John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the gentleman knows, this is long, long lead money. This is money the President requested. The President will make a decision this fall. I predict his decision will probably be to put it off until the next President. But the point is this is not the time to cut out that money. If the President makes a decision, whichever way the test goes we will have ample opportunity when we are in conference to eliminate this money. But this is money that has to be spent early on in order to continue the program, in order to allow the orderly decision by the President this fall in order to decide one way or the other. The money, though, will not be spent until sometime way into the end of next year. This is premature to make this cut. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I realize we could have a lot of people speak about this, but we have debated this at great length in the committee. Last year we cut the money out because we felt the Air Force was going in the wrong direction. We felt they needed more testing. This year we have taken the cap off the testing. We are insisting they finish the testing. But we do think they are moving in the direction that we originally agreed to. I would hope we will not hear a lot of debate today so we could move forward with this bill and then just get right to the vote. But this is an important program. I think the gentleman may have overestimated the numbers. I am not sure we will ever get to the numbers that even he predicts in this airplane. I think it is a sophisticated airplane which deals with one specific program and am not sure, because of its cost, we will get any higher. But I can assure the gentleman we are making sure that this airplane is going to be tested before it flies. And we have been on the Air Force more than the contractor. The contractor has been more cooperative than the Air Force, so the Air Force is the one causing us the problems. Mr. Chairman, I would hope we could get to a vote very quickly on this amendment and go forward with the bill.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I worry that the Members believe that there is some easy way to solve these problems. The reason we do not come to a conclusion is because there are legitimate differences between Members, between parties when we are trying to solve them. Certainly a continuing resolution that is automatic does not solve it. It just puts it off and puts it off again and puts it off again. It is a way for us to find a deadline to solve the problem. I am talking about the practical results of how we legislate. If we face a deadline, we solve the problem. If we do not, it goes on and on. I have seen it happen for years. I have seen us come up to a deadline and finally pass the legislation. If my colleagues pass something like this, they may never get the legislation that they want. So they are making a tactical mistake when they try to pass something and think they are going to solve the problem. I understand the concern of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), but that does not answer the concern. It does not solve the problem. Every time we run into a conflict and there is no deadline, we just put it off. That is the nature of the legislative business. So I say to the Members, we make a serious mistake if we think there is some easy way to solve this kind of a problem. Our continuing resolutions allow us to solve the problem. I remember President Reagan getting up and saying, I will never sign another continuing resolution the rest of my career. Well, I do not remember whether he did or did not, but the point was that was a way of solving the problem. He put the continuing resolution on the desk, and he said, this is 2 feet high, and we should not pass something like this. Well, that got us to the culmination of the session and got us through to the next year. There are all kinds of ways to avoid it. I am sure if we pass something like this, all we will do is eliminate the deadline, eliminate the possibility of solving the problem. So I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment that is very damaging to our process.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about my concern about this 2- year budget process. I think that the worst thing we could do is allow the executive branch to have any more influence than they have. I mean, they send a budget over to us. Every year we dispose of that budget in one way or the other. If we dispose of it 1 year and we had 2 years, we would have little or no influence over the departments. I was talking to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) from Connecticut. They used to have a 2-year budget. They have to open their budget up every year and go through the same process they would ordinarily. But the problem with then having influence with the departments, they have no personnel in there, they would have none of the things that they are really interested in in their budget. So what they would be doing, the process things that are so important to the changes that happen, the supplemental appropriation, all of the things that they need to do to make sure that things are operating smoothly would have to be taken care of every year. They would have to open the budget up. And yet all their personnel and things they are really concerned about would be taken care of every year. Our Constitution is clear. We start the process. The Senate would have an inordinate influence because they have no rules over there and they would be able to add to any budget anything they wanted to add. And if my colleagues believe that we can see ahead 2 years, we get more changes from the Department of Defense, we get them before the committee, and the only real ability we have over them is to say, look, the budget is coming up and we will try to work things out. If we do not have that leverage, we are not going to have an influence over the Department of Defense or any other department at all. But the one that is really going to benefit is the White House. The White House is going to have that much more control. We pass about 95 percent of what they want. The control we have would be then limited. I ask Members to vote against this idea, which I think sets us back and reduces the influence of the House.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a serious rash of problems revolving around the enforcement of our trade laws. This body, in concurrence with the rules of the WTO, has enacted laws to ensure fair and equitable trade for American industry and its workers. Unfortunately, our own International Trade Commission appears to have decided to disregard these laws, as recently demonstrated in its decision regarding the dumping of cold-rolled steel into the United States and its seemingly rubber-stamp approach to Sunset determinations whereby foreign unfair traders can have the offsetting duties--which were applied only after they were found to be engaged in unfair trade-- erased just by showing up at the ITC and asking. As troubling as the situation is now, I'm afraid I can see far greater problems on the horizon--problems that quite possibly will accompany China's accession to the WTO. Congress has been asked to accept that China's entry into the WTO contains meaningful protections against unfair trade practices by Chinese companies. In light of the ITC's recent failure to correctly apply the U.S. Trade laws and to effectively respond to massive foreign unfair trade, I am losing confidence in our ability to counter unfair trade from China and other countries. This matter is deeply troubling to me. The domestic steel industry has suffered through massive dumping of foreign steel in the U.S. market over the last two years. The Administration responded by declaring a policy of ``zero tolerance'' for unfair trade. The Congress provided the necessary funding to the Commerce Department to investigate this unfair trade and Commerce did its job. It found that, in the case of cold-rolled steel for example, that foreign producers were illegally dumping by as much as 80 percent. The ITC, however, did not do its job. The ITC determined that dumped steel imports more than doubled during the period of investigation and consistently undersold domestic steel. It also found that, during a period of record demand, the U.S. steel industry experienced significant revenue losses, with several major steel producers even forced into bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the ITC inexplicably determined that this massive dumping of cold-rolled steel was not even a cause of this injury to the domestic industry. Without a determination of injury--which is irrefutable in these cases--U.S. industry and its workers have no form of relief and nowhere to turn. As legislators and appropriators, it is our responsibility to reevaluate the ITC and whether it is properly managing its resources and correctly adhering to Congressional intent. Just last year the Administration committed to ``zero tolerance'' for unfair trade, yet this commitment apparently doesn't extend to the ITC. I'm tired of promises of ``zero tolerance'' and think it's time we insist on some action. Before we allow the Administration to sell us an agreement with China that promises to benefit America, let's insist on some proof that promises are sometimes answered.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this deployment is not about Europe; this is about the United States. When we deploy troops, we deploy in our national security. Now, this is a cute way of trying to reduce our deployment to Europe. We had 400,000 troops in there for years against the Soviet Union. Now, we can argue about how many troops ought to be there right now, but when we are doing it this way, NATO's in command. We said the U.N. could not do it, so we put NATO in command. This amendment says no presidential waiver. It says, okay, if they do not live up to their obligation, then we have to pull our troops out. Now, let us take Luxembourg; let us take Iceland. Let us say there is a lobbying effort for those two little countries, and they get them to pull their troops out. They are deciding the foreign policy of the United States. Iceland and Luxembourg, under this amendment, would be setting the foreign policy for the United States. We are in Kosovo to save lives. Now, there is a lot of people that can disclaim that. A lot of people can say let the Europeans do it. They, obviously, could not get their act together, or we would not be involved. We are involved because of the security of the United States. Do my colleagues know how many wars have started in the Balkans? Two wars started in the Balkans. My dad and three of his brothers served in World War II. We are talking about the security of the United States, and we are not going to allow Iceland, and we are not going to allow Luxembourg to set the policy for the United States. And that is exactly what these four gentlemen are doing. They are surreptitiously trying to figure out a way to get the troops out of Europe, reduce our deployment to Europe. This is not the way to do it. If we want to limit the deployments, let us face it up front. Let us argue about it. Let us debate it and say we are going to limit the amount of money and we are going to pull our troops out. Let us not do it in a way that lets Luxembourg or Iceland take control, and then not have a presidential waiver that speaks to the security of our troops, or if the Secretary of Defense says this is endangering our troops, and there is no waiver in order to cover that.

Mr. MURTHA. We have no problem on this side with the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we have no problem with this amendment over here.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said that John McCain practiced here. In 1952, we deployed there. I was on Vieques at the time. There was no one understands more the importance of the Vieques than me. The Navy says in their correspondence to me, if this money is taken out, the agreement will be breached. We can stand here and beat our chest. We can say we are going to force this issue on the Puerto Ricans. That does not solve the problem. They have come to an agreement. The Navy did not live up to their agreements since 1986. They did nothing for economic development. We are saying here that they have to give in to our demands. There is no question about the importance of Vieques, but this is not something we dictate. The Defense Department has worked out what they consider the best possible agreement. They have negotiated with the governor of Puerto Rico; a lot of the Members here do not like the agreement. They do not think it is fair. They do not think there should be an agreement like this. We put the $40 million in to live up to our end of the agreement. Believe me, if we take the $40 million out, there will not be any agreement, and we will not have opportunity. The Navy said they will not be able to go forward if we take this money out as important as it is to them. I would urge the Members not to vote for this amendment, to vote against this amendment, with the idea that we will be able to solve this problem. They will have a referendum, and they will allow us to go forward with using this as a tactical training base.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, General Chapman was one of the finest Commandants of the Marine Corps and General Mundy's comments, which follow, are an outstanding tribute to him. Eulogy (By General Carl Mundy) The son of a Methodist minister, Leonard Chapman came up from his birthplace in Key West, to Deland, Florida where he grew up. He graduated from the University of Florida, and was commissioned a lieutenant of Marines in 1935, eight days before I was born. Fifty-six years later, he administered the oath that made me the thirtieth Commandant. Leonard Chapman never outgrew his Southern roots. His Grandfather was a young Confederate soldier from Tennessee who lost a leg in the War. In order to maintain his farm, and to get about comfortably, he trained his horses to a gait we know as the Tennessee walking horse. General Chapman never abandoned that family homestead, keeping the 1790 tavern on the Natchez Trace-- today a National Historic Landmark--as a farmhouse in the hands of a caretaker. He stayed there a couple of months each year, usually in June and July. A call on the telephone to him would get an answer from Miss Ella, the caretaker's wife. ``Yallow!'', she would answer, and after you had identified yourself as wanting to speak with ``The General'', came ``Hold on a minute'', followed by the sound of a squeaking screen door, and a loud call: ``Fielding; there's a fellow wants to talk to you on the telephone over here!''. Grass roots. General Chapman's heroes were Robert E. Lee, and ``Lee's Lieutenants''. He read voraciously, re-reading several times Douglas Southall Freeman's volumes on the soldier-leaders of the Confederacy. He won the hand of a Southern Belle--Miss Emily Walton Ford, of the Birmingham Fords. Had this grand lady not become a Marine wife, it's likely she would have claimed the role of Scarlet O'Hara in ``Gone With the Wind''. As it was, she brought the elegance and graciousness of the ``Old South'' into the Corps with her, and eventually to the Home of the Commandants. Leonard's love affair with Emily was life-long, and his quiet devotion and attentiveness to her during her prolonged illness before death were an inspiration to all of us who knew them. He lost his first son, Len--a Marine--to a tragic accident, and became to his daughter-in- law, Gayle, and his granddaughter, Danielle, the Working their way through Duke in the early sixties enroute to the Corps, as their Officer Selection Officer, I can recall judging whether the Chapman boys had been, or were headed home for a visit, by the length of their hair! In more recent years, how excited, and filled with pride your dad's voice would become when he would announce that he was ``. . . going up to Massachusetts for a few days to help Walt clear a little timber!'' His pride in each member of his family, his joy in your accomplishments, and his devotion to, and love for you were palpable and inspirational. I met General Chapman when I was a first lieutenant, and he, a brand new Brigadier General. We were in the field at Camp Lejeune, and I recall thinking that this was the sharpest Marine officer I had ever seen. My opinion never changed. His early years of sea-duty at the outset of world War II left him with a spit and polish that never left. On the day he retired, he was still the sharpest Marine officer I've ever known. Others must have had the same opinion, like General Lemuel Shepherd, our 20th Commandant, who ordered him to the Marine Barracks in Washington, where among his lasting legacies is the spit and polish precision and the unexcelled spirit and professionalism he created in the Evening Parades at the Barracks, and the Marine Corps War Memorial. Leonard Chapman's manner, his demeanor, and his character matched the perfection of his deportment and appearance. He was a gentleman in all respects. At the outset of his commandancy, a reported called him ``The Quiet Man''. Those closest to him knew him to have been invariably courteous; never to have raised his voice in anger, never to have indulged in gossip, or never to have bad-mouthed or criticized even those with whom he might disagree. But they knew him also, to have an analytic mind that missed no detail, and a layer of tungsten steel determination just below the surface. He was tough, but he led by logic, character, and inspiring example. In his final tours, as Chief of Staff of the Corps, he helped General Wallace Greene build, train, equip, and employ in combat in Vietnam the largest Marine Corps since World War II. He introduced computers to the Corps, and gave us automated management and information systems. When he became Commandant, the war was on a downward spiral, and the United States wasn't going to win. Throughout his tenure, his abiding determination was to bring the Corps home in fighting condition, and to preserve it as a spirited American Institution. He faced obstacles in a society where the profession of arms and answering the call to duty were under fire, and in which morals, accountability, and discipline were decaying. He responded by driving the Corps to maintain standards. When Sister Services succumbed to societal pressures and relaxed standards He believed in education. As Commandant, he established Staff NCO Academy, and in retirement, was founder of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College Foundation, with the purpose of enhancing leadership development among the officers and NCOs of the Corps. He led the Foundation as its President for 14 years, leaving yet another legacy to leadership. But there was a spirited and fun-loving side to this great man. He was an inveterate golfer, playing the game with skill and enthusiasm to the end. Until recent years, he was a seven handicap. He would tell with a chuckle the story of an officer on whom he wrote a glowing fitness report, but ended it with, ``. . . but he can't putt!'' He walked the course, carrying his bag, and referred to those in his foursome who chose to ride a cart as ``couch potatoes''. Even with his spirited humor, however, the courtly, gentlemanliness was ever there. As he and I played golf together one day, after a particularly humiliating tee shot where, with a mighty swing, I topped the ball and dribbled it into the rough about seventy-five yards out, we walked together in silence for a few moments before he offered, gently, ``Carl, that was not among your better shots today!'' Classic Chapman. He loved the Washington Redskins, and rarely missed a game, always, of course, making it first to church on a Sunday. He delighted, when the minister asked the congregation to greet and extend ``Peace'' to those beside them, in saying instead, ``War!'' if it were a Redskins Sunday! Noting that his team entered the playoffs last weekend, maybe that was one ``for the General!'' Commandants have an occasional habit of gathering their ``formers'' at some point during their tenures to update on what's going on. This usually begets spirited discussions of how it used to be, how it might better be, or how it ought to be. General Chapman, usually the elder at such gatherings, as the tempo of suggestions from around the table increased, would delight in breaking in, good naturedly, but with meaning, to say, ``If you junior officers will hold it down, I'll remind you that each of you had the chance to do what you're suggesting on your watch. Let's listen to what the Commandant has to say!'' Linda and I, with Gayle and General Chapman, were guests for dinner at John and Ginny Kinniburg's home a few years back. As Ginny was busily passing her wonderful dishes, the butter came by. Always concerned for the welfare of ``The General'', for whom she and John so devotedly never gave up being aides-de-camp for, and closest friends with, Ginny handed General Chapman the butter with the healthful comment, ``I don't suppose you'll be having any butter, General, but, please pass it along''. With a wry twinkle in his eye, General Chapman took a sizeable slice for his bread, and quipped, ``No, Ginny; I'm going down with the ship!'' Leonard Fielding Chapman, Jr.--husband, father, grandfather, friend, gentleman, Marine--did not go down with the ship. He was the helmsman who steered his life, many of ours, and that of our Corps, through sometimes troubled waters, but with a steadiness that brought calm inspiration, personal strength, and legacy to us, and thousands of others. As we remember him, let us be grateful that America produced one among its ``few good men and women called Marines'', who we were privileged to know and love. Men of the stature of Leonard Chapman do not often pass this way.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 149 is a housekeeping measure that originally passed the House in February of 1999. The bill made numerous technical corrections in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1996 and other laws to fix punctuation, map references, and other minor drafting errors that we exist. We have no objection to the bill.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the community spirit and dedication of National Guard units are a key to communities throughout the United States, and I want to recognize an especially strong community effort by the 103rd Armored Division based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. In particular, their support of Red Cross efforts with the Keystone 500 race and blood drives has been recognized by the Chairman of the local Red Cross Board as extremely significant and in the highest tradition of public service. The Guard Unit has also helped with the Cambria County Air Show, the Kosovo Relief Project, the Penn Woods Council of the Boy Scouts, the United Way Summer Youth Employment Program, and school efforts on Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Along with training for their military readiness and providing vital back-up to active duty forces, this kind of community support is in the highest tradition of the Armed Services and of our Nation. In particular, I want to recognize Major Preston Scott Stape, the Administrative Officer, and the particularly strong work of SFC Donald F. Scholly, SFC Donald F. Williams, SSG James P. Livella, SSG Ronald L. McKelvey, and Mr. David J. Lavigne. It's this type of service to family, Nation, and community that is such a great part of our Nation's history and continuing strength, and I commend these individuals for their efforts and dedication.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, this month, Mr. Clarence E. Eger marked his 50th year as a Cresson Township Supervisor. During this half-century of public service, Mr. Eger has worked day and night on all facets of Township activity--always willing to help, and always anxious to serve the people in the region. Such service has resulted in an extremely high quality of community service. The type of dedication to public service shown by Mr. Eger serves as a hallmark of the kind of selfless dedication and commitment that are the very heart and spirit of the United States of America. We're fortunate in our area to still have such strong commitment from so many individuals, and it's one of the characteristics that make communities like Cresson Township one of the best places to live. It's an honor and pleasure for me to commend Mr. Eger on his 50 years of public service, and to make these remarks as a reminder to all Americans of how this type of dedication can improve the lives of so many people, produce tremendous progress in a community, and serve as the guideposts that keep our Nation the greatest in the world. I congratulate Mr. Eger and wish him many more years of service.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I enclose in the Record, an article from the December 27, 1999 ``Tribune-Democrat'', of Johnstown, PA, concerning the community involvement and efforts of Mr. Bill Polacek. It's these kinds of selfless acts helping individuals that are such a hallmark of the principles that have made our Nation great, and of the personal spirit that must dominate our Nation not only during the Holidays but throughout the year. I commend Bill Polacek, and I'm glad to enclose this article on his efforts. Area Man Makes Sure Needy Have Christmas (By Tom Lavis) Bill Polacek of Richland Township learned the true meaning of Christmas when he was only 6. That's the reason that for the last three years, Polacek, 38, has donated a Christmas present to each man, woman and child who comes to Christmas Eve dinner at St. Vincent de Paul Family Kitchen at 231 Bedford St., Johnstown. Polacek owns Johnstown Welding and Fabrication Industries, 1363 Broad St. A tall dark-haired man who towers over most people, Polacek is one of nine children in a family where money was always tight. ``When I was 6, my father shattered his ankle right before Christmas and the only money coming in was 50 percent of his supplemental pay from Bethlehem Steel,'' Polacek said, as he and his family distributed gifts to the needy as they left the pantry. ``We weren't going to have much of a Christmas that year,'' he said. ``To this day, we don't know who it was, but someone left bags of groceries, presents and a small amount of money on our porch so that our parents could give us a nice Christmas. That's why I do this. I'll never forget what that gesture meant. My mother cried,'' he said. Joe Bartko, director of the kitchen, said he admires Polacek because he and his family give without expecting any fanfare. He said it is heart-warming to have people like the Polaceks who think of the less fortunate. ``The people's faces say it all when they get a gift in addition to a meal,'' Bartko said. ``It has gotten to a point that many of these people look forward to this because this is the only Christmas they will have. They have nothing.'' After enjoying a traditional Christmas dinner that included turkey with stuffing, ham steak, mashed potatoes, corn, salad and pears and poppy-seed rolls for desert, people were treated to a gift when they left. George Karadeanes, 61 who lives in the Solomon Homes, said everyone appreciates what the Polaceks are doing. ``Last year, I got a sweatshirt and some gloves,'' Karadeanes said, as he was sweeping his plate with a dinner roll to finish a last bit of turkey gravy. ``I still have the gloves and they keep me warm. I have no family and this is my celebration.'' Twelve-year-old Mikey Wiesinger of Kernville squealed with glee as he was handed a stuffed Barney doll. He was at the dinner with his parents, Brian and Diane Wiesinger, and his 13-year-old brother, Brian. If any of the 25 volunteers who prepared and served the dinner or members of the Polacek family wanted to know if their efforts were appreciated, they only had to look at Mikey's face while he clutched the purple dinosaur to know that they brought joy to the boy's Christmas. Ada Szewczyk, 62, of Johnstown, was chatting with friends at one of the long tables, and I noticed that her gift was on the table unopened. I asked her why. ``I'm saving it so I have something to open Christmas morning,'' she said. This was the first year that Szewczyk attended the dinner when presents were given. ``I was surprised, but that man (Polacek) knows that Christ was born on Christmas and I hope God blesses him,'' she said. A mountain of presents was stacked near the door of the pantry and Polacek; his wife, Shari; and their four children were busy distributing gifts to people who waited in an orderly fashion. Mrs. Polacek said she is pleased that the family could bring some joy to people, and she wanted her children to learn that it is better to give than receive and that some people are struggling. The children are Bill Jr., 10; Blake 7; Madison, 4; and Carter, 10 months. ``Last year, we lost track of Blake and couldn't find him anywhere until we looked back at the tables where people were eating,'' Mrs. Polacek said. ``There he was eating a turkey dinner and joining right in with some of the folks. We try to teach the kids that in terms of values, you get what you give.'' Also on hand were Mr. Polacek's mother, Sarah, and stepfather, George Mihalaki of Windber. Polacek's father, John is deceased. Mrs. Mihalaki said that one act of kindness many years ago has left an impression on the entire family. ``We created the Polacek Family Human Needs Fund, where we all initially donated money to give to a charity,'' she said. ``Now we have fund-raisers during the year to raise a little more. We usually earmark the money to one charity a year.'' But the St. Vincent de Paul effort is separate from the family's donation. Mr. Polacek said he usually gives up to $2,500 for the gifts. ``I buy from Boscov's and they generously give a discount on each item,'' he said. ``That way we can give more gifts and the store even gift wraps each present.'' The dinner also marked the first time that someone spent the afternoon singing carols for the people. Shawn McConville of Geistown entertained to the delight of every one on hand. It was a wonderful Christmas celebration. There was good food, good music, laughter and fun. Most of all, there was love.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on December 17, 1999, the Holy Cross Parish celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Church of the Holy Cross, Spangler, Pennsylvania. Throughout our area and our Nation, we find such churches as the centers of our community, the fabric of our community spirit, and the strength of families. The Church of the Holy Cross has celebrated 2,735 baptisms, 622 weddings. It has held 1,332 funerals to send its faithful home. These events chronicle the history of the families in the region. Plans for the present church structure were drawn by architect William East and built by John S. Drumm at a cost of $4,800 according to the contract signed on July 8, 1899. On December 17th of that year, the Rt. Reverend Leander Scherr, O.S.B., Archabbott, St. Vincent Archabbey of Latrobe, dedicated the church. It was served by the Benedictine Fathers of St. Vincent Archabbey until 1984 and since then by the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. The strength of our great nation comes not from decisions made in Washington, but from the enduring community strength, family commitments and individual ideals to which our house of worship provided the central underpinnings. The Church of the Holy Cross has been a part of that national strength for one hundred years; an integral factor in the growth of our nation and our region of Pennsylvania. It is an honor for me to recognize the continuing role of the Church of the Holy Cross, of the church's twenty-fifth pastor, Father David J. Arseneault, and the individuals in the Parish that have made the Church of the Holy Cross endure for 100 years.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I notice we have flights going overseas all the time, and I know this will have to be flown to the President. I cannot imagine, from what the gentleman said, and what I have heard, that this negotiation is going to finish today. It is hard to argue with a 1-day extension. We have had a couple other extensions. But I keep worrying that, as we mislead Members to think we are going to be finished, why we just would not pass a little longer CR. We complain about people not being around, and we seem to be able to get along without them, whoever it is that is not available to us. Of course, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) does not do that. I know that he understands how the system works and as I do, too. As a matter of fact, they suggested to me that we should ask for a vote. I am not sure I even know the procedure of how to ask for a vote because it has been so long since I have asked for a vote. But having said that, I know that we have to get our business done. I am hopeful negotiations will end today. I am not as optimistic as the chairman is. But I know that sometime this week or next week or Thanksgiving or Christmas time we will be done. As past history shows, sometimes we have delicate negotiations. I hope it is not an across-the-board cut. I worry so much. Because even the four-tenths of 1 percent cut would mean we would cut $500 million out of O&M. With the two units that are C4, I realize there is not a big threat out there to the Army right now, but it worries me that we are doing this kind of work when, as the chairman suggested in the first place, if we had passed an adequate budget resolution, we would have been all through with this thing early in the year. We would not have had to resort to the kind of gimmicks that have been so distasteful to those of us on the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to recognize an outstanding individual who will soon be retiring from the University of Pittsburgh, Mr. Lou Tronzo. Lou has represented the University as a public affairs executive for the last thirty years, working at the local, state, and federal levels. In Western Pennsylvania and in the higher-education community, he's been an institution in the pursuit of programs to help universities and students. Lou began his career in the public sector working for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh and for ACTION- Housing Inc., where he focused on land disposition, housing development, and economic research. A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh with a B.A. and an M.A., he's been actively involved with the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and the American Association of Universities. He's also served on the Boards of institutions such as the Community College of Allegheny County and Forbes Health System. He's the Founder and Co-Chair of the Institute of Politics at the University of Pittsburgh. But this is a case where the details do not tell the whole story. Lou Tronzo has the respect of all of us who have worked with him over the years for his dedication, loyalty, common sense, and devotion to helping people. The most recent project I've been working on with Lou is one that would bring economic progress and jobs to Western Pennsylvania--as always Lou's focus is on helping people and giving them a chance to improve their lives. It's impossible to put any kind of number with the many, many students, educators, communities, institutions, and organizations that Lou has helped over the years. But it is possible to try on behalf of all of us who have benefited from knowing him to say: ``Thank you, Lou, we recognize your outstanding contributions and hope you enjoy the time you will now have to spend with your family, especially your grandchildren.''

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hard work on both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue that went into the arduous task of balancing the budget and arriving at the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. However, two years later, I think it is eminently clear that our Senior Citizens, as well as all medical patients and health care providers cannot sustain the cuts that were made in Medicare and so I applaud the efforts of the committees of jurisdiction in moving this BBA `refinement' bill before adjourning for the year. It will restore some of those cuts and give the hospitals and home health providers some hope and some breathing room for the short term. There are a lot of people, I think, who won't be laid off for Christmas because of this bill. This 11.5 billion-dollar Medicare reimbursement adjustment bill marks a major step forward in our necessary commitment to provide the care needed throughout our health care system. The improvement in reimbursements to hospitals, home health agencies, rehabilitation services, and nursing homes give a huge boost to the commitment by our health care professionals to provide the full, quality care we all want to see. However, from my continuing conversations with health care professionals, I think we also need to recognize that as strong of a step forward as this bill is, it is not the last word. We're going to have to keep working toward HMO reform, prescription drug coverage, and expanding the number of people with health care coverage and further adjustments in reimbursement rates. During this period of a sustained health economy, we need to understand that it is not acceptable to have people out there not getting the health care they need. I have kept in constant touch with the hospital people, the home health care people, the ambulance people and of course, patients-- especially the elderly--in my district during this long period of severe belt-tightening, consolidation, layoffs and downsizing that have significantly harmed the quality of health care service in rural Pennsylvania. There is no question the impact was much more severe than was foreseen. So, while there is no doubt that this bill is a key to alleviating the crushing, and I think to a large extent unexpected, slashing of revenues that have caused even small rural hospitals' budgets to drop millions of dollars each in just a few years, the struggle to maintain adequate health care funding is not over and I will press very hard to make sure we'll be addressing this issue again in the very near term.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues what worries me about the way we are doing this. I would doubt that the leadership asked the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense where to cut this bill. Now, during the entire time that I have been on this committee, we have cut substantial amounts from defense, but we never did an across- the-board cut without knowing what the implications were. Some people said, well, General Shelton testified this way, General Shelton testified that way. Well, I have said, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) has said, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has said, the Defense Department has been short money for the last several years. We have said it over and over again. When I go to a base, I find 20 percent short across the line. I find them short on real property maintenance. I find them short on O&M. Anybody that goes to any of our military bases will find the same thing. Secretary Cohen called me the other day. He said, ``I want to tell you how much I appreciate what the Members of Congress did to raise the pay and change the whole thing for retirement.'' He appreciated it. He said the enthusiasm and morale is marvelous. Now, I do not want to say what I went through in order to make sure this bill was not vetoed. I mean, I have had a few amiable discussions with a lot of people. There was a tremendous pressure to veto this bill. I decided that we could not veto it. We had a good bill. Everybody said this is a good bill. This is a bill that funds the Defense Department with the allocation we got from leadership, whatever leadership gives us. If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) gives us less money, we will make the appropriate cuts. If the leadership decides there should be less money, we will make those cuts. During the Reagan administration, we cut billions of dollars, item by item from his budget. As we went into the gulf war, one of our finest victories, we had apportioned that money so carefully that we were able to win a tremendous victory. But we did not do an across-the-board cut. We did a cut item by item. According to the figures that I have, the Defense Department, because it cannot cut pay, would have to cut personnel. When I go overseas, I find the members of the Armed Forces saying, I have been overseas four or five times. I went to one Marine unit, and they had been overseas four Christmases in a row because we have cut back so dramatically in the number of people that are available in the armed services. Now, we can argue whether they should be deployed so often or not, but this way of cutting the budget is absolutely against everything that we have been taught. What we should do is go back to committee and make the decisions based on the amount of money we have available. When we started this process, we had a bipartisan agreement in all the subcommittees, then the leadership said, Okay, you have got to cut a couple hundred million dollars more. Well, they did not do that with defense. With defense, they took the bill, they gave us a good allotment, and we came up with a bill which everybody is praising, and, yet, it is not enough money. Any way one cuts it, it is not enough money. They used to come over there and bring all those charts over when we were before the committee. I wonder where they got the money for the charts. But I will tell my colleagues this, cutting out a few charts is not going to make up for the amount of money, the $2.7 billion, we are going to cut out of this. This actually takes us below the O&M that the President requested. So this is not the way to do it. You take this bill back, and you give it to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and myself, and we will come up with a bill. We will come up with a legitimate cut. But the way we are doing it is absolutely wrong. I would ask the Members to think about the devastating impact that we would have when we just passed a pay raise, we just revised their pension, the morale is high. The Defense Department knows it needs more. There is no question about that. All of us agree with that on the Subcommittee on Defense. Yet, we are sending a signal that we are just cutting across the board. Even though my colleagues say, well, it is going to be vetoed, well, I could have said the same thing when I argued that our bill was going to be sent right back to them. I think it behooves us to give us the figure and let us work our will on where the bill should be cut. So I would urge the Members of this body to take this bill back to committee and let us work our will. Tell us how much money that our allocation is, and we will pass that bill out, and it will be a much better bill than an across-the-board cut.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill speaks for itself. All the members have done a marvelous job: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have been in the trenches; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) did a tremendous job; the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in a very difficult situation. This bill is carefully crafted, articulately done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.