John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, you think he is kind of giving us a little business here, Mr. Chairman, on this thing here? We did the best we could do under the circumstances. Right?

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that, but what I am saying is under the Constitution we have a responsibility. I do not think any of us want to cede that responsibility to any President, no matter if he is Democrat or Republican. The only time it happens is when we may be misled or something like that, but as a whole the Congress wants to do what is right. I would be very concerned if we passed something that might limit us here. I appreciate the passion of the gentleman. I feel the same way. I feel just as strongly as he does, that the Congress has the ultimate say about whether we go to war. I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. We have worked so hard to balance this out. And I understand her sentiments, and we appreciate that, but I would hope that we could take a look at this in conference.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I said when I went down to Austin is exactly what I am repeating now. We have to worry about nonproliferation and terrorism and not as much about missile defense. But I am saying, and the gentleman knows the bill we put together, we have to be realistic. So I am asking the gentleman to just desist and let us see what we can work out.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves much faster than this. I thought he learned. Let me say the defense part of this and maybe the rest of it is probably the most bipartisan bill one could ever find. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and I have been traveling to these various bases. We found shortages every place we went, all kinds of problems that they brought to our attention that needed to be rectified. We found problems so severe that many of the units that were on their way to Iraq were C-4. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, the hero from Vietnam, knows what I am talking about when I say C-4. I am talking about they are not ready to go to combat because the equipment is so bad. As a matter of fact, the equipment was so bad at one base, and I think it was Fort Stewart where the troops did not have radios to train with, did not have small arms ammunition, did not have mortar ammunition to train with, and that means that when they get there, they are not at the cutting edge of where they should be. Now they get equipment when they get there, and that overcomes the C-4. So the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I, what we did was put $2.3 billion into the budget. We first checked, the staff checked, with the Army to make sure that that is where it ought to be put. The Army came back and supported us. Usually, they beat around the bush. The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) knows what I mean. We talk to them, and because of other people over there, they do not want to admit that they need the money. This time they were very emphatic that they needed every cent and they needed it as soon as they could get it. So we added money for the types of things that they need. Having said that, what I have said to the services because we are having such a problem, we see the recruiting problem, we are looking into that right now. The subcommittee I serve on, we realize and we have said for a long time, they are going to have a recruiting problem as this war gets unpopular; and we were trying to figure out how do we overcome that. Most times I disagree with those bonuses because I feel so strongly that people ought to join the Armed Forces for the good of the country, but we have to give bonuses to send them over there. We put money in for those kinds of things. We increased the amount of money somebody gets when they are killed in action. We expanded it so that when they are killed in action, they are taken care of retroactively as well as prospectively. We take care of somebody who is wounded. We added money to it. Some veterans group called me and said they were not happy with the way we added that money. They felt like there ought to be more study, and I cannot disagree with that. But when the four of us sat down, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, we came to the conclusion that we just did not think we could wait. So we put money in to take care of people who were injured so severely as well as the ones that were killed. And I got so many letters from the people at home, and I have had 12 killed in my district, how pleased they were about what we are doing because it helped them get through a very difficult time. What we have tried to do over the years is make sure that the people that were in the Armed Forces had what they needed, that the people in Iraq have what they need. Our subcommittee brought to the attention of the country that they were without a lot of equipment in Iraq. We are working right now. New trucks, we are trying to figure out how to put new trucks in that are encapsulated because we have taken care of the Humvees, but we need to take care of the trucks now. So we got some commercial trucks which were recommended which were $100,000 less, but it was so late, we could not get it in the bill. We are going to ask for reprogramming for that amount of money. So this bill is taking care of equipment shortages, not all of them, but it is taking care of as many as we could possibly squeeze in. It is taking care of Reset. We forced the military to ask for Reset. The minute that this war is over and the money starts to dry up, Reset will be the first thing they do not do; so we have to do it now. And I have said to many of the industrial leaders in this country, the minute the war is over, there will not be any supplementals, there will be a lot less money to be spent, and we have got to spend this money now in the supplementals to make sure that that gets done. Armor modularity, there is some argument about that; but we think it ought to be done, and we have pushed this. Many of the programs that the Army has today have come about because of the Defense Subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Many of the things that have happened have happened because we see it out in the field. We go out in the field, talk to the people, make sure that we are doing the right thing, and then we try to send defense in the right direction. So I urge the Members to vote for this. The troops need it, and it helps dramatically for the amount of money that is needed by the Armed Forces.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Objection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, the Pope was instrumental in helping to bring down communism. His words in Poland, ``Don't be afraid,'' resonated throughout the world against tyranny, despotism and injustice.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to talk about how good the Defense portion of this bill is, and I was disappointed we lost the embassy vote, and hopefully we will be able to repair that. But let me say that the members of the Defense Subcommittee went out to bases all over the country. We have all kinds of shortages. We added $1.8 billion to this bill to take care of things like spare parts, small arms, mortars, things that one would expect that they would have. We not only have shortages overseas and equipment that is worn out overseas, we have Reserve and National Guard units that are actually going to the major bases like Fort Bragg and having to rehabilitate that equipment. One of the reasons we put in $7 billion for rehabilitation of equipment was because of what we found out in the field. We think it is absolutely essential to get the Army back in shape so that when these units are called up they have the right equipment when they train, and when they go overseas they have the right equipment. So I would hope everybody would vote for this bill.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I discussed this amendment. We last year talked about it, but we have gotten serious this year about it because he brought to our attention a real problem, not on this individual but of these folks coming out of Iraq who are losing this money at a critical time in their lives. We are going to look at it and try to figure out what we can do. With the chairman's cooperation, hopefully we will be able to figure something out to take care of these people, the ones who are severely wounded because financially they are really hurting when they come out of there. He and I have both seen them at the hospitals. We know how hurt they are, but when they lose their financial resources, it hurts the families. So if the gentleman will withdraw his amendment, we will do everything we can to work this thing out.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has good criteria for success, and the chairman and I have talked about this, and I think he has got a good idea here.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. This is a very important amendment. I see what she is trying to do here. But the regular forces are just as short. As a matter of fact, this bill actually does not provide enough money for the regular forces. I understand the technicalities of it, that it should not be in a supplemental, it should be in a regular bill; but to put all the O&M money in the National Guard would do a disservice to the regular forces. I just visited three bases. All three bases were short in O&M money. They were short in almost every category. So I wish the gentlewoman would withdraw her amendment. We will take a look in the conference to see if the National Guard needs more O&M money, and we will see what we can do.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to oppose the amendment. I have to say what I say about the administration, about the Defense Department many times. Just because you say it, does not mean it is so. Just because we say we are going to put $5 million in does not mean it is going to be a Truman Commission. We have bill language which says they have to report to us at a certain date, and they did not do it. So there is no doubt in my mind this is not something that is going to happen. I do not say we are wasting time because there is no question accountability is our responsibility. But we are not going to get any responsibility this way. As far as I am concerned, what we are saying, this language is not bill language. It does not mean that they are going to do it. And so I oppose the amendment. And I think we ought to get rid of this amendment and get on with the rest of the business on the floor.

Mr. MURTHA. I would just conclude by saying this is our responsibility under the Constitution, and I am hopeful that the Defense Department gets the message. I support the bill and will do everything I can to get it passed. Of course, any problems we have in conference I am sure we will work them out.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this is truly a bipartisan bill, the defense part of it in particular. Chairman Young and I have worked very closely together. He visited some places; I visited three bases. We found shortages. We found problems. We tried to rectify those problems. We tried to put in what the people in the field asked us and what needed to be done. We realized that insurance payments needed to be changed. We realized that the death benefits needed to be changed. We also realized there is a jurisdictional problem, but we felt like it could not wait. I have had 12 people killed in my district, and there is no question in my mind for the need for that to be changed. But the thing that is the most important in my estimation is accountability. Chairman Young and I sat in his office not long ago and talked about the bill, and he got his copy of the Constitution out and it talked about accountability. It talked about congressional accountability. And I thought how unaccountable the Defense Department seems to be at this stage. They do not seem to realize we are not here to hurt them, we are here to help them. We believe that if you do not have the confidence of the people, if you do not have confidence in the way the money is being spent, you are going to lose confidence in the overall project, the overall philosophy, the overall direction we are trying to go. We put language in the bill last year, and we said, you have got to give us a report. That report is 3 or 4 months late. No reason for that to happen. They had plenty of notice. And it should have been on our desk before this bill was up so that if there was something that needed to be rectified, we could rectify it. There are two reports. I do not know if the second one is late yet or not. Of course that takes us to the next step and that is the thing with the intelligence which we have read in the newspaper and which I can neither confirm nor not confirm has happened. But I worry that things are getting out of control that we do not know about. We sit and try to help them every way we can. Many of the things we put in this bill they did not ask for because they did not know about it. We found out about it, and we made sure that was part of the presentation, part of this bill. I have to say that when I meet with the Secretary of Defense, when we listen to his presentation, we always say to him, chairman of the full committee, Chairman Lewis, chairman of the defense subcommittee the last time, Chairman Young, we always say, Look, we're here to help you. Give us these reports. Tell us how you're spending this money. When I saw there was a $9 billion fund that was not accounted for according to the auditors, and, of course, this is not appropriated money, this is money provided for the oil, but still we should know where it goes because it can replace some of the money that we are appropriating for these resources.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, patriot, Naval Officer, and fellow Pennsylvanian, Rear Admiral Kathleen Martin. This spring, Admiral Martin will retire from the United States Navy after thirty-one years of distinguished leadership, selfless service, and tireless commitment to our Navy and nation. Admiral Martin became the Deputy Surgeon General of the Navy and Vice Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery on October 3, 2002. A native of Arnold, Pennsylvania, she is a graduate of Boston University School of Nursing and received her Master of Science degree in both Nursing Administration and Family Health Nursing from the University of San Diego. She is a member of the American College of Healthcare Executives, the American Society for Public Administration, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States and Sigma Theta Tau. Admiral Martin was commissioned an Ensign in the Navy Nurse Corps in May 1973, and was promoted to flag rank while serving as the Medical Inspector General in 1998. She has held a wide variety of clinical, staff and leadership positions, including Commanding Officer of Naval Medical Clinic, Port Hueneme, California; Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital Charleston, South Carolina; and Commander, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. A visionary naval officer and a decisive and inspirational leader throughout her career, Admiral Martin possesses an infectious enthusiasm to ensure that world-class health care is delivered throughout the military health care system. Her oversight of diverse areas of responsibility affecting the Medical Department and the Navy has resulted in bold initiatives and innovative programs that will support our sailors, Marines, and military beneficiaries well into the twenty-first century. Illustrative of her dynamic and visionary leadership is ``Family Centered Care.'' Her breakthrough approach, shifting the fundamental approach of patient care from a traditional inpatient model based on disease-state and specialty services, to a patient-centered model that integrates related customer services around patients has become the standard of care throughout military medicine. Navy Medicine is applying these Family Centered Care principles to its unique capability to influence healthy habits and lifestyles during the building of a Navy family. Her unquestionable integrity, passionate commitment in service to others and strong relationship-building skills mark her every contribution to the Navy and the nation. Admiral Martin leaves a legacy of distinction and accomplishments in which she should take great pride and satisfaction. During her tenure as the Deputy Navy Surgeon General, she has met every challenge posed including those of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Global War on Terror. Mr. Speaker, I ask to extend best wishes on behalf of the Congress of the United States for continued happiness and success to Admiral Martin and her family as they begin the next chapter of their lives, with the thanks and gratitude of a grateful nation for Admiral Martin's loyal and dedicated service.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I hate to rise in opposition to both leaderships on both sides of the aisle. I am probably the only one that is going to vote for a draft. I believe we have to start looking at this right now. And I will tell you why it is a serious problem. We have 135,000 troops in Iraq right now. We are going to have to have 135,000 there for at least 2 years. We are training people, the Iraqis about 4,000 a month, and a lot of them are deserting. So there is no way that we have had cooperation with the international community. There is no way we are going to be able to do the fourth round of replacement without some kind of a draft. Now, I remember the President of the United States asking to extend the National Guard in 1941, just a few months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. He extended it by one vote, and this is serious business here. We can get up and talk politics, we can get up and blame each other for what we are involved in here, but we have to have the personnel to do this job. I go out to the hospitals every week, and I see these young people who are in their second and third tours in Iraq. I see them without legs and without arms, and I know how hard this is. Now, let me tell you, on the street that I lived on when I was a kid, four people in my family, my father and three of his brothers, were involved in World War II. Some of them were drafted, and some of them were volunteers. And in the next house, there were seven from the same family. In the next house from that, there were six from the same family that went into World War II. Now, they went; some drafted, and some not drafted. We had 15 million people. We are in a war. And not only a small segment of the population should fight in that war. I voted against the volunteer army in the first place because I said that I did not believe that, if we got into a crucial situation, we would be able to sustain our national security. This is a national security problem. This is something we have to face now. I remember standing right over here when Jack Kemp was a Member, and he did not want to vote to extend registration because he believed it was not necessary. I said, Jack, we have to be prepared here. We have to be prepared in case something happens. They have advertisements for the volunteer army, and they say, we want you to come in. We want you to get an education. We want you to better yourselves. We want you to come in, and you will have a steady job, and an awful lot of people joined the military with that in mind. I was talking to a father the other day. He said his father was in World War II. His uncle was in the Battle of the Bulge, and another uncle served in the Pacific. And he was in the Reserves, and his boy was just killed in Iraq. And he was so worried because they were sending people back for the second and third time. I mean, we have got people in the National Guard who they have stopped letting out. His son was supposed to come home in August, and he was killed. Now, that is the kind of thing we are facing. This should not only be borne by people who are volunteering because they could not find a job. This is something that every one of us across the board, rich and poor, everyone should be willing to serve in the armed services of the United States.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would take this seriously. I would hope that we would not get into a political debate about whether this is politics or not. I would hope we would look ahead. What I said before, my colleagues have got to remember we have got 135,000 troops on the ground. We have sent some of these people back a couple of times. The Army is looking at the possibility of having a 6- month tour, and that will not help the situation because they are going to have to send them back sooner. Some of the people who are supposed to be home for a year are unable to stay home for a year. I remember being in Europe talking to General Jones, and they extended the 1st Infantry Division. He was worried that the families, because they extended them, how many people would be killed and what a pressure that would put on the families. All of us worry about that. All of us have to worry about that. That is our job, and we have to look ahead. We cannot just look ahead to the election. We have got to look ahead after the election at what it is going to mean to our troops. I think that we make a mistake when we get up here and accuse each other when we are in a war. When we were in a war in World War II, we were attacked here, and everybody ought to be willing to serve. I mean, a draft is a fair way to cut, no deferments for anybody. We pick it by lottery; we take the number of people we need and send it down to the Armed Forces. Let me tell my colleagues something. They are already taking category fours, and I think that is good for the country. I think it is good because the best training people will get in the world today is the military training. They will take category fours, and they will make those people into good citizens. They will work them, and the Army does not like it. The military does not like category fours because it is too much time to train those people. Let me tell my colleagues something. All of us need everybody to go into the Armed Forces. From every level, from the rich and the poor, from the middle class, everybody needs to go, and we have to, and there is no question about it. If we are going to be there, if what the leaders on both sides are saying, both candidates are saying, we are going to be there. We are not going to leave there until the Iraqis can take over. They cannot take over overnight. It is going to take time to train those people; and if we are going to train those people, we have got to have somebody in the United States who can replace them. It takes us a year to train. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, and I put in the money for the extra 30,000 people because we knew they needed 30,000 people this year. I asked the personnel guy, are you going to ask for this in the budget this year? He said, no, sir, we are going to expect a supplemental to take care of it. The point is, we needed an extra 30,000 people. We have got to face that we are in a war, and we have got to face that everybody should be bearing the burden of this war, not just the few volunteers that are time after time sacrificing and the young people are being so mangled by this war. Their spirit aside, they are doing a marvelous job and are so proud. When I go out to the hospital every week, Bethesda one week and Walter Reed the next week, and I see these young people, and even then the fighting is so intense that they are saying to me, this is a tough war, Congressman, and we need help, we need support; and we are giving them support. In this Congress, we are giving them everything they need except we are not looking ahead to the very thing that we are going to need down the road and that is additional troops, and we are not meeting the requirement of the National Guard, and that is the first step. So I would ask Members to reconsider this, and I would hope that a number of us would vote for a draft as a serious business rather than talking of politics and the whole thing.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to put some very laudatory comments about the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the record, because this is his last time as a chairman maybe. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friend from California, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Congressman Jerry Lewis. Since joining the Defense Subcommittee, Congressman Lewis has been one of the strongest supporters of our men and women in uniform that this Congress has ever known. As Chairman, he has guided the Subcommittee without partisanship or political agenda to ensure that our military remains the best military in the world. The Defense Department and the people of our great Nation owe Jerry Lewis a debt of gratitude for his unyielding support and hard work. And for that, I salute him.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2004, on rollcall No. 378 regarding H. Res. 713, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' but meant to vote ``nay.'' Similarly, on rollcall No. 379 regarding H. Con. Res. 462, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' but meant to vote ``nay.''

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the students, alumni, faculty and administration of The Pennsylvania State University, known more familiarly as Penn State, as the school turns 150 this year. Established in 1855 as a land grant college, it began modestly as a one-building agriculture school in the center of Pennsylvania. Because there was not even a town there at the time, the town that grew up around the school eventually became incorporated as State College. In testimony to the grit and hardworking tradition of Pennsylvanians, Penn State grew quickly in size as well as academic stature among institutions of higher learning. Penn State can be proud of its academic tradition. The university boasts a wide array of academic achievements in countless disciplines, from agriculture to engineering, from mathematics to meteorology, from the arts to applied research. Penn State is well-known and respected in national collegiate athletics for the strict academic standards it applies to its athletes. Penn State intercollegiate athletes graduate at a rate significantly above the national average. This sets a national example not only to other collegiate athletes but to college and high school students as well. I am proud to join my Pennsylvania Colleagues in paying tribute to an institution that has so enriched Pennsylvania and our nation academically and culturally.