Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this week we gather as a nation to honor the soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen, and all those who served, fought, and died in our Armed Forces in the Korean war. The Korean War Veterans Memorial, which we dedicate 42 years after the signing of the armistice of July 27, 1953, occupies a place of prominence and remembrance on the Washington Mall. This location among the grand monuments of our country is a fitting tribute to the veterans of a forgotten war that for too long has dwelt in the shadows of our history. Among the ranks of those who served in the Korean war, one group has received scant attention and recognition even to this day--the more than 7,000 prisoners of war and 8,000 still listed as missing in action. I would like to tell the story of one man, Col. Walter L. Mayo, Jr. (USA-Ret.) of McLean, VA, and Centerville, MA, who fought from the Pusan perimeter to [[Page E 1557]] the banks of the Yalu River and who spent 3 years as a prisoner of war. His story stands as testimony to the thousands of others whose heroism and sacrifice went unrecognized for too long. Walt Mayo was no stranger to combat when he arrived in Korea in 1950. A World War II veteran, he had served as a rifleman during the Battle of the Bulge and was captured by the Germans. After his release, he went to Boston College on the GI Bill, joined the ROTC program, and received a Regular Army commission on January 1, 1950. He landed in Korea on August 10 as a field artillery forward observer in the 99th Field Artillery, attached to the 3d Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, just weeks after the June 25, North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea [ROK]. There he joined the thin line of American and ROK forces that held the Pusan perimeter against 14 North Korean divisions and several tank regiments. The toll was high. By the end of his first week in combat, Lieutenant Mayo was the only survivor among the three original forward observers in his unit. By mid-September, MacArthur's landing at Inchon had combined with a breakout from the Pusan perimeter led by the 1st Cavalry to shift the tide of the war. The 8th Army pushed north to the Yalu River, crushing the remnants of the North Korean army. On Halloween, the 8th Cavalry Regiment was at the leading edge of the American forces, at the town of Unsan only miles from the Chinese border. The men did not know it, but they had reached the high-water mark of the American advance for the entire war. The Chinese Communist forces struck American units in force for the first time of the war on November 1. Lieutenant Mayo's unit, the 3d Battalion, had established a perimeter near an odd-shaped bend of the Nammyon and Kuryong rivers. The unit had received orders to withdraw, but in the morning darkness of November 2 the Chinese attacked on three sides. Scores of Chinese poured into the American position near the battalion command post, and the fighting quickly became hand-to-hand. The men regrouped around three tanks and held off enemy attacks until daylight. They dug in during the day of November 2, protected by fighter-bomber strikes. Six officers, including Lieutenant Mayo, and 200 men were left to fight. Some 170 wounded were brought inside the small perimeter. The fate of the 3d Battalion was sealed when the rest of the 1st Cavalry Division was ordered to withdraw on the evening of November 2. Completely cut off, the 3d Battalion had no further hope of rescue. But the men continued to fight, fending off wave after wave of Chinese attacks--at least six separate attacks each during the nights of November 2-3 and 3-4. As the American soldiers exhausted their ammunition, they crept out at night to collect weapons and ammunition from the dead Chinese soldiers that littered the ground around them. One soldier described Lt. Mayo during this time as ``the finest combat officer I have ever seen.'' The situation on the morning of November 4 was grim. More than 250 men lay wounded. They had almost no ammunition and the tanks had long since been destroyed. The officers decided to attempt a break-out. The battalion surgeon, Captain Anderson, and the chaplain, Father Emil Kapaun, volunteered to stay behind with the wounded. That afternoon, Lt. Mayo and three others crawled across the bodies of the dead Chinese to scout a way out of the encirclement. He found a hole in the lines and sent word back for the rest of the group to follow. The survivors broke out just as the Chinese fired a massive artillery barrage in preparation for a final attack on the perimeter. The official Army history records the 3rd Battalion's fight as the ``Ordeal Nuclear Camel's Head Bend.'' The group evaded the Chinese for 2 days. The official account states simply that, The next day, within sight of bursting American artillery shells, Chinese forces surrounded them and the battalion group, on the decision of the officers, broke up into small parties in the hope that some of them would escape. At approximately 1600 on the afternoon of 6 November the action of the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, as an organized force came to an end. Most of these men were either killed or captured that day . . . The entire 8th Calvary Regiment had lost some 600 men--a 45-percent casualty rate that meant the unit effectively ceased to exist. Walt Mayo was captured by the Chinese on November 7 and marched north for 2 weeks to Pyoktong near the Chinese border. By the end of the march, the column of American POW's had grown to almost 600 men. Walt Mayo's parents were told he was missing in action. Camp 5 at Pyoktong consisted initially of these 600 men housed 15 or 20 to a room in partially destroyed sheds and houses. The men had no way to clean themselves, little fuel, and no blankets to ward off the sub-zero temperatures. They had not received winter issue clothes before they were captured, so they only had light field jackets. The men were filthy and soon became covered with lice. Wounds became infected and sores began to break out and fester. The meager diet of cracked corn and millet took its toll, as limbs began to swell from beri-beri, night blindness struck and the men felt the effects of pellagra and other nutritional diseases. Pneumonia, hepatitis, and dysentery afflicted the weakened soldiers. The men began to die. In February, 1951, 800 more POW's, including members of the Turkish Brigade, joined the original group at Pyoktong. Members of the Royal Ulster Rifles followed in April. But the death toll among the weakened men who had been in the camp through the freezing winter of 1950-51 continued to climb. By the late spring, more than two dozen men a day were dying. The death toll did not begin to drop until August, 1951. The period from November 1950 until October 1951 was the darkest and deadliest chapter for American POW's. The Chinese did not feel they would have to account for the men, so they gave them almost nothing and sought to do little more than exploit and punish them. Some Americans gave up under the pressure of disease, deprivation, and despair. The vast majority of the 2,700 American POW deaths took place in these first 11 months, with almost 1,500 dying in Camp 2 alone. Most men held on to their dignity and a few even reached deep inside themselves to find reservoirs of great courage and strength. Father Emil Kapaun was one such man. Walt had known Father Kapaun since the Pusan perimeter, when Father Kapaun had his pipe shot out of his mouth by a sniper. He had shown incredible bravery during the ``Ordeal Near Camel's Bend,'' constantly risking his life to tend to the wounded. Father Kapaun served as constant source of cheer and inspiration in Camp 5. He ministered to the sick and dying, and emulated St. Dismas, the good thief, in stealing food from the Chinese for the men. The Chinese feared Father Kapaun and the strength of his faith. When he developed a blood clot in his leg in April, 1951, the Chinese took him away to die. Walt joined with others after the Korean war ended to dedicate a high school in Wichita, KS, in honor of Father Kapaun. They gave the school a crucifix, with a crown of barbed wire, that a Jewish officer, Jerry Fink, had painstaking carved in the camp in honor of Father Kapaun. After Father Kapaun's death, Walt tried secretly to document the horror of the camp with a movie camera that he had received from an intermediary, Corporal Buckley of the Royal Ulster Rifles, from a Private First Class Magelski. But an informant turned all three of them in to the Chinese. Their refusal to break under interrogation kept the punishment relatively light--just over 2 months in solitary confinement. Walt was thrown into a hole in the ground so small he could neither stand up nor lie down. He kept his sanity by scratching out the lessons of the Jesuits in the dirt and on scraps of paper--math equations, Latin conjugations, and anything else to resist the isolation. In November 1991, Walt and the other officers were moved to Pingchong-ni some 8 miles northeast of Pyoktong. The conditions improved slightly and the resolve, discipline, and camaraderie rose. The British officers in the camp felt a particular kinship with Walt because of his broad New England accent and dubbed him the ``boy Lieutenant.'' The men became more imaginative in their resistance to the Chinese. They had a ``crazy week'' complete with operations from an aircraft carrier sketched in the dirt. Helicopter pilot Johnny ``Roterhead'' Thornton rode an imaginary motorcycle everywhere he went. Another shaved his head, wore a feather, and told the Chinese he was a blood brother of the Mohawk Indian tribe celebrating national tom-tom week. The bonds forged there with Hank Pedicone, Bart DeLashmet, Harry Hedlund, Sid Esensten, and others have lasted to this day. Most of all, the men helped each other to survive for almost 2 more years. Under the terms of the Armistice signed on July 27, 1953, the Chinese had 60 days to return POW's. They used that as the last opportunity to punish the resisters. The ones who had caused the most problems were held to the last. Walt Mayo crossed Freedom Bridge on September 5, 1953, on the 58th day of the prisoner exchange. Of the 7,140 American POW's in the Korean war, more than 3,000 died or were never heard from again. The total number who died as prisoners was probably much higher, given that many of the 8,000 missing in action were certainly taken by the Chinese. But we know that at least two out of every five men died in captivity, a toll matched only by the POW's held by the Japanese in World War II. Walt Mayo said that he lived because of three weapons his captors could never take from him: faith in God, faith in his country, and faith in himself. He, like so many other Americans who fought in Korea, used these common values to achieve uncommon courage, [[Page E 1558]] strength, and discipline. The memorial's stark, moving depictions of weary fighting men seem to somehow capture this inner quality. It is right and proper that we at long last give this due honor to Walt Mayo and the POW's who survived; to Father Kapaun and those thousands of Americans who lie buried along the banks of the Yalu; and to all of the veterans of the Korean war.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] want to amend his language?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been working for 9 months to correct an injustice that was done as a result of this appropriations bill that was passed last year. I have been trying to find out what the source of the problem was, and it became apparent tonight who is responsible for it, but I am glad I had an opportunity to hear from my very distinguished chairman and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, on what motivated him to do this, because I do not disagree with any of the points that the gentleman from Michigan made. I had an amendment that I offered before the Committee on Rules, it was not made in order, that went much further than this particular amendment. I suspect that the gentleman from Michigan would have gotten much more excited had it been made in order. However, it is the gentleman from Michigan who should be making this amendment. Let me explain why. Last year this appropriations bill provided 265 positions to correct just the very contract management problems that my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, identified through his oversight Committee on Energy and Commerce. That was the purpose of those positions, hard- fought-for positions; unprecedented to give an agency in a time of reinventing government 265 more positions. Do Members know what the Environmental Protection Agency did once they got those 265 positions? Obviously, they had the same big smile that is on the face of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, tonight, because they sent out a guidance memo internally within EPA that said, ``These positions are not to be used to correct contract management performance problems.'' Had they been used for the purpose for which they were appropriated, this amendment would not be necessary and there would not have been any injustice done, but they were not. What happened is that EPA went out after four small contractors and they raided them. Listen to this, now. One of those was a minority contractor for 10 years. They had put their company together. They went in and bought out 75 percent of his employees. Another one that served EPA for 20 years had gotten a top quality award just last year. In September they had their contract renewed for another year. The appropriations bill passed in October. EPA went immediately to those employees, after the contract had been renewed, took their private pay stub, and converted it to a Federal paycheck. They hired all but 12 of this contractor's people. They had received a quality award. They were not guilty of any of these problems, but they went in and hired them. This company had been worth $50 million, and it is virtually worthless today. Imagine if you were that small business employer, and the Federal Government had come in and raided your employees? There is one individual in EPA, and I think this probably best explains why EPA went about this the way they did. He had a small office. He was responsible for monitoring these contracts. He now has 160 people reporting to him, and they are people that were working in the private sector who had been converted: scientists, engineers; not management people, not the people that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] was after. They were scientists and engineers that had been gathered to perform a specific function, and EPA went in and bought them out, telling them that they had no choice. Mr. Chairman, he told them they had no choice, they would lose their jobs if they did not become Federal employees. At a time when we are trying to reinvent government, we have the Federal Government going in, raiding four firms, four small contractors, all of them with top performance ratings, and that is how they used the 265 people. There was a gross injustice, it was a perversion of what was intended, and it should be overturned by supporting this amendment.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Colorado and the chairman of the subcommittee. I wanted to confirm as well the response to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs]. Mr. Chairman, you are saying that you would yield maximum flexibility to the Attorney General to determine who would be transferred and where they would be transferred from and give them an opportunity to get some feedback from the attorneys themselves, so that we would not see the loss in cost of time and money that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] referred to in the letter we received from the Assistant Attorney General? I am equally concerned that this move, which I know is intended to accomplish efficiencies, might in fact backfire because we have so many cases tried in Washington that it might wind up costing us more money, and, if there is to be a transfer, you would rely upon the advice of the Attorney General in letting the Attorney General reach those decisions on how to carry out the language that is in the report.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a very good one. As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee knows, and I think it is supported by the ranking member of the subcommittee as well, it is fiscal constraints that is the only reason why it cannot be through, but I know that when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] says he is going to do something, he comes through. We are confident that he will in this case as well. Again, we encourage him to find money in the conference for this activity. I very much applaud and appreciate the fact that my good friend from Maryland has raised the amendment.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the United States Information Agency and their continued funding of the Sister Cities International Program. The USIA is responsible for our Government's overseas academic and cultural programs. They conduct a variety of activities to promote democratic and free market values and to foster international understanding of U.S. policies. The Sister Cities Program is a vital part of this effort. I am proud to demonstrate my support for this worthwhile cause, and as a former mayor, Alexandria, VA, I am pleased to submit for the Record the attached letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors International Affairs Committee. Sister Cities International, June 17, 1995. An Open Letter to Congress: We, the undersigned Mayors of The U.S. Conference of Mayors' International Affairs Committee, urge our elected Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress to preserve important United States Information Agency (USIA) supported programs such as Sister Cities International that enable us to build bridges with communities overseas. Through programs supported by the USIA, diverse elements from our communities-business, working people, educators, and many individuals and organizations-have forged strong economic and cultural ties with their international counterparts. These vibrant programs have afforded us the opportunity to create people to people relationships which have brought countless contributions to our communities. The special relationships developed as a result of these international partnerships reap tangible returns for the modest resources that are used to sustain them. Across the United States, substantial construction projects, special trade relationships, provided direct access to foreign markets for American goods and services, and increased tourism are just a few of the ways they have boosted our local economies and enhanced international understanding. The lives of our citizens and their children, in their homes and in their classrooms, are enriched by interacting with people from our sister cities. It is important for the people of our communities to gain a better understanding of just how interdependent our world is. For some of our citizens this may be the only exposure they will ever receive to people who live in other countries. We are united in our belief that for many reasons our communities are strengthened when we are internationally engaged. We [[Page E 1469]] call upon you to maintain the modest funding USIA currently receives to support these programs. Sincerely, Patricia S. Ticer, Mayor of Alexandria, VA; Jerry E. Abramson, Mayor of Louisville, KY; Cardell Cooper, Mayor of East Orange, NJ; Susan S. Weiner, Mayor of Savannah, GA; Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor of Virginia Beach, VA; Leonard M. Creary, Mayor of Lyndhurst, OH; Kane Ditto, Mayor of Jackson, MS; Mike Johanns, Mayor of Lincoln, NB; Mary Rhodes, Mayor of Corpus Christi, TX; Joseph P. Ganim, Mayor of Bridgeport, CT; Saul N. Ramirez, Jr., Mayor of Laredo, TX; Patsy Jo Hilliard, Mayor of East Point, GA; Richard A. Lang, Mayor of Modesto, CA; Raul J. Valdes-Fauli, Mayor of Coral Gables, FL; James S. Whitaker, Mayor of Lynchburg, VA; Jack Geraghty, Mayor of Spokane, WA; Neil G. Giuliano, Mayor of Tempe, AZ; Raul G. Villaronga, Mayor of Killeen, TX; Dennis W. Archer, Mayor of Detroit, MI; Norm Coleman, Mayor of St. Paul. MN; Gus Morrison, Mayor of Freemont, CA; Dr. William E. Ward, Mayor of Chesapeake, VA; J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor of Elizabeth, NJ; H. Brent Coles, Mayor of Boise, ID; Gerald Wright, Mayor of West Valley City, UT; Martin J. Chavez, Mayor of Albuquerque, NM; Chuck Hazama, Mayor of Rochester, MN; Ann Azari, Mayor of Fort Collins, CO; Martha S. Wood, Mayor of Winston-Salem, NC; Charles V. Smith, Mayor of Westminster, CA; Robert A. Pastrick, Mayor of East Chicago, IN; Lynn F. Pett, Mayor of Murray, UT; Charles A. DeVaney, Mayor Augusta, GA; Peter A. Clavelle, Mayor of Burlington, VT; and Charles E. Box, Mayor of Rockford, IL.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 535 on H.R. 1976 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record immediately following rollcall vote No. 535.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, for yielding time to me. He has fought long and hard on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that we are ever going to permanently resolve it. I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], I admire his deep-seated, sincere, emotional commitment on this issue. I wish that more people in this country felt as strongly about such an important issue as the gentleman from New Jersey does. In many ways, yes, it is a human rights issue. However, I think the real issue that we have to face is who makes the decision. It is not really a matter of my trying to dissuade the gentleman from his strongly held views on abortion. I could not do that, because I do not particularly disagree with the gentleman from New Jersey. However, I would suggest that it is not up to him to make that decision for millions of women in this country, particularly those who are covered by the Federal employees health benefits plan. We have already increased the retirement contribution, we have made sure that any Federal employee now has reason to feel insecure about their job, we have cut 272,900 positions, we have reduced their retirement benefits at the end, when they are ready to retire, and we are now capping their health insurance subsidy that the Federal Government provides, so it is a much worse plan than they would get in a large corporation. Now we are saying that any woman and family who is employed by the Federal Government is going to be discriminated against in terms of their ability to make a decision with regard to the most personal, private, difficult medical conflicts that will occur in their lives. We are going to make that decision for them. There are 78 million women who have this coverage in the private sector, but because we control the Federal employees health benefits plan, we are going to take away this decision from women who work for our Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, the American Medical Association looked at this extensively. It is the doctors who we should consult [[Page H 7188]] when we make this decision. They came up with the conclusion that when you deny insurance coverage, invariably it leads to very serious complications, it causes women to have to delay an abortion when they would want to do it immediately, before a fetus is formed, but they look around for money to pay for the procedure, and then they have a procedure after the fetus is much further along, which is certainly not what the gentleman from New Jersey or his colleagues would want to happen. It also endangers the life of the woman having the procedure. That is wrong. What we are trying to do in imposing our moral decisions on all the women who are covered by the Federal employees health benefits plan is wrong. We have no right to be doing this. There is a woman in my district, a Federal employee, she has two children. She got pregnant a third time. She had amniocentesis. It turns out that the fetus had Tay Sachs disease. She knew that that fetus, once born, was not going to live very long. Its spine would not be formed, it was going to have any number of diseases. Its brain probably would not be functioning. It would only suffer after being brought into this world. She had to make a very difficult decision, because she is a very moral person, as all the people that we are talking about denying this coverage to are moral people trying to do the right thing. She felt it was in the best interests of that life within her body and of her family, to have an abortion. She did not want to have it. But it was the most responsible thing to do. Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and others would make that decision for her. She will no longer have that option. That option is foreclosed to her. That is wrong. The view of the gentleman from New Jersey on abortion is not necessarily wrong. But it is wrong to be so intolerant of people who have different views. To impose one's moral decisions like that on others, just because we have the power of the purse, is wrong. We should not be doing it to Federal employees. We should not be doing it to women. We should be trusting women to make their own moral decisions on such profoundly important matters that will affect their bodies, their lives, and their families. I urge the Members, please do not include this in the bill, and support the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend from New York and my friend from New Jersey. I was recently in Kosova. It is an unbelievable situation. There are 60,000 paramilitary people, military officers, policemen, who are controlling 2 million Albanian Kosovans. They are controlling them in the most brutal way possible, with constant murders, beatings, rapes, wholesale thefts of property. In fact, when President Milosevic of Serbia, who represents only 5 percent of the population, forced the withdrawal of the CSCE human rights monitors in July 1993, the incidents of beatings, rapes, and murders has gone up by 85 percent. We went to the office that documented all of these atrocious, indescribable, brutal acts, and, you know, the police had just been there, had beaten up the staff, had stolen all the documentation. The lawyer who attempted to intervene to complain, he was visited at his apartment and bludgeoned on the head for it. This has to change. I support the amendment very strongly.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report and would point out that this budget resolution will inflict a brutal blow on Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the budget resolution because of the cuts it imposes on our Nation's Federal employees. The budget resolution increases the contributions that Federal employees pay into their retirement system. The Republicans have pledged to make the Federal Government work more like the private sector. But in the private sector, 97 percent of all medium and large companies fully finance their employees' pension plan. Federal employee contributions to their retirement system are among the highest in the Nation. The resolution increases those contributions. For their increased contributions to their pension plans, Federal employees will receive less. The Congressional Research Service has already estimated that Federal pensions are less generous than comparable private sector pension. We are going to make these pensions even worse by changing the accrual formula from high three to high five. This will reduce the Federal annuity by 4 percent. Republicans talk about the need to operate the Federal retirement system like a private pension plan. But this change would be illegal in the private sector. Finally, the Republicans are proposing draconian cuts in the operation of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The budget resolution proposes to cap the government investment at $1,535 for individuals and $3,430 for families. This cap grows with inflation over the next 7 years. While this sounds reasonable, this proposal will have serious consequences for the average Federal employee and his family. As we all know, health care inflation is much higher than changes in the Consumer Price Index. As time goes by, the employees out of pocket expenses will grow. By the year 2000, the average Federal employee will be losing $500 per year. The senior citizen on the plan will be facing even worse consequences because the Medicare cuts proposed in this resolution will force up the costs of the Federal Health Plan. Those individuals living on a fixed income will be forced to either pay a greater share of their income on health care or change to a program that does not meet their needs. The Republicans talk about making contracts and keeping promises. But this is only talk. When it comes down to action, the Republicans are breaking their promises and violating the contracts we have with our Nation's Federal employees. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this budget resolution.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Christian Relief Services, an international, charitable organization located in Lorton, VA. Throughout its 10-year history, Christian Relief Services has always had one overriding goal: to help those in need both in the United States and around the world. From the hollows of Appalachia and the barren plains of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, to a children's home in Kenya and the first pediatric hospital in Haiti, and to the children of Chernobyl in Ukraine, Christian Relief Services has touched lives. Just minutes from this building are some of the poorest neighborhoods of Washington, DC. Just minutes from this building are children who go to bed hungry every night, who wake up hungry the next morning, who never have enough to eat. Christian Relief Services, through its food distribution programs, has reached these people. Working with local churches and civic organizations, over [[Page E 1335]] 100,000 pounds of fresh fruit and vegetables have been distributed to the needy in northern Virginia, Washington, and suburban Maryland just in the past 2 months. As great as our Nation is, poverty and need still exist. The innercities, Appalachia, small towns, Indian Reservations, and rural areas all have people in need of assistance. Christian Relief Services is meeting these needs, and has been for 10 years, by giving people a hand up, not a hand out. This is their motto, and through long-term development projects they are providing people with the foundations they need to improve their lives for themselves. Organic gardening programs on the Pine Ridge Reservation and vocational-technological classes in West Virginia are but two examples. Long-term development is a focus of Christian Relief Services projects overseas, as well. The Kip Keino Children's Home in Eldoret, Kenya, in addition to giving abused and abandoned children a safe and supportive place to live and grow, provides for their education, and allows them to become happy, productive members of society. Currently, 68 children live at the home. Over the years, 90 children have been rescued by the home and given new lives. Pick up today's newspaper and you will read of far-off lands in turmoil: Haiti, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia. Within the past year alone, Christian Relief Services has shipped countless tons of emergency medical supplies, food, clothing, building materials, and other relief items to refugees from these areas. As our Government appears to be pulling inward, it is important and commendable for Christian Relief Services to reach out an American hand to those less fortunate in places some would write off as not being in our national interest to help. Christian Relief Services is about connecting with people, about caring for them and their families, and about making a difference in their lives. For 10 years, Christian Relief Services has made a difference in the lives of many people. Each day, this number grows. For this reason, and on behalf of these people, I would like to say thank you, Christian Relief Services, for 10 years of service to humanity, for making the world a less harsh place, for feeding those who are hungry, for providing the supplies to make well those who are sick, and for giving hope to those who had none.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is not just because it takes away much of our oversight, particularly in areas in science and technical matters, where I find that I rely a great deal on OTA analyses. The Office of Technology Assessment has done a great job over the years in supplying us with the information we need to make difficult decisions. The review that is made by the Joint Tax Committee staff of audits, they have uncovered hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that people were trying to avoid paying, that legally they were responsible for. I do not rise so much in opposition to the fact that we are not going to be providing the information that we have traditionally provided to our constituents, whether it be through depository libraries or the General Accounting Office's capacity to print the kind of information our constituents need; all those things I oppose, but what troubles me the most about this bill is what it does to the unsung heroes in this institution, people who have devoted their lives in a professional manner to making this the very special place it is, people that take such great pride in their work. Since the two speakers before me mentioned the Flag Office, to emphasize what we are doing in terms of saving money in the Flag Office, let me focus on that, the fact that we will say to these people that ``We no longer need your services, we have found a way to privatize;'' to say to somebody like Chris Benza, who has worked in the Flag Office for 35 years, in a windowless office in the bowels of the Capitol, surrounded by piles of flags, doing her job, and as her colleagues, just a few people down there do their job day in and day out for 435 Members and 100 Senators who expect immediate service. When I wanted to provide flags to Captain O'Grady's family, on the day that Captain O'Grady returned to the United States, after his family had assumed that he was lost, dead in Bosnia, that was an important occasion. The people in this Flag Office went in to work over the weekend to prepare the flags flown over the Capitol on June 8, the day of Captain O'Grady's rescue, to ensure that they were ready for presentation for the O'Grady family. While we concentrate on the cost of doing that, which is a few dollars, really, they do not bill us anything more for working on the weekends or late at night, we think nothing of the value of a service like that, of people like that. If you were to go into a PX on a military base, you would pay twice as much money as we charge our constituents for these flags that are flown over the Capitol. Those flags have not flown over the Capitol. All we would have to do is to add $2 to the cost of each of these flags. We would bill our constituents. That would actually enable us to generate a profit. However, that would not be privatization, would it?

Mr. MORAN. I appreciate what my friend, the chairman says, but the point is that these employees have no assurance and the assumption is that they will lose their jobs. After 35 years of dedicated service to us and all the people that have preceded us, this is how we say thanks for a job well done: ``Sorry, you're no longer needed. You're expendable. It's more important to us to privatize this office with new people,'' in a way that we cannot assure that he service will be provided as efficiently as it is to our constituents. I see no reason why this was necessary to be done, and in fact why we could not have accepted an alternative that would have generated money and still provided this service at less cost than they could get anyplace else, and still reward public servants who deserve to be rewarded. Tht is one of the very strong reasons I oppose this bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the perspective of my friend, the gentleman from Alabama. In fact, if the information that he believes to be the case were true, I would agree with him that we ought not go forward and build a surplus museum that represents a corporate buyout, but that is hardly the case. It could not be further from the case, in fact. The reality is that this is a one-time opportunity, once in our lifetimes, probably in the history of our capital area, where we have one last opportunity to purchase the last major site in what is called the monumental corridor. There is one last site left. It is kitty-corner to the Jefferson Memorial. It is on the gateway into the Capital. It is on line with the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial, and the private corporation that owns it wants to build high-rise office buildings on it. That is where the money is, that is where the profit is. If we do not act right now, they will do just that. Every time we drive into the Nation's Capital, we see these big corporate office buildings at the edge of the river just before we cross the Potomac River, we will know that that is the site where we should have the U.S. Army Museum. We have to act now. We cannot wait to raise private funds. That is what the Army would prefer to do. They do not want to have to pay for this with public funds, even though the other services pay for their national museums with public funds, and every other Nation has an Army museum that they have paid for with public funds. We need public funds only for the site acquisition, because it has to be done immediately if we are to preserve this site. That is why we need it. The Army is going to raise $72 million. We are not asking for the money to build the U.S. Army Museum. We are only asking for the money we need right now. In fact, it is less money than the administration requested and was authorized this past week in the national security authorization. The money has been authorized. It is not going to any kind of pork project. We have to get it now. It is a small downpayment on what will serve this country into perpetuity. Mr. Chairman, we have 48 museums around the country, I grant you that, but they are small museums, built for specific purposes. There is no national Army museum. In fact, the 20 million people that come to the Nation's Capital are going to realize the history of this country when they go to this Army museum, and all of us are going to be proud for the vote that we take today to protect this money, to make this small down payment. There is no other way that we can show the 500,000 artifacts that have been created throughout our Nation's history, 220 years of collecting these priceless artifacts. We have got the Spanish American War uniforms, 19th century brick casements with 32-pounder guns. We have got a signal flag that was used at Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg. The purpose of this is to instill greater citizenship among the people who visit the Nation's Capital, and in fact to provide the Army with the kind of pride and esprit de corps that they deserve. All those families and relatives and friends of people who have served in the Army ought to have that opportunity when they come to the Nation's Capital, to see these priceless artifacts, to see the development of the United States Army, to recognize the importance we put on those people who have served this country. In fact, we have more people who served in the United States Army than any of the other services, and none of the other services obviously are opposed to this. But we need to educate our citizens as well. People are losing a sense of history in this country. That is one of the reasons we are losing some of our civility, as well, as a society. This museum will show our Nation what people sacrificed to bring us to where we are. And much of that sacrifice occurred within the ranks of the United States Army. We have compelling reasons to keep this money in, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat the Browder amendment, to leave the small amount of money in.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we focus so much on the cost of things, no matter how small, that we lose sight of the value of things, no matter how great. The National Museum of the U.S. Army is a vision to create at the gateway of Washington, a site that will no longer remain if we don't act now, a tribute to the American soldier. At a time when our Armed Forces are being cut every year, we have to tell the story of the citizen soldiers that have served this Nation, and we must inspire patriotism among our entire society. That is the purpose of this. That is the purpose. There could be no greater purpose. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to support the bill.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz]. (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. (Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. They do. And it is ironic that the Army has the most to show, things dating back to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the War of 1812, unbelievable things that this country has no awareness of the fact that we have these and would like to show them to the public.

Mr. MORAN. That is correct, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment to cut out what is a relatively small amount of money to purchase land for the construction of the U.S. Army Museum. Now, if this were another time, if we were not all so much aware of the fiscal realities, the Army would have gone about this in the way that the other armed services have and, in fact, every other nation has, and build it with public funds. But the Army is not asking for public funds to build the U.S. Army Museum. The museum is going to cost about $72 million, and the Army is going to raise that through private donations. That is the kind of thing we have been encouraging the public sector to do, not to spend any money that is not absolutely necessary. The small amount of money, however, that is in this appropriations bill, and we appreciate the fact that the chairperson of the appropriations bill, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], included it, is necessary because we cannot possibly raise enough money to purchase the land immediately and it has to be purchased immediately. Equitable Real Estate, that owns it, has plans to develop two highrise office buildings on this site. Now, let me describe where it is because all of you have seen this site. It is on the gateway to Washington, DC. It is kitty-corner to the Jefferson Memorial, across the river, and it is on a line between the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, and what would be the Army Museum. It is a small piece of land, just to the east of the 14th Street Bridge. Everyone will see it as they enter Washington. The small amount of money that is necessary will enable us to purchase this land at a very reasonable cost, and then the Army will go about raising money for the museum. The Army has about 500,000 artifacts to show. Most of them are warehoused. Nobody can see them. Many of them are priceless. The Army has a story to tell, the history of the United States, how the Army secured this Nation's liberty through war and sustained it through preparation for war in a responsible manner, and all of those junctures where the Army made major decisions are going to be highlighted in this museum. It will have an inestimable value for the esprit de corps, not just of the Army but of all the armed services. And we know that there will be 20 million American citizens who will be visiting this museum every year. It has perpetual value. That is why this small amount of money is very important, and it is important that we include it in an appropriations bill, not vote for the amendment that would eliminate it.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget that our President introduced this week. It is a thoughtful, fiscally responsible, and compassionate approach to the most difficult challenge that faces this governing body. The President has included those items that are least justifiable in terms of the Federal role. It goes after the corporate tax subsidies, the most egregious ones. It follows up on the down payment we made on balancing the budget in 1993, the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act, by keeping the spending caps on domestic discretionary programs. Most importantly, it reforms the health care system. It has the insurance reforms that we have reached consensus on, that need to be made. It does not take money from the recipients of our programs in the way that most of the Medicare cuts that are included in the Republican budget do. But what it does is to go after the providers, the providers that, in fact, have been taking most of the increase in health care costs, the insurers, the facilities, and even some of the physicians. What we need is a reform that affects everyone, where everyone contributes a reasonable share to balancing the budget, to achieving what has got to be our Nation's foremost objective. The President's plan does that in 10 years, it does it in a responsible way, one that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ought to support.