John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the other day I spoke at a Memorial Day service in Lilly, Pennsylvania. In Lilly during World War I they had lost 14 or 15 people. In World War II they had lost a little less. But one family sent 10 boys to World War II. That mother was honored as the Mother of the Year in 1945. I said, would you like to say something? And the one boy, 74 years old now, got up and he said, I went to the Navy and I came back and I worked in that coal mine, and he sat down. Another young man, 85 years old, got the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and a combat infantryman badge from World War II. And I said, would you like to say something? He said, I said my say in World War II. We get up here and we talk and we talk and we talk. We act like we are going to solve these problems. After I went out and mingled with the crowd, the whole town was there, only 2,000 people in the town, these folks came to me and said, you folks keep abridging our rights. You keep taking away our rights. You keep passing laws that the ordinary citizen lose their ability to do their business. I have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Our folks go about their business. Our big business is the industrial revolution. We produced all the steel and coal for the country. They do not listen to Washington a lot. There is nobody listening to what I am saying tonight. They are in bed, because they have to get up the next morning and go to work. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. If Members think what we are trying to do here today is going to solve these problems, it is much more complicated than that. All we are trying to do with the Dingell amendment is reduce some of the burden on the law-abiding citizens. I ask Members to support the Dingell amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about the benefits versus risks of the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test in the early detection of prostate cancer. Some have opposed regular PSA testing for the general male population that falls outside of any high- risk category because they argue it will find many slow-growing cancers that should not be treated. They say this is because the risk of serious side effects such as impotency or decrease in urinary function that may result from treatment is greater than the risk of dying of the cancer if it is slow-growing. I recently raised this question with a good friend of mine, Arnold Palmer, who has been an advocate of increased education and awareness of the issue of prostate cancer due to his own personal experience. I would not that he strongly believes the early detection of prostate cancer due to a PSA test saved his life. I would like to share with you his as well as his doctor's response to the question of whether to promote regular PSA testing. Their response supports what I have argued in promoting Medicare coverage of regular PSA testing: because it detects cancer early, it saves lives. I think that has to be the bottom line. Youngstown, PA, May 11, 1999. Hon. John P. Murtha, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Murtha: I have just heard back from my medical specialists in the prostate cancer field at the Mayo Clinic with a response to your inquiry generated by the recent article in the New York Times on the subject of PSA testing. Dr. Robert Myers, the surgeon who performed my prostatectomy, has given me his opinion, which was relayed to me by his associate, Dr. Ian Hay, with whom I have been in frequent contact over the last two years and who has been out of the country; hence the delay in this response to you. Let me quote directly from Dr. Myers' comments: ``Any prostate cancer no matter how small it is can be lethal if left long enough. There is no way to predict which ones will be life threatening in individual patients, especially younger men. Cure is certain in those patients who have cancer truly confined to the prostate and it is removed surgically. The smaller the cancer the better in terms of successful surgery. ``The PSA test allows discovery of the smallest cancers years before they can be detected any other way. Thus, it stands to reason that if PSA is detecting more small cancers and they are removed surgically, the death rate from prostate cancer will fall. This is exactly what is being recorded in the last few years. The surgery needs to be performed by surgeons who are highly skilled in removing the prostate without affecting either urinary control or sexual function. ``The best long-term survivals (more than 10 years) from prostate cancer death are associated with surgery as a solution to treating this cancer.'' Jack, I hope that this provides you with the sort of expert opinion on this very important matter that you wished. I think that it is very succinct and to the point. It encourages me to continue to publicly urge men to submit to PSA testing on a regular basis as I have been doing since my surgery more than two years ago. I trust that your Congressional duties are permitting you time to play some golf. I send you my best personal regards and good wishes. Sincerely, Arnold Palmer.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is missing my point. We have two ways to stop it, reducing readiness by reducing money available or having a two-thirds vote, or allowing Milosevic to see we are divided. That is the point I am making.

Mr. MURTHA. I led the fight.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, last week I called our friend Tom Foglietta, who is the Ambassador to Italy, and I said, ``Mr. Ambassador, tell me what the reaction in Italy is to the debate going on in the United States Congress.'' And the Ambassador called me back 2 days ago and he said, The Italian papers in their editorial section said we do not have to worry about the communists. We do not have to worry about the Greens. We have to worry about the United States Congress destroying the NATO allies, the alliance. Now, that was in reaction to the fiasco we had last week. We have two ways that we can limit the President. One is, by a two-thirds vote we can override his veto. The other way is to limit the funds that the President has to use for readiness. For 5 years we have limited the funds of the President for readiness because for 2 years this Congress, this House, insisted we offset the money that the President asked for in his emergency money for Bosnia because there were a number of people that asked for those funds or a number of people who opposed that position of us being in Bosnia. We were not successful in getting out of Bosnia, but we did limit the readiness money. Our troops are now at a precipice of readiness. I went aboard the Abraham Lincoln. The Abraham Lincoln has 5,000 troops normally. It was 800 people short. If Members think they are hurting anybody but the troops, they are wrong. They are hurting our American servicepeople when they limit the money. If we do not have a two-thirds vote on the floor of the Congress of the United States, in both Houses, we cannot override a veto, and we know the other body has already voted to go along with what is happening. So what we are doing is sending a message to Milosevic, and we are saying to him, ``We're divided.'' We are playing into his hand. We are making him think we are divided as a country, and we will never solve the problem. As the refugees stream out of Kosovo, as they stream into the refugee center with mud and no facilities, we are helping them with that. Unless we see a two-thirds vote, the only recourse we have is to limit the funds that are available to the President. We have done that, and we have reduced readiness substantially. Everybody here knows that. Everybody knows that the carriers are short, the destroyers are short, the Army is short 12,000 people, the Navy is short 7,000 people. The infantry fighting vehicles do not have any infantry in them. They only have the driver and the commander. I would ask my colleagues to think very hard. This amendment will cause a veto of the bill. It will slow down money we need to have by Memorial Day for the troops that are overseas. If Members support the troops, I ask them to vote against this amendment and then vote for passage of the bill, of the $12.8 billion for the troops that are serving in harm's way in the Balkans.

Mr. MURTHA. How did I vote?

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it's with sadness that I note the passing last week of Mr. Frank J. Pasquerilla of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Frank Pasquerilla was the perfect example of the American Dream. Growing up poor, through hard-work and dedication he built a Fortune 500 Company. Recognizing the opportunity America had given him, he supported a wide range of economic development, educational advancement, and cultural activities. Frank made possible the Performing Arts Center at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, educational facilities at Notre Dame, health care facilities at Georgetown University, and environmental opportunities such as the Heritage Discovery Center in Cambria City. Frank was someone who could work with people of all philosophies, all backgrounds, and all regions because he always kept in mind what was best for the people, and because he always respected the needs of individuals. Frank has been involved in every step of development in Johnstown for the last 40 years, and because of him today we have a community with more people working than ever before in history, with cultural activities broader than at any time in history, and with a core of educational opportunities. A decade ago I was on an election oversight mission to Central America with then Notre Dame President Father Hesburgh. When he found out I knew Frank he asked me to intervene because Frank had given the university a contribution for a new building, but wouldn't let them name it for him. We called him from the plane, and it took a great deal of urging, but he finally consented to let the University place his name on the building. Frank wasn't trying to build a name for himself, but rather to build a legacy for people to help improve their lives, as he'd been able to improve his. And he succeeded. Frank Pasquerilla's life stands as a symbol of what we can accomplish in America, and his memory is a reminder of the greatness of an individual, and of our Nation.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, last week saw the passing of a man who symbolized all that is good and productive about local government in the United States, Joseph Roberts of Cresson, Pennsylvania. Joe was a Cambria County Commissioner for 32 years, and when he retired, he was the longest continuous county commissioner in Pennsylvania history. Joe cared about people. Individuals responded to Joe because they knew instantly in talking with him how much he cared about each individual, and how much he wanted to help. Typical of Joe's work was the leadership and constant oversight he provided in creating the county's long-term nursing care facility. Joe didn't develop the idea and turn it over to others, or appear to cut the ribbon and move on to something else, no, Joe was at the home constantly, visiting with people, making them feel better, overseeing the care for people who were his neighbors. Joe was always looking for ways that the County could do more to help people, and help the community. Thousands of families in Cambria County are enjoying better lives today because of the work he did in bringing jobs to the community, expanding the airport and helping with road facilities, and providing a full range of county services. And Joe did it all quietly. His reward wasn't in seeing his name in the news media, or in getting some award. Joe's legacy was in helping people, and seeing government be a force for good and for helping people and the community. Everyone in government service could benefit from measuring themselves against the record and actions of Joe Roberts. Few of us will ever succeed to his standards, but we all should try.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1999, William F. (Bill) Cody completed a distinguished career with the General Dynamics Corporation. His outstanding work played a major role in insuring the national security of the United States of America. He was a driving force in the development, fielding, and support for the Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 main battle tanks for the U.S. Army. These main battle tanks have been proven to be the world's finest in the recent Desert Storm war, and will be the cornerstone of our Nation's ground combat forces for many years to come. Mr. Cody's contributions to the Abrams tank program were marked with great wisdom, total dedication, and tenacious hard work to get the job done right despite the obstacles encountered. Prior to his outstanding career with General Dynamics, Mr. Cody further served his country for 30 years in the U.S. Army. He began his military service as a cadet at the United States Military Academy in 1952 and was commissioned as a 2d Lt., Field Artillery upon his graduation in 1956. While a cadet, Mr. Cody excelled in various leadership capacities, and was an outstanding baseball and football player. During his Army career, Bill Cody progressed rapidly through the ranks while holding many important command and staff positions to include combat in Vietnam. He was decorated for bravery several times and received numerous meritorious service awards for his outstanding service. He completed his outstanding military career with particular distinction and honor in the grade of Colonel, U.S. Army. Bill Cody has served his country with distinction in both a civilian and military capacity for nearly 47 years. He is a man of rare ability and devotion to his country. We salute him on his retirement, and wish him the best in his well-deserved retirement, and thank him for his dedicated service to his country.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments before the House of Representatives on the occasion of the 75th birthday of a truly outstanding American, Dave Roderick, whose life has been a testimony to the American Dream, the greatness of America and what one individual can accomplish in this country. Dave grew up on the North Side of Pittsburgh. He never lost sight of his roots or his commitment to where he grew up. Throughout a distinguished career as an international business leader, he always made it a priority to help Pittsburgh, working to stimulate community and economic development of the area. In addition, he stands as one of our nation's greatest industrialists. As Chairman of U.S. Steel he oversaw the merger of U.S. Steel and Marathon Oil into USX Corporation. One of his most notable accomplishments was the work he did in the 1970's and 1980's that literally saved the steel industry in the United States. Finding himself in the midst of an international economic war over the ``dumping'' of foreign subsidized steel, Dave Roderick worked tirelessly through the Ford, Carter and Reagan Administrations, finally succeeding in getting legislation passed which allowed the rebuilding of the American steel industry into the most modern in the world. That legislation, which saved the jobs of millions of American workers, was the only trade-control legislation ever approved by President Reagan. Dave's personal commitment to our Nation went well beyond his career in industry to include his distinguished service in the Pacific in World War II with the Marine Corps, as well as his commitment to the rebuilding of the Pittsburgh region. His strong work ethic and values were apparent early on as indicated by his work through college to pay for his education and his devotion to his strong and close family. Dave Roderick is a classic symbol of the indomitable American spirit. He grew up in humble surroundings and through hard work, dedication and commitment became a true hero of industrial America. I congratulate Dave on his 75th birthday and on his outstanding and uniquely American life.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I recently received the following statement by the Korea-U.S. Business Councils from U.S. Council members Dave Roderick and Tom Usher. It's encouraging and shows the difference IMF funds can make in the international economic community. I'm pleased to include the statement in the Congressional Record. Korea-U.S./U.S.-Korea Business Councils Joint Statement, January 19, 1999 The Korea-U.S. Business Council and the U.S.-Korea Business Council, representing business leaders from their respective countries, had their Twelfth Annual Joint Steering Committee Meeting in Hawaii, January 17-19, 1999. The U.S. Council Members have a general feeling that the Korean government, under the strong leadership of President Kim Dae-Jung, has adopted a rational and constructive policy to overcome the financial crisis. Only a year after South Korea had to ask for assistance from the International Monetary Fund: Interest rates have fallen to single digits after reaching almost 30% during the height of the crisis because of improved liquidity. Korea's stock market index continues to dramatically rise as a result of active purchasers from domestic and foreign investors; and, Stabilization to the exchange rate has been achieved. As a result of the combined vigorous efforts by the Korean government, with the continuing support of the U.S. and the IMF, and the private sector in pursuing financial reform, corporate restructuring and improved corporate governance, the South Korean economy is now beginning to show some signs of recovery. Korea's foreign exchange reserves have surpassed the $48 billion mark for the first time in the nation's history. Korea's five largest ``chaebols'' have agreed to drastically reduce the number of subsidiaries and their debt- to-equity ratios and also complete ``Big Deals'' that will greatly help to enhance the competitiveness of Korean industries. Recently, the sovereign rating of won-denominated Korean government bonds has been upgraded and further upgrades are expected in the future. The Korean government has begun to pay back loans to the IMF instead of exercising the option to roll-over the loans. Despite the good news, both Councils are greatly concerned about the dramatic increase in unemployment figures in Korea and how this could negatively affect social stability. Existing ``safety net'' programs should be expanded to ensure continued support for more painful reforms. Another area of concern for both Councils is the highly unpredictable relationship with North Korea. After being fully updated on the current situation, both sides agreed that stability between the North and the South must be ensured and that a strong united front must be maintained to serve as a deterrent against North Korea. The Korean Council would like to acknowledge the important role played by the U.S. government and American companies in helping South Korea during the financial crisis. Based on the U.S.'s experience in dealing with their own economic difficulties during the late 1980s, the Korean Council asks the U.S. to offer continued advice and assistance. This will be a difficult year because many agreements will have to be reached concerning trade issues affecting the U.S. and South Korea. Both Councils would like to offer their support and contributions to ensure that the completion of this process is beneficial and amicable to both nations. Both Councils noted the progress being made by the two governments toward concluding a Bi-lateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and give their strong endorsement for its rapid implementation. A U.S.-ROK``BIT'' can make a significant contribution to the business relationship and help in restoring Korea's economy. The U.S. side urges that efforts continue to liberalize the economy, further encourage foreign direct investment, increase transparency in financial statements, improve corporate governance, and maintain commitments to open, fair and non-discriminatory trade rules. Although many positive things have been accomplished in a very short period of time, both Councils are cognizant of the fact that there is still much work left to be done. Accordingly, both councils would like to offer their full support for these efforts and urge all parties to remain diligent to provide the setting for eventual recovery and continued prosperity.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, during Christmas week I went with Senator Daniel K. Inouye and Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen to the Middle East to congratulate our troops on the great work they've done in the region and to let them know America was remembering their efforts during the Holidays when so many had to be away from their families. We found wonderful morale among the troops and a strong commitment to continuing to meet U.S. goals in the region. I also want to praise three entertainers who gave up part of their Holidays to join us. As we visited in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and abroad the USS Enterprise, the troops were entertained by Mary Chapin Carpenter, Carole King, and David Ball. The troops thoroughly enjoyed meeting the entertainers and listening to their music. Several soldiers commented on how much the show brightened their holidays noting it was the highlight of the last 4\1/2\ months. These three patriotic Americans gave up part of their Christmas Week to deliver a message of support and concern to our troops. They clearly showed their support for our Nation, our troops, and our spirit of uniting as Americans. We left on a Sunday, returned on Christmas Eve, and were greeted by an ice storm that made travel difficult. Carole King traveled from Washington back to Idaho by air, then drove three hours to her home; David Ball missed his flight home, drove to Baltimore, and finally got to Nashville the next morning; Mary Chapin Carpenter lives in the Washington area, but it's the second straight Christmas she's visited troops, last year in Italy, Macedonia, and Bosnia. It's a pleasure for me to recognize the commitment and caring of these three fine Americans, and to restate the thanks of our troops and our Nation for their patriotism.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the following is an excellent analysis of the world's missile threat presented by Mr. Robert Walpole to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (By Robert D. Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs) Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to be here today to talk about the ballistic missile threat to the United States. Assessing and defining that threat to our homeland and interests worldwide is one of the most important intelligence missions in the post-Cold War world. And I must tell you that we consider foreign assistance to be fundamental to the threat, not merely an incidental aspect of the problem. Finally, the threat is real, serious, growing, and dynamic. For example, since our annual report six months ago, the Ghauri, Shahab 3, and Taepo Dong 1 missiles/launch vehicles have all been tested. For these reasons, we are mandated by Congress to report on our assessments of this threat annually. At the outset, let me emphasize how appreciative we are of the Commission's work. I particularly like the fact that they received approval to publish a relatively detailed unclassified report on the threat. As you have undoubtedly heard, we gave the Commission access to all the available intelligence information, regardless of classification. The Commission made a number of excellent recommendations for how we can improve our collection and analysis on foreign missile developments. Indeed, their report reinforces the DCI's call for a stronger investment in analysis and more aggressive use of outside expertise. Incorporating the Commission's ideas will strengthen our own work in this area. We and the Commission agree that the missile threat confronts the Community with an array of complicated problems that require innovative solutions. At the same time, the Commission challenges some of our conclusions and assumptions, particularly those in our 1995 National Intelligence Estimate--Emerging Missile Threats to North America During the Next 15 Years (NIE 95-19). Our March 1998 Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Missile Developments was prepared in response to a request by Congress for a yearly update of that assessment. Under the DCI's direction, the 1998 report responded to legitimate criticisms levied at our earlier work. It also incorporated the recommendations of outside experts who reviewed the 1995 NIE. As a result, the 1998 report already addresses many of the Commission's concerns, especially those regarding how we discuss foreign assistance, alternatives to increasing a missile's range, and approaches to circumvent development. Work is already underway on the 1999 report, and we are looking differently at how we characterize uncertainties, alternative scenarios, and warnings as a result of our interaction with the Commission the past several months and I expect successive reports to be better, addressing additional questions as they are asked. This morning, I will outline our March 1998 report; discuss areas where the substantive conclusions of the Commission's report and our thinking agree and differ; and discuss what we are doing differently for our 1999 report. Our 1998 Report Secretary Rumsfeld has expressed concern that people not judge the Commission's report before they read it. While I share that concern regarding our 1998 annual report--which gives a full appreciation for our views and concerns about this growing threat--it remains classified, and therefore cannot be released to the public. But, I can give you a feel for what the report says. In our report, we underscore the significant role foreign assistance has played and continues to play--indeed throughout the report are several major discussions of technology transfer. For example, the report begins with several pages discussing the extent of foreign assistance from numerous suppliers to even more recipients. It also notes how foreign assistance has helped specific missile programs, such as assistance with Iran's Shahab 3 missile. Our report also underlines the immediate threat posed by medium-range missiles, our continuing concern about existing and emerging ICBMs, and the increasing danger that comes from the proliferation activities of countries that possess or are developing such systems. We and the Commission have some different views on some of our timelines for ICBM development, using the available evidence, group debate, and outside expert review. Nevertheless, where evidence is limited and the stakes are high, we need to keep challenging our assumptions--a role we will perform on this issue at least annually. Let me make three points on our methodology. First, we do not expect countries to follow any specific pattern for missile development. In fact, the United States, the former Soviet Union, and China all took different approaches. We frequently caution ourselves against any mirror-imaging. Just because the United States, Russia, or China was able to accomplish certain feats certain ways in a specific period of time--short or long--does not mean another country will. Second, we recognize that foreign countries can hide many activities from us. These countries are generally increasing their security measures and are learning from each other and from open reporting of our capabilities. Third, our methodologies really are not that different. Given the fact that in many cases we have limited data, we are both forced somewhat to use both input and output methodologies to evaluate the threat. The biggest difference in methodology is that the Intelligence Community must attach likelihood judgments to our projections; the Commission did not. Thus, we project our most likely scenarios and then include other scenarios with likelihood judgments attached. The Commission illustrated several possible scenarios, which we agree are possible, but did not attach likelihood judgments. But let me repeat, we agree that their scenarios are possible, as are many other scenarios we have looked at, including outright sales. Let me now summarize the body of our 1998 report, which focused on threat projections through 2010: Theater-range missiles already in hostile hands pose an immediate threat to U.S. interests, military forces, and allies. The threat is increasing. More countries are acquiring ballistic missiles with ranges up to 1,000 km, and more importantly, with ranges between 1,000 km and 3,000 km. As Iran's flight test of its Shahab 3 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) demonstrates, this is not a hypothetical threat. It is a reality that has to be dealt with now. With a range of about 1,300 km, the Shahab 3 significantly alters the military equation in the Middle East by giving Tehran the capability to strike targets in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most of Turkey. The Pakistani Ghauri, also tested this year, allows targeting of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf. Foreign assistance is fundamental to the growing theater missile threat. As we describe in the 1998 report, for example, Iran received important foreign assistance in developing its Shahab 3 MRBM. Moreover, countries are seeking the capability to build these missiles independently of foreign suppliers. The growth in the sharing of technology among the aspiring missile powers is also of concern. While we project that Russia's strategic forces will shrink, they continue to be modernized and will remain formidable. China has about 20 CSS-4 ICBMS, in addition to shorter-range missiles. Most of these are targeted against the United States, and modernization efforts will likely increase the number of Chinese warheads aimed at the United States. Our report further noted that we judge that an unauthorized or accidental launch of a Russian or Chinese strategic missile is highly unlikely, as long as current security procedures and systems are in place. Russia employs an extensive array of technical and procedural safeguards and China keeps its missiles unfueled and without warheads mated. Among those countries seeking longer-range missiles, we believe North Korea is the most advanced. Its Taepo Dong-2 (TD-2), which we judged will have a range between 4,000 and 6,000 km, could reach mainland Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. Our report noted that North Korea could flight test the missile this year and that it could be deployed in a few years. Beyond the North Korean TD-2, we judge it unlikely, despite the extensive transfer of theater missile technology, that other countries (except Russia and China as just mentioned) will develop, produce, and deploy an ICBM capable of reaching any part of the United States over the next decade. Of course, the key word here is develop. As the report noted, the purchase of a missile, either complete or as components of a kit, is a different matter. In fact, we identified several alternative scenarios for a country to acquire an ICBM capable of reaching the United States sooner than 2010. These include buying an ICBM or SLV to convert into an ICBM, or buying a complete production facility for either. We judge that the current policies of Russia and China make these scenarios unlikely, given potential political repercussions, the creation of a self-inflicted threat, and China's own military needs. Our report points out that we cannot be certain that this will remain true over the long term. Indeed, the further into the future we project the politico-economic environment, the less certain we would be that the `value' of the sale would not outweigh these factors in foreign thinking. And, as North Korea develops its Taepo Dong missiles, their sales become an increasing concern. A number of countries have the technological wherewithal to develop the capability to launch ballistic (or cruise) missiles from a forward-based platform, such as a surface ship. Forward-basing from dedicated vessels or from freighters could pose a new threat to the United States in the near term--well before 2010. Our 1998 report assesses that our abilities to warn about the above-mentioned threats and postulated concerns vary: We could provide five years warning before deployment that a potentially hostile country was trying to develop and deploy an ICBM capable of hitting the United States, unless that country purchased an ICBM or space launch vehicle (SLV), including having another country develop the system for them); had an indigenous space launch vehicle (SLV); or purchased a turnkey production facility. We could not count on providing much warning of either the sale of an ICBM or the sale and conversion of a SLV (conversion could occur in as little as two years). Nevertheless, if a hostile country acquired an SLV, we would warn that the country had an inherent ICBM capability. I note, however, that both the United States and the Soviet Union used systems we did not consider as ICBMs to place their first satellites into orbit. The satellite we orbited weighed only 14 kg. These two warnings need to be understood in tandem. Unfortunately, the warning related to sales may dominate in the near term. As North Korea proceeds with its Taepo Dong developments, we need to assume that they will follow their current path and market them; at a minimum, aspiring recipients will try to buy them. We probably would obtain indications of the construction of a turnkey facility before it was completed, providing several years' warning. If a country had an SLV, it could probably convert it into an ICBM in a few years, significantly reducing warning time. Adapting missiles for launch from a commercial ship could be accomplished covertly, and probably with little or no warning. Finally, our report noted that nonmissile delivery of weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons--pose a serious, immediate threat to US interests at home and abroad. Where We Agree Now I'll go over some of the points of agreement between our 1998 report and the Commission's work. We agree that: The threat is real and growing. The medium-range ballistic missile threat to US interests in the world is already upon us. Missile forces of Russia and China pose a significant threat to the United States and this threat will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Our reports also agree on North Korea's capabilities. Foreign assistance and the proliferation of ballistic missile technology is the fundamental reason for the growing ballistic missile threat. Foreign denial and deception efforts and resource constraints are making it more difficult for us to monitor foreign missile developments. Finally, there are plausible scenarios that could result in an increased missile threat to the United States for which there would be little or no warning. Where we disagree I will now walk through some of the areas of disagreement between the Commission and our 1998 report. The Commission's report indicates that intelligence analysts are too dependent on evidence and seem unable to make judgments without it. In actuality, despite the lack of evidence in some areas, our analysts make judgments and projection. I highlight that to allay concerns that we would consider `the absence of evidence' to be `the evidence of absence.' Quite the contrary, our analysts routinely face gaps in their evidence and must make analytical judgments to project plausible scenarios. We need to do better. Working with limited evidence and make judgments is central to our job, as long as we underscore where we have little or no evidence. They did so in the case of the critical threats some missiles pose. In fact, we note that successful missile tests would give countries an emergency, launch capability with any missiles in their inventory, even without evidence of deployment. As I indicated earlier, we are in basic agreement with the Commission on North Korea. While they did not indicate so, I assume they do not disagree with our judgments that North Korea was capable of testing both the Taepo Dong 1 and 2 this year. The Commission considers Iraq to be behind North Korea and Iran relative to ballistic missile technology. We view Iraq as further along in some ways. Iraq was ahead of Iran before the Gulf war. They have not lost the technological expertise and creativity. If sanctions were lifted and they tried to develop indigenously a 9,000 km range ICBM to be able to reach the United States, it would take them several years. If they purchased an ICBM from North Korea or elsewhere, it would be quicker, depending on the range and payload capability of the missile. If the missile already had the range capability, further development would be moot. The Commission considers Iran to be as far along in its technological development efforts as North Korea. In our view, that is not the case. The recently tested Iranian Shahab 3 is based on the No Dong and followed North Korea's test, even with foreign assistance, by several years. Iran will likely continue to seek longer range missiles, and would need to develop a 10,000 km range ICBM to be able to reach the United States. If they follow a pattern similar to the Shahab 3 time frame, it would take them many years. On the other hand, if they purchased an ICBM from North Korea or elsewhere, it would be quicker, and depending on the range and payload capability of the missile, further development might be a moot point. The Commission indicates that our ability to warn is eroding and that we may not be able to provide warning at all. I've covered our views on warning earlier, and I fear further detail would only help proliferators more. They're already learning how to hide some aspects of missile programs, I'd rather they not learn more. I will say this, however. We need to be much more explicit in our warnings about missile developments--not just indicating that a country has an ICBM program and that it could flight test an ICBM this year, both of which are important messages. We need to include clearer language and more details about how we might and might not be able to warn about specific milestones in an ICBM development effort, judgments that will likely vary by country. 1999 report We are already working on the 1999 annual report and are planning to include significant additional outside expertise and red teaming into next year's report: Private-sector contractors will be asked to postulate missile threats that apply varying degrees of increased foreign assistance. These will be in addition to the Commission's postulations and some of our own. We are also asking academia to postulate future politico- economic environments that foster missile sales and ever increasing foreign assistance. In addition, the Intelligence Community recently published a classified paper that postulates ways a country could demonstrate an ICBM capability with an SLV, and examines various ways it could convert its SLVs into ICBMs. This work will also feed into the 1999 report, as a generic look at some alternative approaches. Finally, drafting is underway on a paper that examines how countries could push Scud technology beyond perceived limits. Scientists and non-scientists are involved. Sometimes, those already outside the box can think so more readily. We also intend in the 1999 report--after discussing our projected timelines for likely missile developments and deployments, as well as our concerns for ICBM sales--to postulate and evaluate many alternative scenarios, including those developed during the Commission's efforts and those mentioned above. Finally, we will be much more explicit in our discussions about warning. All these evaluations will be made through the lens of potential denial and deception efforts, to ensure that as our task gets more difficult, we provide our policymakers with a clear representation of what we know, what we don't know, what we can't know, and finally what we judge based on evidence, the lack thereof, and expertise from inside and outside the government. community enhancement In recent months we have undertaken numerous steps that will enhance the Community's abilities to tackle the increasingly difficult tasks we face, including addressing the emerging missile threat. For example, we have increased ``red teaming'' efforts to ensure that we question our assumptions and examine out-of-the-box possibilities. Furthermore, last year the DCI strengthened the Nonproliferation Center to ensure that we have an aggressive, well-coordinated effort to address the nonproliferation target. At DCI direction we are taking actions to ensure that we have the analysts and skills needed to cover those issues of greatest importance. These include: increasing the size of the analytic cadre; creation of the Community executive boards to leverage the best experts on critical issues to drive collection and analysis against the most significant intelligence needs and gaps; introducing new training methodologies, technologies and analytic tools, and improving the mix of skills to address our most pressing problems; creating mechanisms to increase cooperation and better integrate the efforts of all analytic production centers. conclusion This is a serious and complex issue, one of many others that we're working. The Intelligence Community uses many vehicles, including estimates and annual reports, to convey our analyses to policy makers and Congress. We will continue to do so. Taepo Dong 1 Launch Before I close, let me make a few comments about the Taepo Dong 1 satellite launch attempt. While the system's third stage failed, the launch confirmed our concerns regarding North Korea's efforts to pursue an ICBM capability and demonstrated some unanticipated developments. We have been following North Korea's ICBM progress since the early 1990s, most notably, their efforts to develop what we call the Taepo Dong 1 medium-range missile and the Taepo Dong 2 ICBM, which we assessed were two-stage missiles. This recent launch used the Taepo Dong 1 and a third stage. They tested some important aspects of ICBM development and flight roughly on the timetable we expected. And, for example, they were successful at multiple stage separation. As we have analyzed the information that has come in so far, we have been able to determine much of what happened. Indeed, this is a work in progress, and as we continue to receive information, it will give us a more detailed picture. Although the launch of the Taepo Dong 1 as a missile was expected for some time, its use as a space launch vehicle with a third stage was not. The existence of the third stage concerns us; we had not anticipated it. We need to conduct more analysis on it, trying to identify more about it, including its capabilities and why it failed. The first and second stages performed to North Korean expectations, providing what could amount to a successful flight test of the two-stage Taepo Dong 1 medium-range missile. However, we believe North Korea would need to resolve some important technical issues--including the problems with the third stage--prior to being able to use the three-stage configuration as a ballistic missile to deliver small payloads to ICBM ranges; that is, ranges in excess of 5,500 km. The Intelligence Community is continuing to assess the North Korean capabilities demonstrated by this launch and the treat implications of the missile. In particular, the Community is assessing how small a payload would have to be for this system to fly to something on the order of an ICBM range. We need to look at the implications of lighter payloads and possibly a third stage for the Taepo Dong 2. We also need to ensure that we continue aggressive collection and analysis efforts against proliferation and foreign transfers, and their effects on advancing missile programs. And we need to be much more explicit in our warnings about missile developments--not just indicating that a country has an ICBM program and that it could flight test an ICBM in a given year, both of which are important messages. We need to include clearer language and more details about how we might and might not be able to warn about specific milestones in an ICBM development effort, judgments that will likely vary by country.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you and my colleagues a very uplifting story about an extraordinary group of young people in Elderton, Pennsylvania. Two years ago, under the guidance of some very enthusiastic and involved high school teachers and the sponsorship of the Armstrong- Indiana County Intermediate Unit, a group of six high school students started a program called Applebee Pond. The program, which was created by the Mercer County Drug and Alcohol Commission, Inc., involves a puppet show performed by a group of high school kids for grade school children. However, this program is not merely an extracurricular activity--it is much more. That's because the purpose of the program is to teach very young children of grade school age the dangers of smoking. The group of high school students, which now numbers over twenty students ranging in age from 14 to 18, travels to grade schools throughout the area putting on a variety of programs for a very attentive audience of children. The message of avoiding smoking is delivered to the younger children through puppet characters they enjoy and is positively reinforced through the older kids, who they look up to and who serve as powerful role models. As priceless as is the lesson being taught to the youngsters, though, perhaps the most extraordinary thing about this program is the impact it has had on the high school students--both those participating in the program as well as their peers. Participation in the program is selective and competitive. The students must maintain good grades and promise not to drink, smoke, or be involved with any drugs. Since the program started, the students associated with it have become so popular by setting an example of a healthy, athletic, positive lifestyle, that other students have actually quit smoking to be able to join. Parents praise the program and call to find out how their children can participate. Their brightly colored, easily recognized T-shirts are proudly-worn status symbols. They work well with their teachers and are well-known within their community. Some students who have graduated even come back to spend time helping out with the program. At a time when young people are so often noticed only when they do something wrong, I am very proud to be able to share with you the story of these terrific teenagers and the wonderful gift they are giving to their classmates, their community, and to themselves. They are demonstrating what cool really is--being a leader, a good student, and living a healthy lifestyle.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, five years ago I came before the House to call attention to an innovative drug abuse prevention program in Pennsylvania that was celebrating fifteen years of success. While we as a Nation have by no means solved the problem of drug abuse among our young people, the young people of Southwestern Pennsylvania are far better off today than they would have been without that program at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. So, today, I stand before you again to recognize and pay tribute to this wonderful program as it now celebrates its twentieth anniversary. In 1978, St. Vincent College joined with the Westmoreland County Drug and Alcohol Commission, the Latrobe Area Chamber of Commerce, and area school districts to develop a primary prevention education program. St. Vincent continued the sponsorship of the program as a community service project which provides education and other prevention services in all 17 public school districts in Westmoreland County as well as school districts in surrounding counties. We will continue to fight to stop the flow of drugs into our country. But we can't focus only on stopping supply; we have to focus on stopping the demand, within our own country, among our young people who are vulnerable to the daunting pressures of social and economic factors and the predatory tactics of the suppliers. Prevention of a young person from ever trying drugs is the best way to reduce the demand. That is done through education, and that is what the program at St. Vincent College does very well. It set out to make a difference and it has made a difference. I am proud to salute the many people who have worked at this for twenty years and who continue to reach out to these young people and help to understand the importance of avoiding drugs. I hope they see their triumph reflected in the face of every happy healthy young person and look forward to celebrating with them many more anniversaries of success in the fight against drugs.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Henry Otis Barbour, a long-time employee of Army Navy Country Club, who passed away suddenly on August 23, 1998. Otis, as all the members at the club affectionately called him, was the sixth of ten children born to the late Richard and Helen Barbour. He was educated in the public school systems of Arlington County, Virginia and Washington D.C. When he was nine years old he began frequenting Army Navy Country Club retrieving golf balls in order to make a little spending money. He continued this practice until he was offered a permanent position at the club. In every successful organization there are one or two individuals that directly contribute to its success; Otis was one of those special people. For forty-four years he mastered nearly all the support services of the golf course--from caddying, to maintaining the range, to servicing and maintaining more than 90 golf carts, to helping members understand the intricacies of the golf swing. Many have said that Otis knew more about the golf swing than all the golf professionals at Army Navy Country Club combined. When you arrived at the club, be it rain or shine, summer or winter you could always count on being greeted by a tip of the hat from Otis. In the truest sense of the word--he was a gentleman--who generously shared what he had with all he encountered. The members of Army Navy Country Club can consider themselves fortunate to have known Otis, and worse off for having lost him at such a young age. To all his relatives I send my condolences. Otis you will be missed but never forgotten.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want the gentleman to know I have been watching the debate; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is coming across as reasonable. I do not know what is going on.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, Bud Shuster and I came to Congress about the same time, and Joe McDade at that time was a legend. He came 10 years before we came to Congress, and he has dedicated himself not only to the people of Pennsylvania, but to the people of this Nation. Joe and I feel that our finest hour since we have been in Congress was when we were the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on defense during the war. Everything that happened during the war, we worked on, we had something to do with it. Before that, we made sure the appropriations were available to have the readiness that was necessary for that war to be carried out to the tremendous conclusion it was carried out to. Both of us supported George Bush, President Bush, in everything that he did, and I think we played a major role in getting the authorization to go to war and the appropriations necessary for that to be carried out adequately. But, just as important as that is the impact Joe McDade has had in this Congress with withstanding the prosecution by the Justice Department, the unfair prosecution. They came to his home and for six years they harassed him. They tried to get him to give in. They had a frivolous case. They leaked information. I sat beside Joe McDade, as the rest of us did in Pennsylvania. We knew that any charges they brought against him would be frivolous and that it would be inadequate, and we knew Joe, how honest he was. In all the years that he served on the defense subcommittee, which had as much as $300 billion in it, never once did he try to get something done for financial reasons. Everything he did was what was good for the country. So when they finally indicted him, the charges absolutely would have been devastating to the House of Representatives. If he had been convicted, it would have meant that every campaign contribution was considered a bribe. If he had been convicted, it meant that every honorarium would have been considered an illegal gratuity. The impact it would have had on the Congress would have been chilling. The Justice Department was trying to intimidate the House of Representatives, and Joe McDade withstood this tremendous pressure. It affected his health, it affected him emotionally, and it affected him physically. I watched him endure this. He and Sarah put up with this tremendous challenge, and they overcame it. When it went to the jury, the jury decided in a couple of hours that the whole case was frivolous, that what they were doing was outrageous, and the procedures were outrageous. I am proud to say that the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly a bill to force the Justice Department to follow the ethics of the states that they are practicing in, and certainly that is not too much to ask. But think what he has done in protecting the House of Representatives. The ordinary citizen cannot raise $1 million to protect themselves. The ordinary citizen has to give in. Why in some cases does the Justice Department brag about a 98 percent conviction rate? Because people have to give in. They have to compromise. They go after the sons or daughters of the families with unjust situations. Joe McDade is one of the finest people to ever have served in this great institution. We are at the pinnacle of power. This country right now is the most influential it has ever been, economically and militarily, and we can be proud to say, myself and those who have served with Joe McDade, what an outstanding American he is and what a tremendous service he has done to this country and to this great House of Representatives.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman and I this year have visited a number of installations throughout the country. We found shortages over the last 2 or 3 years, and the list that the chairman put in the Record, I hope Members will pay attention to. Readiness has slipped substantially. Some of our units are deployed that are not C-1, and that is a dangerous situation. As a matter of fact, we feel there are shortages which really hurt our national security. Without the supplemental, this bill will not be adequate. It is absolutely essential that we pass a supplemental, not offset, and I look forward to working with the chairman, and I am hoping we can get an adequate amount of money for Y2K, for computer security, for Bosnia, and for O&M in the supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to take this opportunity before my Colleagues in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to a very special organization in the district I represent. Mom's House, located in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, is celebrating its 15th anniversary. I'd like to tell you about this extraordinary organization, founded by an exceptional person who is a longtime friend as well, Peg Luksik. Mom's House was founded in 1983 to offer young women with unplanned pregnancies an alternative to abortion and welfare. The program was the first of its kind in the nation and has served as a national model of private and public sector cooperation in assisting young, single parents. It is a non-denominational, non-profit, licensed day care center that provides quality care and educational programs to preschool children as well as supportive services to their parents, allowing them to complete their education. The way the program works is the parents sign a contract to be full- time students, keep up their grades, attend parenting classes and volunteer three hours a week at the center. In addition, the Mom's House Memorial Scholarship Fund was established in 1987 to help single parents pay for the increasing costs of tuition while pursuing their education. Two scholarship awards were given in the first year of the program, and twelve awards were given in 1998. The program has since expanded to other locations in Pennsylvania as well as three other states, with the Johnstown facility serving as the national headquarters. Staffing needs are met through cooperation with community agencies such as the Foster Grandparent Program, Retired Senior Volunteers, United Way and local colleges, universities and churches. In May of 1992, Mom's House was awarded the 768th ``Daily Point of Light'' by President George Bush for its ``generosity and willingness to serve others.'' To date, Mom's House has helped over 2,500 single parents and cared for their children, enabling these families to have a brighter and happier future. This is the kind of caring, community-based effort that our country needs many more of. I applaud all the people at Mom's House and congratulate them on 15 years of outstanding community service and thank them for the priceless gift they give to these families.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). Mr. Chairman, I just want the Members of this House to know that I sat beside the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), a Member of Congress for 8 years, while he was investigated for 6 years; the most insidious tactics that could possibly have been against him. The appeals process, which is supposed to make sure that the Federal prosecutors do not get out of control, the Federal appeal process ruled two to one. He went 2 years under indictment. The Federal jury, which came from an area that said 70 percent of the politicians are crooks, ruled in 3 hours. He was acquitted. In the indictment they said campaign contributions are bribes. The rules of the House are clear about the legality of campaign contributions, that honorariums are legal gratuities. That is what they charged him with. They were trying to intimidate a Member of the House of Representatives. In addition to that, in addition to trying to intimidate the House of Representatives and ignore the rules of the House, which the public saw immediately, he was reelected three times during this period, when they leaked everything that could possibly be leaked, using those unethical tactics we are talking about during this period of time. Then, after this is all over, they tried to promote the prosecutor to judge. Now, this is a Member of Congress who was able to raise $1 million to defend himself. The ordinary citizen, the ordinary person, cannot raise $1 million. The ordinary citizen cannot even raise money to defend himself. The public at one time used to think that a person was innocent until guilty. Now they get the impression, because of the leaks, the unethical leaks that come from the prosecutor, that the individual is guilty. I cannot tell you the physical and mental distress that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) went through. Now, I see what you are talking about, and maybe we have to look in conference at some exemptions in drug cartels and things like that, but I think this is a ploy by the prosecutors to continue their unethical conduct without any kind of regard to the ordinary citizen. We call this the Citizens Protection Act because we feel so strongly that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) is just an example. What he did for the House of Representatives is absolutely essential to our independence. But what we are trying to do for the ordinary citizen is absolutely important to their individual protection. We believe we need an independent body to watch over them, to give them some sort of controls so that they do not go off without control and then be promoted, as somebody was after Waco, and the terrible, terrible injustice they did to the individual in Atlanta with the leaks that came out of the Justice Department. So I feel very strongly that we have to get some kind of control. The legislation that we drew we hoped would come through the authorizing committee. We could not work it out at this late date. I just hope that the Members, and we have almost 200 cosponsors of this legislation, we have said to the Justice Department, if you have individual situations that you would like us to look at, we would be glad to look at that. They have not come back with anything. They just want to take this out. They want no kind of controls from the outside. So we believe that it is important to put some kind of controls over the unethical conduct of the Justice Department. As a matter of fact, we have 50 chief justices of the United States that have said that they believe that the Justice Department of the United States should fall under the ethical rules of each of the States. I feel very strongly about this, and I would urge Members to vote against this amendment. If there is something that has to be adjusted, we are glad to work with them in trying to adjust this when we get to conference. Perfecting Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the Members think I am excited about this, they are right. If they think I am sincere and focused on this issue, I am. I sat beside the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 8 years, 8 years while he was under persecution by the Justice Department: 6 years investigation, 2 years intimidation, under indictment. I watched the gentleman decline physically, mentally and emotionally from the strain of the Justice Department. We were able to raise $1 million to defend the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Justice Department system leaked information that was erroneous, leaked continually, did everything that could be unethical; charged him with campaign contributions being bribes, completely within the rules of the House; charged him with honoraria being illegal gratuities; tried to intimidate the House of Representatives which furnishes the money for the Justice Department. Now, what chance would an individual have against the Justice Department if they would go after one of the most prominent Members in the House of Representatives? A jury, which came from an area that the public opinion said 70 percent of the public in that area thought that all politicians were crooks, he was acquitted in 3 hours by a jury picked at random from that area. I feel strongly about this because it would protect the individual citizen from prosecution by not every prosecutor; I have no question that most prosecutors are above board and most prosecutors abide by the ethics rules. What we are saying in this legislation, when we defeat the Hutchinson amendment, is that they must abide by the ethics rules of the State involved. The chief justices of the entire United States, fifty of them, all agree with us and say they ought to abide by the rules. They do not abide not only by their own ethics, they do not abide by the ethics of the States they are practicing in, and we say a special citizens commission should do just exactly that as they are doing for the IRS. So I would hope that the House would rise up and show the prosecutors who are out of control, not all of them, just the ones out of control, that they need some sort of oversight and that this House will send a clear signal to the rest of the country that we will not stand by citizens to be persecuted by a prosecution. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said it probably better than anybody else. They have a tremendous power, the prosecutors in this country, to withhold the liberty of individual citizens. We want to make sure that prosecution is done ethically, and I would ask all of the Members of the House to vote against the Hutchinson amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant as he retires from his position as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of the Army after more than 28 years of dedicated service to his country. Mr. William K. Takakoshi is most deserving of our tribute. He has consistently demonstrated the outstanding qualities expected of our finest public servants. I would like to take a moment to highlight Bill's career milestones. A native of Rockford, Illinois, Bill is a 1970 graduate of the University of Illinois with a B.S. in Industrial Engineering. Upon graduation he was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Reserve. In 1971, Bill earned a Masters Degree in Industrial Engineering and Business Administration from Purdue University. Bill entered public service in 1970 as an Industrial Engineer at the Naval Ammunition Depot at Crane, Indiana. He was responsible for the production and industrial engineering for the five main Naval Ammunition Depots. In 1975, he was assigned as the Resource Branch Head of the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific. In that capacity he was responsible for planning, acquisition, and management of all the resources required to activate the missile facilities of the first TRIDENT Base. In 1981, after a tour at the Joint Cruise Missiles Program Office where he was the Deputy Production Manager, he accepted a position with the Army. For the next seven years he served as Deputy for Industrial Resources and Quality and Production for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition). During that time his primary focus was oversight of the Army Ammunition and Industrial Preparedness programs. Because of his vast experience and knowledge of the acquisition process, he was selected by the House Armed Services Committee as a Legislative Fellow. Bill served on the Acquisition Policy Panel for the Procurement Subcommittee for a complete legislative cycle. Upon his return to the Department of the Army in 1989 he was made Director, Program Review for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) and was selected for the Senior Executive Service. In 1990, because of his vast experience he was handpicked by the Under Secretary of the Army to serve as his Special Assistant. Since that time Bill has been the focal point within the Army for finding positive solutions and resolving difficult issues that cross varied interests and organizations. Bill Takakoshi is truly a ``team player''. He is always on top of the issues of the day and has the respect and confidence of the OSD and congressional staffs. He is the paramount professional, quiet and unassuming but one who always gets the job accomplished. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present the credentials of Mr. Takakoshi to the Congress today. It is clear that the Department of Defense is losing a great talent. I would like to wish both Bill and his wife Gay continued success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this committee over the last number of years has already reduced the fossil energy funding by 30 percent over the last 3 years. Over the same period, we have increased conservation funding by 14 percent. I represent an area which has extreme coal reserves. We had 10 years ago 12,000 coal miners. We have today 2,500 coal miners. They do not work in eastern Pennsylvania. They work in western Pennsylvania. We have done everything we could to increase the efficiency of burning coal. We have 600 years of coal deposits so we are trying to find ways to use this energy resource. We right now are more dependent on foreign oil than we were in 1974 when I came to Congress. We actually had long lines. We had to line up at a gas station to get gas in part of the time when I first came to Congress because of the shortage. Gasoline prices were over $2.00, and at the time the Saudis told us, you had better increase your fossil fuel research, do it more efficiently or you are not going to have the reserves, you are not going to burn coal efficiently and consequently you are going to depend on us more and more. We started a program. Because we could not work fast enough, we were not as efficient as quickly as we would like, we have not been able to accomplish our goal. On the other hand, we have come up with what we feel is reasonable funding over a long period of time so that when this oil from overseas dries up, we will have the reserves and the efficient energy from coal that we need. If we have further cuts in fossil energy, it will result in increased emissions and increased energy consumption due to continued reliance on outdated technology. We have done a marvelous job over the years in reducing emissions. In the area I represent, in all of western Pennsylvania, as a matter of fact, you had big globs of coal dust and steel deposits, iron ore deposits on the automobiles at one time. We have cleaned all that up. Ninety-eight percent of what goes in the air has been cleaned up substantially, and this has come about because of the research that we have done. This would be a drastic blow to the areas that are doing research on fossil energy if we were to cut the money from this area to increase conservation. So I would ask the Members to consider very carefully that we have these massive deposits of coal which we need to increase the efficiency and effectiveness, and the only way we can do it is by fossil fuel research. We want to continue that program. I would hope we would defeat this amendment.