[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             REGARDING THE NEED FOR A DEFENSE SUPPLEMENTAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  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 altar 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.

                          ____________________