John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 21, 2002, a gentleman who has been a friend to many of us in this chamber over the last quarter century, Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., celebrated the golden anniversary of his ordination into the priesthood. He entered the Jesuit Order in September, 1940. Through fifty years of ordained priesthood, Father Collins has left a lasting impression on the lives of many devout Catholics. Virtually every weekend, Father Collins travels over 150 miles round trip to say Mass at Our Mother of Sorrows Catholic Church in Centreville on Maryland's Eastern Shore. During the week, he is an active presence on the campus of Georgetown University where he not only has played a major role in shaping the physical presence of that institution, but has also enhanced the understanding of the Catholic faith among the students. Now in his eighth decade of life, Father Collins is still seen rowing on the Chesapeake Bay and bicycling in the vicinity of the Georgetown campus. This is a man who is living life to the fullest and continuing in many ways to serve his faith. I know that Father Collins is immensely proud--in his very humble way--of having been able to play a significant role in the life of Georgetown University, the Nation's oldest Catholic university. Likewise, I know that many of us in this House have come to admire and respect this man of the cloth. He has been a friend who has been with us in times of joy and of tribulation. He is to be commended for the fifty years of service he has provided since his ordination.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we think this amendment is a very important area. We will take a look at it and see if we cannot add money to this field. There is no question in mind that the gentleman has hit an area that a lot of Members are interested in. We will take care of the problem.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the amendment.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. That is right.

Mr. MURTHA. This just opens the bill up.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We did the best we could do with the amount of money we had available. This is a good bill.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I have a problem here with the 16-hour delay. This supplemental has been sitting here for 2 months, and we got it up, and we complain about 16 hours' delay? The thing that worries me as much as anything is we have a shortfall on the National Guard of $1.8 billion. We have those National Guard deployed. We have 78,000 National Guard deployed throughout the country, National Guard and Reserve. We have taken the money out of that. The committee put it back in. The chairman of the committee could only squeeze back in $800 million. We are now short almost $1 billion for the National Guard. I am talking about the bill actually says we have to cut people on active duty by 14,000 people in order to make up for the shortfall. Now, we say, okay, we are only talking here, or we are finagling around here in order to get through so we have enough money. But it sends a terrible signal to the troops that we do not have confidence and we are going to cut. In other words, when we vote for this rule, we have eliminated $800 million. We have not funded, I should say, $1.8 billion to take care of people who are on active duty. The National Guard called and they were bananas about the fact that we were cutting the National Guard by $1.8 billion. We did the best we could do, and we put half the money back in. I am sure between the chairman, the ranking member, the chairmen of both committees, the ranking members, we will get that money back. But the difficulty is that here we are to get through this thing, to get it over to the Senate, and we are actually voting to cut back on troops that are on active duty right now. Then we get criticized for 16 hours' debate, as if we are unpatriotic. I have been here 16 hours listening to all this rhetoric about how unpatriotic people are. This is not what this is all about. This is about money for the troops. The second thing, we have almost 8,000 employees in western Pennsylvania for USAir. I talked to the chairman about it; I talked to the chairman of the Republican political campaign. He has as much interest as I do, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has as much interest as I do. We are talking about real people. We met today with the chairman of USAir. He is going to go bankrupt if this is not settled. Again, what have we done? We have taken money, or we put a limitation on the money. We thought we solved the problem, so USAir went to the banks. The banks said, no, this does not solve the problem. We will not be able to lend them money. So here we are tonight passing legislation which will mean that USAir could go bankrupt tomorrow or the next day. I am sure if the chairman calls them tomorrow and says, look, we are going to straighten this out in conference, the problem is the Senate has gone home and they have passed the same legislation. The exact same wording in the legislation says that there is a restriction, and the banks will not lend them the money. So we have a real problem here, for those of us who represent USAir. They have lost tremendous amounts of money in this latest disaster that we had. They shut down National for a long period of time. We restricted the flights all through the United States. We passed originally, when the height of this disaster occurred, we passed all kinds of money and said, this money is going to be available. All at once we put a restriction on when they can apply for a loan. It is disconcerting. The other thing we have done, when we talk about delaying a supplemental, the military has a difficult time. The chairman of the full committee can tell us this. Every time we delay a supplemental, it means they have to take money out of the fourth quarter, the most inefficient way to operate when we do not get that money to the services on time. So here we are, and they said they needed the money in April. They are already borrowing money from the last quarter in order to pay the operating expenses for the military, the most inefficient way. Sometimes we cannot help it. I know there are problems with this bill, but we are sending a terrible signal to 14,000 National Guard people who have been on active duty for a period of time. We are sending a signal to USAir where we have 9,000 or 10,000 people in western Pennsylvania whose jobs may be in jeopardy. I hope we will be able to solve this thing. Most of the time, we can solve it in conference. But I worry as we go through the process, through the full committee, through the House, and then meeting with the Senate, that we will not be able to solve this problem because of the budgetary problem we have been putting ourselves in. I would ask the Members to vote against this rule and try to solve this problem.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding Marine who has dedicated his life to the service of our nation. Lt. Colonel Thomas Fuhrer has recently completed his Washington service and is being assigned to command the Marine Corps Combat Service Support Schools Training Command at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Lt. Colonel Fuhrer has served on the personal legislative staff of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the past two years. During that time, he has worked closely with senior military, civilian, and Congressional Members and staff in this critical high visibility environment. His performance has been singularly impressive. He has advised the Chairman, Vice, and senior officers from the Joint Staff as well as Commanders in Chief in a myriad of complex and sensitive issue briefings in addition to their confirmation and annual posture hearings. Hailing from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Lt. Colonel Fuhrer began his career as a enlisted Marine, graduating from the venerable Parris Island in 1980. He entered Clarion University as a drilling reservist and upon graduation was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps in 1984. During Lt. Colonel Fuhrer's career as a Marine, he has excelled at every aspect of operations concentrating on the fiscal, disbursing, travel and logistics support of our active duty and forward deployed Marine Corps. His leadership, management, problem-solving and team- building skills have been recognized in his promotion, personal awards, and assignment to the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. He received his Master's Degree in Financial Management in 1986. Following a successful tour in the Headquarters of the Marine Corps as a budget analyst, he was selected for the prestigious Legislative Fellow Program through Brookings Institution. This program led him to the Office of Congressman John Murtha, where his tireless service was focused on Defense and Appropriations issues. Lt. Colonel Fuhrer leaves his present assignment as the Deputy Legislative Assistant for Marine Corps matters to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he served as liaison between the nation's most senior military officer and the United States Congress. He also leaves the close professional relationship he cultivated specifically with Members and their staff on the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on Defense. Throughout a career of distinguished service, he has made innumerable contributions to both the military and our nation. As Lt. Colonel Fuhrer departs to tackle new challenges of Command at Camp Lejeune, we will certainly miss him and wish continued success for both him and his family.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remember to my Colleagues and to this great Country a most extraordinary Veteran who passed away this year. Col Francis S. Gabreski, 83, America's air ace in Europe in WWII and an ace in the Korean War died January 31, 2002 of a heart attack. One of five children, Gabreski was born in Oil City PA on January 28 1919. His parents were Polish immigrants. He would fly 266 combat missions in two wars destroying 37.5 enemy aircraft in World War II and 6.5 in Korea. Flying single engine P-47 Thunderbolt fighters, Mr. Gabreski downed 28 Messerchmitts and FockeWulfs over France and Germany between August 24, 1943 and July 5, 1944, and destroyed three more German aircraft on the ground. He was captured in late July 1944 after crash-landing near Koblenz, Germany on what was to have been his last mission, and spent ten months as a prisoner of war. He became an ace (a pilot shooting down at least five enemy planes) in the Korean War as well, flying an F-86 Sabre jet. He shot down six Soviet-built MIG-15 fighters and shared credit for the downing of another. His flying days began after he graduated from basic training in March, 1941 as a second lieutenant, and joined a fighter unit at Wheeler Field in Hawaii. On the morning of December 7, 1941, he was shaving when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He scrambled to a P-36 fighter but by then the Japanese aircraft were nowhere in sight. Because he spoke Polish and ``I felt strongly about what the Nazis had done to Poland,'' he asked to be assigned to a Polish fighter unit attached to the Royal Air Force. He flew some two dozen missions over Europe with Polish pilots early in 1943 before joining the United States 56th Fighter Group in Britain. After the war and a hero's welcome home, Gabreski worked for Grumman Aerospace and was head of the Long Island Rail Road, the nation's busiest commuter line. Gabreski once said, ``A pilot can contribute physical acumen, good eyesight and alertness. You have to be calm, cool and collected. Freeze, and you frighten yourself. But beyond that you need some luck to survive.'' Gabreski lived in Dix Hills, NY. He is survived by three sons, six daughters, two sisters, eighteen grandchildren and four great grandchildren. Among Gabreski's decorations were: The Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, Distinguished Flying Cross with nine Oak Leaf Clusters, Air Medal with four Clusters, the Bronze Star, The French Legion D'Honneur and Croix de Guerre with Palm, Polish Cross of Valor, the British Distinguished Flying Cross and the Belgian Croix de Guerre.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a Fellow Marine, Robert Jessup, who passed away on April 7th, 2002. Robert Byrne Jessup was born January 4, 1942 in Washington, DC. He attended Washington and Lee High School and George Washington University. He was honorably discharged after serving in the US Marine Corps from 1960-1964 as a Lance Corporal, H&S Co., 2nd Shore Party Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, FMF, Camp LeJeune, NC. He was awarded two Good Conduct Medals. Mr. Jessup worked for Eastern Airlines from 1964 to 1974. He married Caroline Mary Gerard on November 19, 1966 in Alexandria, VA. They moved to Gaithersburg, MD, where he began a career with the General Electric Corporation. While at GE, he was instrumental in the development of the MARK 3000 System. In the true spirit of a United States Marine, he served his community throughout his life. He was involved in numerous community activities, serving on the Board of Directors for his neighborhood and the Gaithersburg Board of Appeals. He was a football, baseball and basketball coach for his children and a Boy Scout Leader in Troops 207 and 494. He is survived by his wife; his children, Bill, Rick and Dana; five grandchildren, two brothers, his mother and many other relatives and friends. He was a beloved father, husband, son, grandfather and friend who loved to play games with his family from cards to Trivial Pursuit. Friends remember the Jessup home always as one of boisterous activity, laughter and joy. Robert Jessup's ideas about serving others live on in his children. His sons work in federal law enforcement; his daughter cares for senior citizens who do not have family to care for them in the Denver area. It is an honor to share this farewell tribute with my Colleagues. Mr. Jessup is being interred today, May 1, in Arlington Cemetery. Semper Fi.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, dental care is the most frequently cited unmet health need of children. In fact, unmet children's dental care need, is three times greater than the unmet need for children's medical care, four times greater than the unmet need for prescription drugs, and five times greater than the unmet need for children's vision care. Dental decay is the most prevalent chronic disease of childhood. To help in eradicating this hidden epidemic, Congresswomen Lowey, Roybal-Allard, Morella and Congressmen Upton, Norwood, Stark, Doyle, Moran, Andrews and I are introducing the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2002''. With its enactment, this legislation will improve the access and delivery of dental care to low-income children across the country. In September 2000, the U.S. Surgeon General reported in ``Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General'' that 14 percent of children in America were without health insurance coverage and that more than twice that number, 23 million children, were without any level of dental care. Pediatric health care providers and children's hospitals across America see the results of this lack of care every day, as they care for children with serious dental problems that could have easily been avoided had they had access to preventative and routine dental care. The need to improve the oral health of America's children is well documented. According to the National Health and Nutrition Interview Survey, poor children age 2-9 have twice the levels of untreated decayed teeth as nonpoor children. According the U.S. Surgeon General, ``there are at least 2.6 children without dental insurance for each child without medical insurance.'' Progressive tooth decay causes children to suffer pain and infection, dysfunctions in eating and speech, distraction and irritable behavior and creates attendant learning dysfunctions and limitations. According to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research reports, 80 percent of tooth decay is isolated in only 25 percent of the children, with the most untreated disease occurring in low-income children. In addition, the social impact of oral disease in children is substantial. More than 51 million school hours are lost each year to dental-related illness in children. The ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2002'', will provide states the flexibility to utilize the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to provide dental coverage to low-income children (below 200% of poverty) including children who may have limited medical coverage that does not include dental services. The legislation will improve the dental health of uninsured and underinsured low-income children by allowing states the flexibility to utilize CHIP to provide funding for dental coverage to low-income children; providing $40 million to community health centers and public health departments to expand dental health services through the hiring of additional dental-health professionals. While several factors influence access for low-income groups to dental care, the primary one being limited dentist participation in Medicaid. The primary factor here is in, large part, due to poor reimbursement rates in Medicaid. The legislation seeks to improve dental care access under Medicaid and the Indian Health Service (IHS) by providing $50 million as financial incentives and planning grants to states to improve their Medicaid program in terms of adequate payment rates, access to care and improved service delivery; again, providing $40 million to community and IHS health centers and public health departments to expand dental health services through the hiring of additional dental health professionals. Despite Medicaid and CHIP, dental care is the least utilized core pediatric health service for low-income children. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Oral Health Initiative (OHI) effort to coordinate dental health service within CMS lacks statutory authority necessary to enforce oral health initiatives. The legislation seeks to remedy this by providing statutory authority for the OHI and authorizes $25 million to improve the oral health of low-income populations. In addition, the bill contains the following technical provisions: The bill streamlines the process for the designation of dental health professional shortage areas; Ensures that entities eligible for funding include both ``school- linked'' as well as school-based organizations, clarifies that an eligible entitle can be public or non-profit health organization or tribal organization; Creating authority for HHS to establish demonstration projects to increase access to dental services for children in underserved areas. This legislation has the endorsement and is fully supported by over 40 national health organizations including, National Association of Children's Hospitals, American Academy of Pediatrics, March of dimes, American Dental Association and Family Voices. There can be no substitute for providing for our children's health. The ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2002'' will go a long way to filling a large gap that exists in our current health programs for children. Clearly, more effort and support is needed. Therefore, I believe that Congress must act now. I ask that all Members of the House and Senate join in to support and vote for passage of the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2002''.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. We did the best we could with the little bit of money we had. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, across America, Americans have come to expect and rely on our health care system, especially, emergency ambulance service. All to often, for many of us, our first exposure to health care is the local EMS unit that responds to a call for help. Unfortunately, for millions of Americans living in a rural setting, this cornerstone of medical care is on the verge of collapse. I, for one, am a strong believer in the importance and the necessity of maintaining a strong effective EMS component within our health care system. The question that we must answer, as we debate health care, is, how prepared do we want and expect our health care system to be. In an emergency, at that critical moment, the EMS unit is that critical link to our health care system that makes the difference between life and death. Unfortunately, be it ground or air, EMS for communities throughout America is under enormous financial pressure. For many rural communities, EMS is in jeopardy of collapse. Typically, rural EMS is a small one or two unit service, staffed by volunteers, not affiliated with a hospital or medical facility, that responds to 300 to 500 calls per year within a large radius (37 miles average) who's greatest danger to its existence comes from Medicare. In a growing number of instances, unrealistic and unresponsive Medicare reimbursement fee schedules have done more to erode EMS in America than any other threat to medical care in this country. Because Medicare fees fail to accurately define or reflect the rural medical environment, EMS is facing grave danger of being put out of business by fee schedules that fall to recognize and reflect the actual costs confronting rural ambulance/EMS service. Therefore, I am introducing the ``Medical Rural Ambulance Service Improvement Act of 2001''. This legislation will increase by 20 percent the payment under the Medicare program for ambulance services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas, require CMS to define rural areas on population density by postal zip codes, increase mileage rates for the first 50 miles and require the use of most recent data by CMS in determining payment adjustments. For rural ambulance and EMS, the majority of their revenue comes from Medicare reimbursements. Yet existing Medicare fee schedules are not accurate, nor do they reflect real-world costs confronting rural services. Due to their low-volume of calls and transfers, rural EMS providers will remain the hardest hit under CMS' fee schedules unless decisive and corrective action takes place now. Timely and accurate reimbursement and fee schedules for ambulance/EMS services will be critical to seeing that rural America continues to receive emergency medical services. Citing financial loss as the number one contributing factor for services closing down, the ``Medical Rural Ambulance Service Improvement Act of 2001'' will level the playing field for rural EMS. Good health requires an effective and thorough health care system. We all have something to lose by not putting a halt to the erosion of EMS care in rural America. Therefore I am calling on all Members to join with me and sponsor passage of this important and critical piece of health legislation.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, The United States is facing a serious, long- term, shortage of health care professionals. For example, the demand for nurses will exceed the supply by 2010, when the first of the 78 million Baby Boomers begin to retire and enroll in the Medicare program. Across the board, working in patient care has become more stressful and care givers are leaving their profession as more sicker and elderly patients are entering our hospitals and nursing facilities. The future therefore, will require new models of patient care and the efficient use of the skills of our increasingly scarce nurses and other health care professionals. Care giving has always been a demanding profession. Those men and women who go into it--like those who go into teaching--do so out of commitment. Unfortunately, conditions in the work environment are making it virtually impossible for them to fulfill that commitment. The nursing shortage has set off the alarm and the concern is appropriate. But before effective responses and solutions can be devised, policy makers need to realize that nursing and the health system have been at this crossroads before. Over the past several decades, nursing has found itself caught in a perpetual cycle of workforce shortages and shortsighted solutions that, over the long term, have failed. The result has been more demanding workloads for care-givers with sicker and more older patients and a weakened infrastructure to support patient care. Nurses are increasingly spending more of their time away from direct medical care. From lifting and moving patients and providing hygienic care to increasing administrative support, over 40 percent of a nurse's hours are spent meeting non health related support activities. This inefficient use of nursing care has directly reduced the level and quality of patient care. Unfortunately, with operating margins the tightest they have ever been, hospitals have scaled back the number of skilled care givers and reduced the mix of qualified nursing personnel to a level where staffing ratios are inconsistent and mandatory overtime has become the necessity. The ``Patient Care Innovation Act of 2001'' will lead to the establishment of new, more efficient, postures of patient care. The legislation establishes a federally funded program of planning grants for the design, and demonstration grants for the implementation and evaluation of new innovative models of patient care delivery that provides quality patient care, recognizes and utilizes the professional competencies of nurses, and creates workplace environments conducive to nurse retention and recruitment, including care giver to patient ratios. This is an important step. Health care providers need to fundamentally rethink the way in which they organize and deliver patient care to determine if there is a better way to deliver care for both the patient and the care giver. Nurses, health care providers and other direct care givers need to be involved in designing, testing and evaluating new and innovative models of patient care. The development and testing of new and innovative models of patient care delivery must involve changes in organizational structures and processes; new management practices; greater nurse autonomy and involvement in patient care decision-making; more effective use of support staff; greater interdisciplinary collaboration and the expanded use of technology to reduce manual documentation and repetitive administrative tasks. Obviously, one solution will not fit all environments. All the more reason for passage of the ``Patient Care Innovation Act of 2001''. A broad band of responses must be developed if we are to maintain quality patient care and stop the exodus of care givers from the health care profession. Planning grants will be used to bring together multi disciplinary clinical and administrative teams to assess current patient care delivery systems, collect data, define work and care environment problems, evaluate new approaches and develop innovative models for delivering efficient safe and quality patient care. Demonstration grants will be used to implement and evaluate innovative models of care to demonstrate and determine their effectiveness in providing quality patient care and increasing the professional satisfaction of nurses within various health care settings. Health care providers are already struggling to maintain day-to-day operations under restrained payments by Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies. Grant funding will enable providers to move forward more expeditiously to implement new methods of care while addressing the shortage of health care professionals before it reaches the crisis stage. Patient care must remain the primary focus of our health care system. The nursing shortage will affect the health care of all Americans unless we act now to create and implement the means to ensure the highest quality of care for all patients. Ultimately, success will mean generating changes in attitudes and practices that have been entrenched in the health care system for decades. Can the emerging shortage of health care professionals be turned around? To do so, policy makers and planners must go beyond discussing recruitment and increasing the size of educational programs. It will mean generating changes in attitudes and practices that have been entrenched in the health care system for decades. It requires that we engage in a reevaluation of how health care professionals are educated, credentialed and employed. In particular, employers need to create professional work environments that promotes and ensures high-quality, cost effective patient care and that recognizes and rewards the contributions that nurses and other health care professionals make to the very well-being of hospitals and our health care system. Therefore, I strongly urge all Members of Congress to join with me and sponsor passage of this critical piece of patient health care legislation.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the dilemma we are caught in here, and the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman from California, all of us know this, is we have an agreement with an artificial cap, and we have to try to meet the needs of the war while this is going on. We know that in the amendment that we have offered we can speed up the renovation of the Pentagon. We know we can speed up some of the weapons systems; and some people would say that with the phenomenal increase already, we do not need any more. But some of the problems we are trying to solve have gone on for years. For instance, we are trying to figure out a way to replace tankers. We run into the artificial ceiling. The tankers are worn out. We are using them every day. Some of those flights today have to be refueled four or five times by the time they get to Afghanistan and back. Yet we cannot buy the tankers, so we are probably going to have to lease them, if we finally agree; and we have been resisting this on the House side. But if we agree, it will cost us $7 billion or $8 billion more in order to lease them rather than buy them. So we have put ourselves in a dilemma. I realize the Speaker and the President have made an agreement, and I would hope at some point we can convince them. I worry that last year, the supplemental, we kept thinking it was going to be up here, we kept urging him to bring it up. We all called for him to send the supplemental up, and they waited forever. I would hope they would get a supplemental to us as soon as possible, because we only have like 12 legislative days from January to the end of March. So we really are in a box in the sense that while the war is going on, unless they send a supplemental up that we can act on, we will have them doing the same thing they did last year, reaching into other processes in order to get the money. So we have some real problems here that we have to solve. I know the reason that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) decided that he could not support extra money is because when the President said he is going to veto the bill, he would veto the bill. I know that is a problem. We have this artificial ceiling we have to deal with, but I hope at some point we can convince the President and the Speaker that we really do have a problem here.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just hope that when Members vote on this, they will understand that we need more money in homeland security. We need to speed up the process of getting teams to combat biological and chemical warfare out; we need money for the borders; but we also need money for operational money and the war. I know we will take care of the immediate needs, but I worry about the supplemental, and I hope we are putting the executive branch on notice that they need to send us a supplemental as soon as possible, that they do not wait around and let those experts at OMB decide when the supplemental is sent up. So I would just urge the Members to vote for this motion and, hopefully, in the subcommittee, we will be able to work the best we can under the artificial limitations we have, and then they will understand that we need more money and get the supplemental up as quickly as possible.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House of Representatives to reject this ``fast-track'' trade legislation--this bill will not meet our trade goals, and will hurt rather than help our needed economic recovery. Many industries, such as the U.S. steel industry, are being hard-hit by subsidized foreign imports, yet this bill does not require U.S. negotiators to seek wide protections such as the United States needs from such dumping by foreign countries in key areas such as steel, lumber, cement, and agriculture products. Moreover, this bill will not attack the key trade steps we need to take--rather, we need a revised U.S. trade policy that will eliminate the record-level trade deficit, protect U.S. jobs and the U.S. economy, and promote U.S. exports. This bill before the House of Representatives will only mean more U.S. jobs lost to overseas, subsidized manufacturers. The U.S. can compete with any nation in the world as long as the competition is fair, but this legislation will actually encourage other countries to avoid U.S. anti-dumping laws, and worsen rather than strengthen our economy. It also fails to strengthen overseas worker rights and require environmental progress. Yes, we need a revised U.S. trade policy, but we need one that protects U.S. jobs and stimulates economic growth. This bill does not reach that goal at all, and it should be rejected by the House of Representatives as a statement that we will stand-up for the U.S. economy and protect U.S. jobs rather than sending business and jobs overseas.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.