John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me just state to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], President Bush did not ask for authorization. As a matter of fact, he did not think he needed authorization. The Congress forced that on the President.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, as most Members know, I have been involved in this issue for the entire length of time that the United States became aware of what was going on in Bosnia, and I realize there is an amazing difference between all of us about when troops should have been deployed and when they should not. I can remember vividly the debate on the floor of the House after the Dayton accord. There were predictions there would be American troops brought back in body bags. There were predictions that there would be a disastrous deployment for U.S. forces. When it started out, it looked like that was going to happen. President Clinton, against a lot of advice, made one of the most courageous decisions of his Presidency. He worked out an agreement, he put U.S. forces in conjunction with other forces under NATO on the ground. I am not one that believes that U.S. forces could have stopped this fighting before an agreement. I believe we had to have an agreement. But the truth has been that everything that has happened since the agreement has been positive. We have not lost one single American soldier from hostile fire. We have not had one person come back in a body bag from hostile fire. What happened before was just unmitigated killing by both sides. They hated each other. Once the accord was done, they were worn out, they decided that the territory was settled by the war itself and they are trying to reassimilate themselves. The last time I was there, more agriculture than we had ever seen before, unemployment was down 50 percent in Sarajevo. Employment is coming back. People are starting to renew their lives. The day that I went in, one of the last times I went in, the Dayton Accord was just signed, and it was a quiet night, and I stayed in the hotel there because we could not get out of Sarajevo before dark. They said, well, only 4000 rounds were fired. Now that was the day before the Dayton Accord. Since that time there has not been any rounds fired, there has been nobody killed. It is almost at if some Members or some people wish something would happen. And I know that I am not suggesting that anybody has that motive. I know that all of us are trying to protect American forces. The thing that worries me: If we put into place either of these amendments that we say firmly under the law we take away the flexibility of the President of the United States. And we cannot argue with the results of what the President has done; the President has been successful. One of the reasons is because of the tremendous work of the troops. We have given the troops the responsibility to carry out their mission, we have not interfered. We do not want to interfere in this. Do they understand what they are doing? Do they appreciate what they are doing? I went to an outpost, one of the foremost outposts in Bosnia, and I went into what they called the slaughter house, and they showed me a room where nothing but bodies was in when they first went in there. There had been a mass killing in that particular room. They had cleaned it up, they put whitewash on the walls, but they left one small bloody hand print on that porous wall, and they took every single soldier that came to that outpost to see that small bloody hand print because they wanted the soldiers to know why they were there. I believe that the Europeans should be able to handle this themselves. I said it for 4 or 5 years while the fighting was going on. But they begged us to take a leadership position. Nobody else has logistics capability, the administrative capability or the leadership and experience capability the United States has, and our military has done a marvelous job. I think we make a substantial mistake if we put any kind of a time limitation in law. There is nobody wants to get them out more than I do. Nobody believes that the June date should be adhered to more than I do. I just do not believe we should put an arbitrary time limit, and I would request that the Members think very seriously, whatever motive we have, think very seriously about putting in law a time limitation, and I would ask the Members to vote against this time limitation.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from South Carolina yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. MURTHA. I led the fight.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me talk a little bit about the problems we have in defense. I include for the Record three letters, one addressed to the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, the other addressed to Secretary Cohen from the Army, and the other addressed to Secretary Cohen from the Air Force. The Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC. Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Bill, I want to thank you for your action to date on the FY 1997 Bosnia/Southwest Asia Supplemental request, but I want to share with you my concern and that of the Service Chiefs about the impact on operations and training if the supplemental is not approved soon. In my testimony and discussions with Congress, I have emphasized the need for early action on the supplemental. Based on its likely passage by Memorial Day, few actions were taken by the Department to offset supplemental costs. However, since our request was not approved last month, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force have renewed their concern over the possibility of delayed passage of the supplemental. I have enclosed copies of recent memoranda from them. To ensure that their overall operations are properly funded, the Chiefs have indicated that they cannot risk being left with no options for funding Bosnia/Southwest Asia costs if the supplemental is delayed much longer. I remain hopeful that quick action can be taken on the supplemental to preclude the disruptive impact to the Department's programs, especially those related to maintaining our readiness capability. Sincerely, Bill.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the House was wise to prohibit yesterday's recommendation of the Rules Committee which was to consider the Gilman amendment setting a date--certain for withdrawing United States ground troops from Bosnia. I sympathize with those who demand closer and more comprehensive consultation with Congress before major commitments of U.S. military power are made. We are elected by the people to represent their interests. We control the purse strings. We have a constitutional role in participating in such important decisions. The issue of prior congressional consultation and approval of military action has been of long-standing controversy between Congress and the President. Democratic Congresses have had issues with Republican Presidents, Democratic Congresses have had disagreements with Democratic Presidents, and now the Republican Congress is demanding prior approval of military activity from a Democratic President. This issue needs a careful and thorough airing. It ought to be done in the proper forum with considerable thought. I would urge the authorizing committees to proceed with such a process. But having said that, we must also recognize that we are talking about affecting an ongoing, major operation on the ground in which over 8,500 U.S. troops and hundreds of other personnel are doing an important job in a very dangerous place. This is not just an academic, inside-the-beltway exercise about the role of Congress versus the President. The Bosnia operation is a major commitment of United States prestige, power, money, and most importantly, people. It involves commitments to our most important international alliance--NATO. It involves the most serious outbreak of violence in the European theater since World War II. It threatens to ignite a regional conflict possibly involving Greece and Turkey. It has attracted dangerous elements from Iran and other places seeking to exploit terrorism. Bosnia seems like a far off place to most Americans. But as history shows, the Balkans have been a flash point of major global events for centuries. One should not forget that the border of Bosnia is only 105 miles from the border of Austria, 175 miles from the border of Greece, and 102 miles from the shores of Italy. History teaches us that sticking our head in the sand and letting a conflagration go unabated this close to the heart of Europe is playing with fire. And make no mistake about it, the reason that the fragile peace in Bosnia has been achieved is due to one reason and one reason only--the leadership of the United States of America. The U.S. military in particular has implemented its peace enforcement mission with skill and courage. They came into a situation and controlled a situation that many thought hopeless. They have shown strength. They have shown compassion. They have shown competence and integrity. They have earned respect from all parties. And once again they have demonstrated clearly why they are the best in the world. I have been to Bosnia six different times in the last 6 years. The change in this country over this period has been simply remarkable. I have seen the country at the beginning of the war, during the period that UNPROFOR tried to control it, during the period that the U.S.-led IFOR force was deployed, and now we have the SFOR force. Americans broke the 4-year long cycle of violence in this country and established a fragile peace when others had given up. Bosnia has become an important symbol of American leadership and support for peace around the world. What we do or don't do here will have worldwide implications. So we can't consider this amendment in the abstract. We must consider the broader implications. safety of the troops Foremost in our minds must be how legislating a specific withdrawal date will affect our troops on the ground in completing their mission. And that is where I have a major problem with the gentlemen's amendment. I have had hours of conversations with our senior commanders in the field. And the one thing they have told me in no uncertain terms is, ``give us the flexibility to do the job you want us to do.'' They are experts on the law of unintended consequence, and I can tell you, they think that legislating a date certain for withdrawal is a big mistake that might actually affect the safety of our personnel. They say, set a goal for withdrawal, but give us the flexibility and the discretion to manage it according to our best professional judgment. That is what we should do. Let me give you one example of how things might go wrong under the requirements of this amendment. One of the best means our troop have of keeping the peace and deterring attacks from rogue elements is the promise that retaliation against any attackers will be swift, sudden, overwhelming, and deadly. We have the biggest stick and the meanest dog on the block. Let's say some extremist group hasn't read every caveat of this amendment. Instead they miscalculate and think that since Congress has mandated that all troops be gone from Bosnia by a certain date, they could attack our personnel near this date with little chance of retaliation. Now I am sure that we would swiftly retaliate, but little good for the people who suffer the initial attack. Congress should do nothing that might encourage these kinds of actions. There are scores of other scenarios that might develop ranging from bad weather to terrorist threats to unknown political events that might necessitate deviations to the basic operation. I believe our military leaders deserve the flexibility to deal with them. That is what General Shalikashvili and Secretary Cohen are saying as well. Here is what they say about legislating a withdrawal date in a May 13 letter to the House leadership: A fixed withdrawal date will constrict U.S. commanders' flexibility, encourage our opponents and undermine the important psychological advantage U.S. troops enjoy. Our forces must be able to proceed with a minimum of risk to U.S. personnel: legislating their redeployment schedule would completely change the dynamic on the ground and could undercut troop safety. You can't say it any more clearly than that. I think we should heed the professional advice of our military leaders. somalia Proponents of this amendment say that we should accept this amendment because it is patterned after the Somalia amendment we passed some years ago. Somalia was a completely different situation. President Bush went into Somalia without a blue print. Our forces had a murky and undefined mission in Somalia. There was no goal for withdrawal. There was mission creep. There was an ill-defined chain of command. In the case of Somalia, as more or less a last resort, Congress set the withdrawal date for the Administration, and it was justified. The Bosnia situation is wholly different. There is a blue print in the form of the Dayton agreement. The President has a plan and a timetable that we know about. Our forces know their mission and they have been successful in carrying that mission out. If in June 1998 we see that things have changed, we may want to consider legislating a withdrawal if it is necessary. But there is simply no overriding need to do it now when we might have the unintended consequence of jeopardizing the safety of our own personnel. serbia and croatia There are many other ramifications of this amendment as well. We have potentially volatile situations in Serbia and Croatia. Leadership in both countries is aging and there are serious signs of unrest in Serbia. The symbol of abandonment that this amendment sends could bolster the extreme elements inside those countries who are more interested in continued ethnic fighting than in building their countries. Mr. Chairman, America's effort to bring peace and stability to Bosnia and the Balkans has come at a high cost. But we must recognize the responsibility our country has around the world and we must recognize how much other people around the world have come to depend on us. This amendment sends the wrong signal. It is a signal of abandonment, rather than engagement to attain a lasting peace.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues about the retirement of a singular individual who is legendary in his achievements in the academic world. His name is John ``Jack'' Pidgeon. Jack Pidgeon grew up in a poor working class town in Massachusetts. He won a scholarship to prestigious Andover Prep School, where he studied alongside former President Bush and Actor Jack Lemmon. After being seriously wounded in WWII, he went on to devote his life to giving that gift of educational opportunity to other bright young students hundreds of times over. And he did it against some incredible odds. In 1952, Jack Pidgeon left a secure teaching job at Deerfield Academy to become the headmaster of a sickly, broke, rundown 350-acre prep school called Kiski in western Pennsylvania. When he arrived, the school, founded in 1888, had a few dilapidated buildings, no running water, no furniture, no credit, no donor support, no gate. It was $200,000 in debt. Jack Pidgeon took a look around and started up a bulldozer himself to clear the grounds and enlisted faculty and students to mow, paint, even tar roofs. Seven years later, after everyone told him the school had no chance, Kiski received a $10,000 donation--its first donation of over $1,000 in the history of the school. Finally, in 1966, after years of dogged efforts by this devoted crusader, the late Sarah Mellon Scaife gave the school $50,000. That was a turning point, and Jack Pidgeon never looked back. On May 16 of this year, Jack Pidgeon is retiring as headmaster of Kiski, leaving behind not only a student and alumni population that thinks of him as a father, but a financially robust institution entirely of his crafting, with property worth about $20 million, an endowment of about $10 million, and the wherewithal to grant $350,000 per year in scholarships. But financial success is not his most lasting legacy to this institution. Jack Pidgeon personally shaped the character of every student to who attended Kiski. His no-nonsense, pragmatic philosophy imbued generations of graduates with a realistic but profound belief in themselves and a clear sense of who they are. He stressed good manners, humility, self-respect, and drive. He is a man who gave his life to quality education and giving thousands of young boys the ability to realize their full potential as business leaders, civic leaders, and citizens. His greatest satisfaction came from offering poorer students scholarships. I heartily commend Jack Pidgeon for his great achievements. He is a man of vision who never heard of giving up.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to note the retirement of Joe Schindelholz, who has worked for a number of years as a congressional liaison for the Army and Army Reserves. Colonel Schindelholz did an excellent job and I very much enjoyed working with him. He is a very knowledgeable, capable, and professional officer and a credit to the Army. I know all my colleagues join me in wishing him health and happiness in his well-earned retirement. Col. Joseph F. Schindelholz distinguished himself by continuous meritorious performance during 22 years of active Federal service in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve. From 1971 to 1974, while assigned as executive officer 4th Armor Battalion, he distinguished himself by identifying key training and readiness requirements needs of his soldiers. In March 1974, Colonel Schindelholz began his Army Reserve career assigned to the 274th Training Regiment as a training officer, retention officer, and company commander. He served with distinction in all positions as a drilling reservists for over 6 years. In 1981, he entered the Active Guard/Reserve [AGR] program and was assigned to the Army Reserve Personnel Center where he served as a personnel management officer and operations officer. He developed career management models for reserve officers where none had existed in the past. His intense work with personnel matters provided innovative and comprehensive solutions to individual soldier professional development. In 1984, Colonel Schindelholz served as a Fifth Army retention officer. He developed a retention program that was approved by FORSCOM and adopted as an Army-wide retention model for use by the Active and Reserve components. From 1987 to 1990, he served as the general officer manager for the Chief, Army Reserve. During this assignment, he implemented a program for centralized management of Reserve general officers that is still the current management system. Colonel Schindelholz spent his final 7 years of active duty working as a congressional liaison officer for Headquarters, Department of the Army and as chief of the Office of Policy and Liaison for the Chief, Army Reserve. His accomplishments in these assignments were invaluable to the development of an effective Reserve liaison team. He was responsible for developing a new structure for the Office of Policy and Liaison that has been instrumental in addressing critical Army Reserve issues with Congress. He has culminated his outstanding career in the Office of Policy and Liaison by his knowledge and professionalism in dealing with staff members of the Senate and House. Colonel Schindelholz' leadership was especially critical during a time when the role of the Army Reserve has expanded to a global presence with many new missions including our current presence in Bosnia. He also attacked the issue of downsizing and how it would impact the Army Reserve. His ability to convey the Army Reserve story to Members of Congress and their staff was invaluable to the continued vital role the Army Reserve plays in America's Army. He was also very adept at developing his subordinates so that the office had program officers with a wide range of experience and could also represent the Army Reserve in a professional manner. Colonel Schindelholz is a model of leadership, dedication to duty, selfless service, and loyalty in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and his efforts reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Army Reserve.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity before the House to congratulate Ms. Stephanie J. Cavanaugh on her 22 years of commitment to the ladies auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars No. 554 in Somerset, PA. Stephanie has served in a variety of positions within the organization, including four terms as auxiliary president and one term as district president. She has chaired numerous programs, at times while simultaneously serving in her leadership positions or serving her community as president of the Somerset County Council, which she did for two terms. Additionally, she was elected to the high offices of department guard, in 1991, and department president, in 1996. She has garnered numerous awards, including a national award for best promotional materials during her tenure as membership chairman from 1993 to 1994. Stephanie followed her late father's example of leadership and service to fellow citizens. William S. (Bill) Orban served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and was a founding member and first commander of Post No. 7565 in Hooversville, PA. Stephanie is also a trained paramedic, has worked with mentally handicapped. In the scenic mountain wilderness of scenic Somerset County, she was a member of the County Sheriff's Department search and rescue team, certified in as a tracker, dog handler, and in rope rescue. I hope you will all join me in applauding Stephanie Cavanaugh for her stellar achievements in the service of her community and the ladies auxiliary.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William J. Perry, who retired on January 24, 1997 as our 19th Secretary of Defense of the United States. Dr. Perry has a long and distinguished record of serving his country. In the 1970's and 1980's, Bill's work on stealth technology for the Defense Department earned him the title ``father of stealth.'' We all know how important this technology has become to our military and to our Nation. Bill was at the forefront of many other technology breakthroughs as well that today give America's forces the ability to dominate any potential adversary on the field of battle. But I think crowning achievement came in quite a different arena than the scientific laboratories and high technology factories of this country. Beginning on ``day one'' of his tenure as Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry became a tireless advocate for the people who are the heart and soul of America's military might. He has led the fight for better pay, better housing, better health care, decent retirement benefits, and maintaining the highest standard of training for our men and women in uniform. This is not cheap and it is certainly not easy to accomplish given the competition we have for limited funds in a declining defense budget. But Bill Perry has been true to the principle he so often recites: ``Take care of the troops, and they will take care of you.'' Bill understands the lesson history tries to teach us again and again, but some never learn. That is, you can have the best military equipment in the world, but if you don't have well trained and well motivated people to operate that equipment, you don't have much. During his tenure Bill Perry put the men and women in uniform first, and those men and women have taken care of this country. Over the years, some who don't know Bill well have misunderstood his quiet and studious manner to mean that he might waver on certain issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill has been a rock when it came to fighting for this administration's core defense policies. After 3 years of holding the reins at the Pentagon, he has left no doubt in anyone's mind that the readiness of our forces and the qualify of life for the men and women who serve would come first, and he followed through on those convictions. For this I salute him. Secretary Perry has had other important achievements as well. I know he is especially proud of his efforts to reduce the nuclear danger, particularly in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Under Secretary Perry's steady hand, the sometimes foundering Cooperative Threat Program got off the ground to help these countries destroy over 4,000 nuclear warheads aimed at the United States and dismantle more than 800 bombers and ballistic missile launchers. This program also has been instrumental in helping the former Soviet nuclear states put tighter controls on nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium to keep them from finding their way into the global marketplace. These are real, measurable national security accomplishments that have made the world safer, and Bill Perry deserves to be proud of his record. Mr. Speaker, Bill Perry made a difference throughout his many years of service to our country. On behalf of the Congress, and on behalf of the citizens of our great Nation I want to say to Bill and his family: ``Thank you for a job well done, and Godspeed''. The most suitable closing to this tribute I can think of is in Bill's own words. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record Secretary Perry's farewell address delivered at Ft. Myer on January 14, 1997. His words are eloquent and poignant. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense Farewell Address-Ft. Myer, January 14, 1997 I shall be telling this with a sigh. Somewhere ages and ages hence. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-- I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference. --Robert Frost Four years ago, America faced a choice; a choice between two roads that diverged. One road led to isolation and apathy, the other road, to engagement and action. This century has taught us that the road of isolation and apathy leads to instability and war. President Clinton chose the road of engagement and action. He strove to bridge the Cold War chasms; to reduce its nuclear legacy; to reach out to former adversaries, to prevent the conditions for conflict, and to create the conditions for peace. And that, as Robert Frost has said, has made all the difference. It has made all the difference in Europe, where, by establishing the Partnership for Peace we have replaced an Iron Curtain which divided the nations of Europe with a circle of security which brings them together. It has made all the difference in our own hemisphere, where all nations, save one, have chosen democracy, and by establishing the Defense Ministerial of Americas we have forged new links of trust and cooperation. It has made all the difference in the Asia Pacific, where by establishing a Framework Agreement we froze the North Korean nuclear program and prevented a nuclear arms race; and where, by strengthening the Security Agreement with Japan, we have ensured America's security presence--the oxygen that fuels the region's prosperity. Choosing the right road has made all the difference around the world. By executing the Nunn-Lugar program, we have dismantled 4,000 nuclear weapons that once targeted America's cities. Today, the threat of nuclear holocaust no longer hangs like a dark cloud over the heads of our children. Four years ago, the Department of Defense faced a choice. One road was well-traveled and easy to follow, but it would have allowed our forces to atrophy as we completed the post- Cold War draw down. The other road was less traveled by, twisting and bumpy with hard choices--hard choices to ensure that we had strong capable military forces ready to respond in a world of new dangers. Twice before in this century when faced with that same choice, we chose the well-traveled road of neglect. And we paid the price--in Korea with Task Force Smith, and after Vietnam with a Hollow Army. This time we chose the road less- traveled by--the road of readiness. We established training as our highest priority. Training designed to make the scrimmage tougher than the game. We established the iron logic that quality of life for our forces meant quality people in our forces. We reformed our acquisition system to give our quality people the most effective technology. Technology that enables them to dominate the battlefield; to win quickly, decisively, and with minimum losses. And that has made all the difference. It made all the difference wherever we sent our forces to prevent, deter, or defeat aggression. In Haiti, where we restored democracy. In the Arabian Gulf, where we contained a brutal dictator. In the Korean Peninsula, where we stood firm with an ally. In Bosnia, where we have stopped the killing and brought to a war-ravaged people the blessings of peace. The readiness road ensured the success of each of these missions. Readiness made all the difference. Four years ago, I faced a personal choice between a well- traveled road to a quieter life, centered around family and friends; and a less-traveled road that led to turmoil, tension, and tough decisions. But it also led to an opportunity to serve our nation, to support the troops I cared for, and to achieve the dreams I cherished. I thought long and hard upon that choice and took counsel from sage friends. I questioned my wisdom, my patience and my ability to endure. But the courage to meet the test came from the advice of a tough sergeant major: ``Take care of the troops,'' he said, ``and they will take care of you.'' I have followed that advice, and that, for me, has made all the difference. It made all the difference every time I advised the President on when and how to use military force. It made all the difference when I negotiated with ministerial colleagues, when I met with Presidents and Kings. It made all the difference when I decided on force levels, mission goals and rules of engagement every time we put our troops in harm's way. It made all the difference when I met with soldiers, Sailors, airmen and Marines, in distant lands, on domestic bases, on training fields, ships at sea in cargo planes, or fighter jets. It made all the difference when I shared Thanksgiving meals with them in Haiti, in Macedonia, in Bosnia. That advice--``Take care of the troops, and they will take care of you''--has made all the difference as I learned from my mistakes, as I took pride in my achievements. Today I say farewell to the President who honored me by asking me to serve as Secretary. I say farewell to my colleagues in the administration who worked with me to achieve common goals. I say farewell to my friends in the media, and in the Congress, and to the wonderful friends I have made in the embassies. And I say farewell to our military leaders who have served our country so brilliantly. They have prepared our forces for war, but they are dedicated to peace. Elie Wiesel has said, ``Peace is not God's gift to mankind. It is our gift to each other.'' And for the last four years peace is the gift we have given the American people. But the hardest farewell to say is to the troops who have served me and whom I have served. Words cannot adequately describe my pride in you. So my farewell to you is a simple benefiction: May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord cause His face to shine upon you, and give you peace.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to congratulate the Richland Mall Rise 'n' Stride Walking Club on its 10th anniversary. Americans are living longer, healthier, more active lives and much of it can be traced to these types of clubs. Gathering early each morning, the group, some of whose members are in their nineties, sets a brisk pace. The club stresses the benefits of walking in reducing the risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, and osteoporosis. The Rise 'n' Stride Club also has started a Walker of the Month Program with plaques on display at the Richland Mall. I believe this kind of recognition of personal achievement will encourage more Americans to get out and walk for their health. In addition, the club serves the community by organizing fund drives that have donated over $3,000 in support of various community activities. Maybe I feel so strongly about this club because my wife, Joyce, and I are regular walkers who have benefited from this low-stress form of exercise. It is clubs like Rise 'n' Stride that are helping to change attitudes toward fitness and provide incentive for people of all ages to get out and do something positive for their health. I congratulate the Rise 'n' Stride Club on its 10th anniversary, its community involvement, and its dedication to improving its members' health and well-being.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, when the Pittsburgh Press ceased publication of its afternoon daily and Sunday editions, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette increased its service to the area, but a tradition of newspaper competition that had existed for many decades disappeared. Several publications tried to fill that void, but the most successful has been the publication of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, headed by Richard Scaife. The paper has had remarkable circulation growth and annual increases in advertising linage. In an age when we seldom see newspaper expansion, I want to note that on September 10, Mr. Scaife will break ground for a new facility called the Newsworks, in Marshall township, a suburb of Pittsburgh. This will increase the number of new presses for the newspaper, create some 500 jobs during the construction phase, and create over 100 permanent skilled craftsperson positions when the plant becomes operational. The news media is always stronger for competition, and the continued development of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is good for western Pennsylvania, good for workers, good for the news business, good for the full coverage of controversial subjects, good for a selection in editorial commentary, and good for the overall rebuilding of western Pennsylvania's economy. It's a pleasure for me to congratulate Richard Scaife and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on this positive development. I hope this example lends impetus to other business leaders to reinvest in their core businesses to expand and grow.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity before the House to congratulate the men and women of the Johnstown Association of Life Underwriters on its 75th anniversary. JALU was founded in 1921. Since that time it has been a dedicated community service-oriented organization, coordinating numerous public service efforts over the years with the Salvation Army, the St. Vincent DePaul food banks, and New Day. The organization, whose members are from Cambria, Somerset, and Bedford Counties in my home State of Pennsylvania, has won numerous national and state awards for public service throughout its existence. For the past 3 years, the JALU has been working to raise funds to establish the first scholarship fund for Cambria County Area Community College. One of the most notable activities in which they engage annually is hosting a summer picnic for underprivileged children. It means so much to those kids to know that these adults care about them--it makes such an impact on those young lives that I can't emphasize enough its importance. It's that kind of involvement in the community that we need more of and I want to applaud and thank this organization for its service in that regard. I also want to applaud their tenacity in the face of economic hardship and corporate downsizing within the insurance industry because they've been able to keep their agencies open and continue to provide the kind of professional service the area needs and has come to rely on.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me just add to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] said. Joe McDade has been under investigation for 6 years; under indictment for 2 years; he has been hurt emotionally, physically, and they were challenging the rights of the House during all this period of time. Mr. Speaker, it really is a win for the House. The House sided with him in every appeal, and I think this is a strong message that goes out that the House of Representatives is a separate body. The jury understood that. We represent people. Mr. Speaker, Joe McDade is one of the finest individuals that I have ever served with, and I have served with him for 23 years on two separate committees, and day by day we sat together. And so I am just delighted to see this, and as the dean of the Pennsylvania delegation, I join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, in our commendation and congratulations to Joe McDade, who is such a wonderful individual, and to his family who suffered so much during this period of time.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on July 4th I was the speaker at the naming of the USNS Gordon. The ship was being named for a Congressional Medal of Honor winner killed in Somalia. Mrs. Gordon spoke to the audience, and I thought her words were so appropriate to the ceremony, and to describing what it means to be part of the American military, and to be part of an American military family. I thought it was very appropriate for Mrs. Gordon's remarks to be part of the Congressional Record. Remarks by Mrs. Carmen Gordon at the Naming Ceremony for USNS Gordon (T-AKR 296) Thank you for that kind introduction and the opportunity to be here with you today. I'd like to tell you about Gary. Just behind a small door in his bedroom closet, my son Ian has stored the treasures dearest to him. The uniforms his father wore, the canteens he drank from, the hammock he slung in so many corners of the world, are there. The boots that took his dad through desert and jungle now lace up around Ian's small ankles. They are all piled neatly together by a little boy's hands and sought out during quiet times. My daughter Brittany keeps a photograph of her daddy next to her small white bed, the big 8 by 10 of him smiling straight through to her. It is the first thing she packs when leaving home, and the first thing she unpacks when she arrives anywhere. These are comfort to my children. And a source of pride. But most important, Gary's children can see and feel these reminders of their father to keep him close. In much the same way, the ship that we christen here today--the USNS Gordon--gives us faith that Gary's spirit will go forward, his ideals and his beliefs honored by those who know of him and the life he so willingly gave. The very first time I laid eyes on Gary Gordon was the second month of my thirteenth summer. I was staying with my grandparents in rural Maine. Every week we made a trip into town for supplies. One hot afternoon in front of Newberry's Department store, I saw a boy washing windows. You never forget the first time that you see your first love. I watched him as he worked, calm and purposeful and quiet. Then he looked at me, and I knew this was no ordinary boy. This boy could win my heart. When he called my grandparents for permission to take me out, he was turned down flat. She's too young, they told him. And so, in the way that I was to find out was uniquely Gary, he set out to wait three years. Faithful and sparsely emotional letters about his new life in the Army arrived regularly. On the day I turned 16, I sat in my grandparents' living room and watched as his motorcycle pulled into the driveway, my palms sweaty on my freshly ironed dress. A few hours of talk, a quick first kiss in the rec room, and Gary left to be back at his base, miles away. So began our slow dance of love, one that would give us so much in so short a time. We had five summers and winters together, the births of a son and daughter setting a rhythm to such sweet time. On Sunday mornings when Ian was still so small, Gary would fill a baby mug with watered down coffee. Folding a section of the newspaper to fit Ian's chubby hands, the two of them would sit together quietly, turning the pages and sipping from their cups. Gary's love for Brittany was just as strong. Every day when he arrived home from work, Brittany would run to meet him, his big hands scooping her up and rubbing her bald head where baby hair had yet to grow. We never knew when these times would be interrupted by a day that brought Gary home with his head shaved, anticipation in his voice and a timetable for leaving. I never worried when Gary left on a mission. As I cheerfully kissed him goodbye and waved confidently from our front porch, it never occurred to me to be afraid. Because Gary was never afraid. My safe world was shaken in December of 1989 with the invasion of Panama and the realization that my husband was in the middle of it. Along with other young mothers clutching infants, I sat in a darkened living room and watched television news around the clock, Gary came back, safe. One night when I told him of my fears, he laid a gentle hand on my cheek and said quietly, ``Carmen, don't worry about things we can't change.'' I know that death often leaves us with the haunting question ``Why?'' I know why Gary died. He died because he was true to his own code for living--trying to help someone else. Fear would have kept Gary from doing what he needed to do, what he wanted to do, what he had prepared all his life to do. There is rare strength in the creed he shared with his comrades: ``I shall not fail those with whom I serve.'' Gary lies buried only a few miles from where I first saw him on that sunny Maine morning. It is a spare and simple place, open to the weather and bordered by woods that change with the seasons. He is not alone now in that corner of the cemetery. His father Duane, who died suddenly of a heart attack last week, was laid to rest alongside his son, not far from the paper mill where he gave so many years of hard work. A gentle, sometimes restless wind bends the flowers and stirs the flags that are always there on Gary's military headstone, below the chiseled words ``Beloved Husband and Father,'' and the coin of his unit pressed into white stone. I hope that some gentle wind will always guide this ship to sea and keep her on a safe and steady course. And when that wind strokes the cheeks of my children lying in their beds at night, and Ian and Brittany ask me to tell them what course the USNS Gordon is striking under the stars, I can tell them that she is on the same course their father chose: Headed for distant shores, answering the call of those in need.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity before my fellow Members of the House of Representatives to congratulate the pastor and congregation of the Emmanuel Baptist Church as it celebrates its 100th anniversary on July 5 through July 7, 1996. This small but high-impact community institution deserves national recognition for its century of dedication to the simple but essential American values of faith, family and community. Throughout the years as Johnstown has endured hardship and tragedy of various types, from floods to the Great Depression, the Nation's wars, as well as more recent economic hard times and crippling unemployment, the Emmanuel Baptist Church has been a source of support and sustenance, spiritually and otherwise, to generations. Emmanuel Baptist was organized on July 15, 1896 in the Grand Army of the Republic Hall in downtown Johnstown, PA. For 10 years, the congregation met in the Hall until a new church was built on Poplar Street. In 1959, the church relocated to its present site at 425 Luther Road in Richland Township. The congregation has been served by one pastor, the Reverend Ray Streets, Sr., for the past 42 years. His son, the Reverend Ray Streets, Jr., currently serves with him as associate pastor. The church teaches 19 Sunday School classes, of which 5 are for adults. It also provides other educational programs for children. One is for kids ages 3 through 12, and another, Impact Ministry, is geared toward junior- and senior-high students and encompasses such activities as drama, music and gymnastics. I congratulate church members Chris Taylor, Pam and Jeff Weaver, and Bill Kagey for their dedication to these programs and to the children of their community. Several members of the Emmanuel Baptist church also serve as full- time missionaries. Yet another vital community service provided by the church is its Elijah's Pantry. Run by members Rita and John Marsden, it ministers to needy families. I am honored to know many of the members of this congregation, and to be able to congratulate Emmanuel Baptist Church on this day. May the church grow and prosper for another 100 years.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and I have looked at this. This is, I think, an important safeguard that is necessary. It may need to be cleaned up, but I certainly have no problem with it.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Members, this is an across- the-board cut. We have rejected several specific cuts. Over the years we have cut substantial amounts from defense. The threat has changed dramatically. I think this would be a mistake for us to now freeze the defense spending at this level. We go to conference, we may have to make some more adjustments. All of us know how difficult it is to make sure the troops are taken care of, make sure the threat is taken care of. All of us work diligently listening to hearings, listening to what the military wants. They have long lists of what they would like. But in order to keep our military ready to respond and our National Guard and Reserve ready to respond, we cannot take another cut at this point as we negotiate through this bill. So I would urge Members to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate all the compliments we get on what we are doing here. I wonder if we could not move along, because I have been in the forefront of health care all these years. I do not think anybody has done any more than I have for the military health care. Bill Young and I have worked on it constantly. So I wonder, instead, if we could just move right along here and go to the next amendment here.