John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I went down to meet with President Reagan and we convinced him that the steel industry was absolutely essential to our national security. We had a hard time convincing the Committee on Ways and Means. But we fashioned a program that did not go through the normal process that was finally accepted and refined and restored the steel industry in this country. We have had hearings for the last 15 years on these steel problems. We need help. Because when they start importing steel, subsidized steel, it takes 6, 7, 8 months before we can get it before the court, before the ITC, before we can get the results. We need to be able to lend them money so they can get through this period of time. It is absolutely essential. Oil and gas and steel are essential to our national security. I would hope the Members would help us in a time when we really need this help.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, there is no question we banned this at one time, we have had an erosion on the plan, we agree with what the gentleman is trying to do, and on behalf of the minority Democrat side I certainly would be glad to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Absolutely.

Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman would consider withdrawing this amendment, I would coordinate with him a letter from he and I to the GAO to get the kind of independent study he wants. I think it is a legitimate request, I think it is something we should do, and I think we should find out exactly what somebody outside the services believes about the bombing campaign and how effective it was and the other things that he has talked about.

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

Mr. MURTHA. I think that is a legitimate request, and, working with the committee, I am sure we can work something out here.

Mr. MURTHA. I understand what the gentleman is saying, and I appreciate what he is saying. I think it is something we should look into. I would like to get this to a vote so we can move on with the bill.

Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate what the gentleman from Ohio is saying. I appreciate the tragedy in every war. Having been on the ground in combat myself, I have seen the mutilation of people affected by the wars themselves. It is not a pretty sight. We have had some record that we have had some problems with cluster bombs. It seems to me, though, that to ban them completely would endanger our own troops. I would have to oppose this strongly until we had an opportunity to maybe work out something, where in case we are fighting the type of war we did lately, that we would not use them in that type of war. I do not even know that I could agree to that. But I certainly could not agree to not using them at a time when it protects our own forces.

Mr. MURTHA. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that all of us in the subcommittee discussed this at great length. We know the importance to our national security. We know the importance to the Marine Corps. We will make every effort to bring back an LHD-8. I know the gentleman has been pushing this for a long time. And the same here as the F-22, it is a matter of money. We hope we can work it out, and we expect to have more money down the road.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for his effort in making sure that the troops did get their pay raise and the way it was apportioned. All of us are indebted, including the military services, for the gentleman's work in that particular area.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. In the tradition of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman, and when I was in charge here, I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for how fast he learned this job. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can take full credit for that. If it had not been for his effort, that would not have happened.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are trying to do. I understand the thrust of their amendment. I remember 5 years ago Dr. Perry was Secretary of Defense. He asked me to go to Korea because the crisis was to the point where he now in retrospect calls it the greatest crisis in his tenure as Secretary of Defense. He felt we were on the verge of nuclear war. I went to Korea with a number of members of the Subcommittee on Defense. We looked at our defenses. We felt they were inadequate. We came back and made a number of recommendations to the administration. We think these recommendations played a part in diffusing this very, very delicate situation between North and South Korea. General Luck was very vigorous in his concern about the possibility of the North Koreans coming south. Now I think all of us appreciate the difficulty for an administration when it is negotiating with any foreign country to be completely frank and public about what is going on. North Korea being completely ruled by a dictator, being one of the most unstable countries in the world, and yet they have responded to our overtures. From everything I can tell, this crisis has been diffused. Now Dr. Perry, as all of us know, is heading up a research or a committee that is trying to resolve these difficulties between North Korea and South Korea. They are trying to make sure there is no nonproliferation. He tells me in a phone call that I received just the other day that this would undercut his effort to secure an agreement to continue the progress that they have made. I got a call from Dr. Hamre today, Undersecretary of Defense. He contends the same thing, that this amendment would be harmful for the progress that they have made. I understand the nuances of what the gentleman from New York has said, I understand what he is saying about the administration not saying the same thing they were saying before. I do not know why they have said that. In the intelligence that I have read, intelligence reports, the threat is no longer as severe as it was 5 years ago. It is substantially less, and it is less because this administration, working with the Congress, has made North Korea believe that they would pay a heavy price if they were to invade South Korea. One of our most important allies in the world today is Korea. I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1952 at the height of the Korean War. We have had troops deployed there since that time, since the end of the Korean war. There is no question about our obligation to South Korea and the fact that we are trying to prevent any invasion by North Korea, but there is also no question about our obligation to stop proliferation by North Korea. Dr. Perry tells me they are making progress, and he feels that this amendment would not be helpful to man. I do not know that the administration would veto the bill. I know this is a long ways off, but I think it would cause them great concern, and certainly it is something that all of us have to think about. So I would request and suggest strongly that the Members vote against this. It sounds good on the face, it sounds like we are doing something that is marvelous, it sounds like we are stopping proliferation. But one thing I found over the years, passing an amendment like this in the Congress of the United States does not always do what we think it is going to do. Sometimes it backfires, sometimes it has the opposite impact, and I think in this particular case, this amendment, although everything sounds good, the thrust of the amendment sounds good, it could have the opposite impact about what we hope. So I would hope that the Gilman-Markey amendment is defeated and that we send a message to Dr. Perry that we support him in trying to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Memorial Day, on May 29, 1999, I had the honor of delivering the keynote address at the rededication and 50th anniversary celebration of the Lilly-Washington War Memorial in Lilly, Pennsylvania, a town of fewer than 2,000 people. As part of the ceremony, we made special recognition of two individuals who made sacrifices in their own right in serving our country. With my assistance, James A. Lego, Jr., of Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, was presented with the following medals that he had been awarded as a member of the 1st Infantry Division, 16th Regiment, but never received: The Silver Star, on July 20, 1944. The Bronze Star for Meritorious Service. Two Purple Hearts for wounds received April 16, 1943 and July 14, 1944. The Distinguished Unit Badge and two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Good Conduct Medal, Pre-Pearl Harbor Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, Five Overseas Bars and the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater Service Medal with one Silver Star and one Bronze Service Star. We also unveiled a monument in recognition of the late Mrs. Esther McCabe, a native of Lilly, for her dedication to her country. In 1944 Mrs. McCabe was honored as ``America's Number One War Mother'' because 10 of her sons were serving in the military. Another son enlisted in 1945. We were honored to have present for the ceremony, two of her sons, Leo and James McCabe, who served in World War II. In the summer of 1944, Leo McCabe was serving in the Army in Normandy after the D-Day invasion. On a very hot day in Arance, a German fighter plane came over the town and saw a number of gas trucks moving down the road. The Germans hit the lead truck with a rocket, causing it to ignite. While the driver of the truck was able to escape, a young boy who was with him was caught in the flames. Leo McCabe left the crowd and ran into the flames, the only person willing to risk his life to save the boy. McCabe emerged from the truck with the boy in his arms and McCabe's own clothing on fire, as well as the boy's. McCabe carried the boy to a field, where the flames were extinguished. He then put the young man into a jeep to be rushed to a hospital. Leo McCabe saved the boy's life with this action. Earlier this year, when asked to comment on his actions for a local newspaper reporter, Leo McCabe said simply ``That was no big deal,'' and when asked on May 29th to address the crowd at the ceremony, Leo McCabe chose not to make a comment and sat proudly with his family. When given the opportunity, Mrs. McCabe's other son who was present, James McCabe, did step up to the microphone, pointed his hand to his left, said ``I worked at that mine over there,'' and then sat down. Like thousands of Americans who were called upon to serve their country in World War II, these three men: James Lego, Leo McCabe, and James McCabe, answered that call and served their country proudly. After the war, they returned home, went to work in the steel mills or in the coal mines like James did, and life went on. It was a distinct honor for me to be able to recognize on this occasion the sacrifices made by James Lego and the entire McCabe family in fighting for our freedom in World War II.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to have joined with Congressman Cunningham in leading the effort in the 106th Congressman to pass a Constitutional amendment to protect the American Flag from desecration. Our Flag is the symbol of our great nation--of who we are and how we got here. It is the symbol of hard-won freedom, democracy and individual rights. It is the symbol of our patriotism. It is the symbol that binds us together in our hearts and inspires us to strive to protect and preserve this land, this country and each other. It is an enduring symbol that unites generations. It is the embodiment of our struggles of the past, our strength in the present and our hopes for the future. It is the symbol of freedom. Each of us associates a memory with our flag. We solemnly pledge allegiance to it as children with our hands on our hearts. It took our breath away to watch the astronauts place it on the moon. It flies proudly over the doors of our homes, the rooftops of our workplaces, and in our parades on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. It has given many Veterans the will to persevere in conflicts against oppression around the world. An American pilot was recently shot down in Yugoslavia and spent time hiding in hostile territory to avoid capture. After he was rescued, he was asked what he kept his thoughts focused on during hiding. His answer: the American Flag. The debate over this amendment is a debate about the sanctity of America's ideals and of the sacrifices made by countless millions of fellow citizens for this country to become and remain free and strong and united under one Flag. It is not a debate about free speech. Burning and destruction of the flag is not speech. It is an act. However, it does inflict insult--insult that strikes at the very core of who we are as Americans and why so many of us fought--and many died--for this country. And many a lesser insult is not wholly protected under the First Amendment--we have laws against libel, slander, copyright infringement, and ``fighting words'' which pass muster under the First Amendment test. We should hold our Flag sacred in our Constitution. It is the symbol of what we are, who we are, and all we have been through and fought against to get where we are together as a strong, free and united nation. I urge my Colleagues to support this Constitutional amendment today.