inclusion of both questions and answers within the individual committee member's 5 minutes.

Mr. Skelton, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE IKE SKELTON, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Pelosi, I do thank you for this opportunity to make recommendations to the Select Committee from the Armed Services Committee on H.R. 5005.

The members of the Armed Services Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to support the President's efforts to create a Department of Homeland Security, and I agree with my colleagues that establishing this Homeland Security Department is appropriate. Let me give this caveat, if I may. I only wish that the administration's proposal had been presented in a way that put forward a central homeland security strategy first.

Mr. Chairman, the strategy which was presented only yesterday would have been more helpful to the standing committees-not just ours, but to the others-had we been given the opportunity to review it before making recommendations.

I am glad that this committee, this Select Committee, will have the opportunity to review the strategy document that-homeland security document that has been set forth, and I urge you to review it in light of your very arduous duties. I don't envy the work that you have cut out for yourselves.

The Armed Services Committee was asked to examine those areas of this bill within its jurisdiction, mainly the functions being transferred from the Department of Defense and the national security elements of the Department of Energy, actually, two very nar

row areas.

The administration's proposal requests only modest transfers, and by and large, we did support those requests. We did, however, amend the underlying legislation in places to ensure that the capabilities of this new department were enhanced while not doing harm to the critical national security activities of the Department of Defense, Department of Energy.

For example, our committee authorized the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures to stand up an intelligence capability—I think this is very important—within the new department, focusing on those particular types of threats.

The committee strengthened the new department by recognizing the importance of a coordinated research and development program to achieving our homeland security goals. We designated these functions as a core mission for the Secretary. The committee also called for the establishment of a center to serve as the primary location for carrying out research and development, a national security laboratory.

The committee debated whether or not to put this in the statute, the location of this center of this laboratory, and although the administration has repeatedly mentioned the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories as its preferred site, we left the specifics of that selection up to the new Secretary of homeland defense.

This effort to provide a centralized location for research and development activities, I think is critical. There are superb scientific capabilities throughout our national laboratory system, and this new department must be able to access the very best of those capabilities to secure the American people. The committee recommends that a primary research and development location with secondary locations at other national laboratories is needed.

The committee believes these changes strengthen the new department while preserving the national security capabilities of the Departments of Defense and Energy. All told, the transfers from the Defense Department only amount to about 90 people. It is a good thing, given the disastrous policies the Defense Department is now considering-and hear me out on this-considering with regard to the size and strength of our military forces.

The Baltimore Sun published an article on July the 10th, indicating that the Pentagon is planning in fiscal year 2004 to drastically reduce the number of men and women in uniform, including 20,000-25,000 Army soldiers, 40,000 airmen, 20,000 sailors, and 5,000 Marines; in total, over 90,000 servicemen and women may be forced to leave the services according to the Baltimore Sun. Such a reduction, in my opinion, is totally unacceptable, particularly while our Nation is at war.

Now, I bring this to the Select Committee's attention, because these cuts, if undertaken, will do enormous damage to American national security. The administration's homeland security strategy contemplates the expanded use of military forces for homeland security missions.

This proposal raises serious questions about the existing law, including the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which would have to be carefully considered. But in general terms, the strategy underlines the importance of a strong U.S. military to homeland security, because what the military does at home or through the National Guard, through the civil support teams or abroad, is very, very important. If we are successful in Afghanistan and other places, then the homeland security is all the better off.

Beyond the United States, the President has publicly stated numerous times that the war on terrorism will continue for some time. And yet, while we have people searching for terrorists in Afghanistan, helping fight terrorism in the Philippines, training military forces in the Republic of Georgia, equipping and training government forces in Colombia, aiding the peace process throughout the Balkans, the Defense Secretary has contemplated reducing our troop strength. My position on this Armed Services Committee, in the work that I have done, causes me to seriously question that. Right now, we have over 85,000 Guard and Reservists doing active duty work. You wear these young people out, and yet there is-and this will have a direct effect on the legislation that you will pass out of your committee.

Well, I could tell you, and my statement reflects the fact, that in recent days the Army Chief of Staff, the Navy Chief of Naval Operations, air force chief of staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps all have recommended additional soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen; and my statement will reflect that. That was the re

ality before September the 11th, and the place of operation for our troops has only increased and been expanded since then.

So I hope that that background will give you an idea of how a good many of us on the Armed Forces Committee feel with our relation to what you do, because all of this has to work together. You cannot isolate what you do from what many do in uniform, whether it be Guard, Reserve, active duty, aboard ship, or whenever it is. The security of the United States and the security of the young folks, senior citizens, and those that are our neighbors depends upon everybody working together.

Your work product must dovetail with those in uniform, whether they be active duty, Guard, Reserve or the like. Thank you for this opportunity.

[The statement of Mr. Skelton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Pelosi. I appreciate the opportunity to explain the recommendations made by the Armed Services Committee in its amendments to H.R. 5005.

The members of the Armed Services Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to support the president's efforts to create a Department of Homeland Security. I agree with my colleagues that establishing a homeland security department may be appropriate. I only wish the president's proposal had been presented in a way that put forward a central homeland security strategy first. The strategy, presented yesterday, would have been more helpful if the standing committees had been given the opportunity to review it before making their recommendations. I am glad that the Select Committee will have that chance.

The Armed Services Committee was asked to examine those areas of H.R. 5005 within its jurisdiction-namely the functions being transferred from the Department of Defense and from the national security elements of the Department of Energy. The administration's proposal requested only modest transfers in these areas and the committee, by and large, supported those requests.

The committee did, however, amend the underlying legislation in places to ensure that the capabilities of new Department were enhanced while not doing harm to the critical national security activities of the Departments of Defense and Energy. For example, the committee authorized the Under-Secretary of Homeland Security for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures to stand up an intelligence capability within the new department focusing on these particular types of threats.

The committee strengthened the new department by recognizing the importance of a coordinated research and development program to achieving our homeland security goals. We designated these functions as a core mission for the Secretary. The committee also called for the establishment of a center to serve as the primary location for carrying out research and development at a national security laboratory of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The committee debated whether or not to put in statute the location of this laboratory, as the administration has repeatedly mentioned Lawrence Livermore as its preferred site, but we have left the specifics of this selection to the new Secretary.

The committee believes these changes strengthen the new department while preserving the national security capabilities of the Departments of Defense and Energy. All told, the transfers from the Defense Department only involve about 90 people. This is a good thing, given the disastrous policies the Defense Department is now considering with regard to the size and strength of our military forces.The Baltimore Sun published an article on July 10 indicating that the Pentagon is planning in fiscal year 2004 to drastically reduce the number of men and women in uniformincluding 20,000 to 25,000 Army soldiers, 40,000 airmen, 20,000 sailors, and 5,000 Marines. In total over 90,000 servicemen and women may be forced to leave the services. Such a reduction is totally unacceptable, particularly while our nation is at war.

I bring this to the Select Committee's attention because these cuts-if undertakenwould do enormous damage to U.S. national security. The administration's homeland security strategy contemplates the expanded use of military forces for homeland security missions. This proposal raises serious questions about existing law-in

cluding the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act-that would have to be carefully considered. But in general terms, the strategy underlines the importance of a strong U.S. military to homeland security.

Beyond the United States, President Bush has publicly stated numerous times that the war on terrorism will continue for some time. Yet, while we still have forces searching for terrorists in Afghanistan, helping fight terrorism in the Philippines, training military forces in the Republic of Georgia, equipping and training government forces in Colombia, and aiding the peace process throughout the Balkans, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is contemplating reducing our troop strength.

Such a consideration is more amazing if you consider what the chiefs of the military services have been saying for some time. In testimony before September 11, Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, told the Armed Services Committee that the Army needed 40,000 additional troops to meet its mission requirements. Admiral Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, told us he needed 14,000 more sailors. The Chief of the Air Force, General Ryan, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jones, testified that their services needed 10,000 more airmen and 4,000-5,000 more Marines respectively.

This was the reality before September 11 and the pace of operations for our troops has only increased and expanded since then. The Congress must ask Secretary Rumsfeld to reverse this trend by increasing, and not dramatically reducing, the number of men and women in uniform. This is essential to our ability to defend the American people at home and to fight nation's wars abroad.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Select Committee is able to support the recommendations of the Armed Services Committee.

Chairman ARMEY. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio.

Ms. PRYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have any questions at this point.

It is a pleasure to have you here, Mr. Skelton. Thank you for your committee's hard work on this. It is one of the most important things that this Congress will have before it and, probably, many of us have looked at in our entire careers. So thank you for your assistance with our deliberations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ARMEY. The gentlelady—or gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost.

Mr. FROST. Well, thank you very much, Ike, and I want to underscore one thing that you said.

On the document-in the document the President issued yesterday, Homeland Security, National Strategy, on page 48 in that document is one paragraph: "Federal law prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel, and if so, how.".

This is the posse comitatus that you referred to. When you put that statement side by side with the statistics that you have included in your statement, quoting from the Baltimore Sun, saying that the administration is contemplating reducing our active duty force by over 90,000 people in 2004, it is ludicrous.

It is ludicrous to think that we could reduce our standing force by 90,000, which is already fairly small and which has extraordinary demands being put upon it right now, as you indicated in your statement, and at the same time take some of that reduced

force and have them patrol our borders. I don't understand this. I think you are absolutely correct to caution us on that point.

I don't know where we go from here. This committee is not being asked at this point-if I understand correctly, there is nothing before us on the question of posse comitatus. Perhaps we would make a comment on that in any report that we would issue, but you are correct to sound the alarm about our situation and reducing our active duty forces, particularly if the administration is serious about the reports that it may-and I underscore may-invade Iraq anytime soon.

Mr. SKELTON. Our committee, in the base bill that we passed out and passed on the floor, actually increased the end strength of each of the services, reflecting testimony that-.

Mr. FROST. The defense authorization bill?

Mr. SKELTON. Yes.

Mr. FROST. Not what you sent to this committee, but the-.
Mr. SKELTON. No. Excuse me, our base bill, the authorization

bill.

Based upon testimony ranging back over 2 years, including testimony that year, where Admiral Blair, CINCPAC in the Pacific, Joe Ralston, the commander in chief in Europe, both said they didn't have enough personnel to meet their commitment, and General Buck down at the Forces Command said that the troops are stretched and strained today—and you see the active duty challenges that we have are being met by some 85,000 Guard and Reservists. And the fewer Guard and Reserves that are available for the governors or for the civil support teams or for national disasters that come along, that are outside of any of what we are talking about today, would be a detriment to many Americans.

So we have to consider this, and I raise it with this committee, because you should understand all of this works together. There is no singular part or parcel, separate from the other when you talk about homeland security or the security of our Nation.

Mr. FROST. You are exactly correct, and I—I, as one Member, appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

Chairman ARMEY. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Skelton, thank you for being here this morning to give us your learned perspective.

Just a general point: This administration has made it a priority, as you know, to increase not just the number of people in our military, but also their pay and benefits, improve their equipment, improve their training; and I know they have worked closely with you and with Chairman Stump in that regard.

As a result, we have a stronger military, and we are a flexible military.

Mr. SKELTON. We do.

Mr. PORTMAN. And I think it was interesting that they chose, in putting together this proposal to the Congress, not to include the military in the homeland security area. As you mentioned, 90 people would be transferred, and it is an office that Secretary Rumsfeld supports being moved, because it relates directly to homeland security.