous command and staff positions with U.S. Forces stationed both overseas and in the continental United States. In Asia, he served two tours of duty in Vietnam and a tour in Korea. In Europe his assignments included Commander, Division Artillery and Chief of Staff of the 8th Infantry Division. General Reimer's stateside assignments included serving as the Commanding General, 4th Infantry Division, at Fort Carson, Colorado, and Commanding General, Forces Command, at Fort McPherson, Georgia. Since June 1995, General Reimer has served in his present assignment as the 33rd U.S. Army Chief of Staff. Mr. Speaker, General Reimer has dedicated his life to our soldiers and our Nation. He has served our Nation with honor and distinction. I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to this outstanding American patriot and wishing him well upon his retirement from the Army. He is truly a ``Leader of Leaders'' and will be sorely missed.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a distinguished career in teaching has come to an end. The Honorable Tom Hayes, Principal of Lexington Middle School, recently retired after 34 years as a teacher, coach, counselor, and administrator. Mr. Hayes started teaching in the Lexington school system as a student teacher in the spring of 1965. He was offered a contract to teach full time in the fall of the same year. Mr. Hayes served as a teacher, coach, and counselor until 1986, when he left Lexington to take a position in the St. James School District. In 1993, Mr. Hayes found his way back to Lexington to serve as principal at the Middle School. Mr. Hayes educated Missouri's youth and enjoyed watching his students grow and mature into adults. He is also gratified when the young people he taught come back to him years later as adults to thank him. As a coach, he coached multiple championship teams, both in football and wrestling. Through hard work focusing on fundamentals, he helped average athletes develop into skilled players. Although Mr. Hayes has retired from the Lexington School District, he is still an active community member as the Mayor of Lexington, Missouri. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hayes had an outstanding career in education, and he will surely be missed by everyone at Lexington Middle School. I wish him and his wife Sherry 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. I understand that.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, a number of years ago the famous author Barbara Tuchman wrote a book, ``March of Folly,'' wherein she set forth a good number of examples where governments made actions and decisions contrary to their own best interests. It is my intent today to keep that from happening. We in this Congress, this great deliberative body in which I am thrilled to be a Member, we should not, number one, send a signal not just our troops, but to the world, that we wish to cut off funds, but we should not gamble with this matter at all. I fully intend to seek the President's offering of a supplemental to us. He told me he would. He also told me he would do it in a timely fashion. I certainly hope that comes to pass. Even if he does, it is a very timely request for a supplemental. What happens if there is a long holiday or it gets hung up in the Senate, or there is a disagreement over putting another supplemental together with it? What happens if we run out of time on September 30? Congress will be the laughing stock of the world, and we would all have very embarrassed faces. We do not want that to happen. We do not want that to happen at all. So, with that in mind, I would certainly hope that my amendment would be adopted, that we can get on with our business. And, Mr. Chairman, the sad problem is, the real sad analogy is that this is a great bill, the best one I have seen, the best one I have seen since early 1980s. It really helps the young people in uniform. And to mess it up with an issue like this, sending wrong signals, and as a practical legal matter, we would have young men and young women doing peacekeeping; if a supplemental gets hung up for 2 weeks, we cannot feed them, we cannot clothe them, we cannot give them ammunition. That would be a terrible reflection upon this wonderful deliberative body. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Shays-Frank amendment which would reduce American troops in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000. If American troops were deployed in Europe only for the purpose of defending Europe, I might support the amendment. However, the fact is that an overseas presence in Europe is in the interest of the United States because it is an essential element for our engagement in the world. Despite the fact that it entails costs, it carries risks. There is no alternative but to have continued American engagement in the world. We have a responsibility to use our unchallenged position of global leadership in a fashion that will make the universeal hope for peace, prosperity and freedom the norm of international behavior. Engagement is essential to our military security. Military engagement abroad is essential to build and enforce a more peaceful, cooperative world in which human rights, fair trade practices, and other interests and values can flourish. Effective international engagement requires an active and extensive military involvement abroad, especially in Europe. A military presence in Europe serves us in many ways. It contributes to regional stability. U.S. forces serve both as a bulwark to existing security agreements and, in turn, to aggression in the region. It enhances our ability to respond to crises around the globe. It is a visible demonstration of our committment to NATO and alliance that has maintained the peace and stability for Europe for 50 years. I might mention, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to be present when the three new nations joined NATO just a number of weeks ago in Independence, Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. policy of engagement has been a success largely due to the performance of our military. Although the struggle for international peace may never be concluded, we must continue to make this effort. It is an effort we cannot make without a well- equipped, highly trained, and ready military force. Deployment in Europe is essential to our readiness and to our ability to meet and deter other threats. We should reject, Mr. Chairman, this amendment.

Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.