John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. The amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) violates clause 2 of rule XXI, the section on legislation of an appropriations bill.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, one of the points that I want to make, and I am not in the habit of speaking when I know a point of order is going to be made against legislation, but here is what we face: for instance, Bethlehem Steel has 18 retirees for every person working. Bethlehem's pension cost is going to be at least $2 billion over a period of time if they go chapter 7. Now, who picks that up? The PBGC picks it up. We set up the PBGC in order to protect what we thought would be garment factories going out of work. We only pay 80 percent of the pension costs. We pay none of the health care costs. Right now all of those retirees are being paid by Bethlehem Steel. We have the same problem with LTV and all these other companies that have retirees that do not have full funding for the pension guarantee in their fund. So we are going to have to face this. We did it for the coal miners, for the health care costs for the coal miners, and we are going to have to look at some way to take care of these pensioners. All of us have retired steelworkers. We have them from Pennsylvania that move to Florida, we have them in California, we have them all over the country. If we do not, we are going to have thousands of steelworkers getting 80 percent of their pension and losing their health care costs completely. So I hope that when we go to conference we will look at the possibility of finding a way to fund some of these corporations out of the tariffs. Now, if the administration finds a way to charge tariffs and then we can take the money out of the tariffs, it would cost the government a lot less than it would if we go to PBGC. So I would ask all the Members of the committee to think about the disastrous process we are going to have to go through if we lose these steel companies, besides the fact of national security. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made some good points and we are certainly going to take a look at this. As he says, we have based this on carefully conforming to a cut that we thought would not harm it, but we are certainly going to take a look at the information that he has given to us.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield my time so we can get this bill moving. People have been waiting so long. So I am prepared to yield back whenever my colleague is ready, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Could I ask the gentleman, and he may not be able to answer this question, but could we not have gone to conference since the other bill was reported out unanimously? I just wonder, is there some reason that we felt like we had to take up the Senate version of the bill? Were there enough changes in your estimation that it warranted taking up the Senate version amended?

Mr. MURTHA. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions here. I have not seen a copy of the bill, and nobody on this side has been able to explain to me what is in the bill. I know in an hour that it would be very difficult to explain the intricacies of a terrorism bill which would last for some period of time. Could you tell me the difference between the bill that the Committee on the Judiciary reported out and this particular bill that we are talking about here?

Mr. MURTHA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my Colleagues to a new book written by a native of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. ``A Letter to Mrs. Roosevelt'' vividly conveys the fear gripped a young girl as her family home was posted for sheriff's sale. This story about life during the Great Depression truly depicts what America is all about, and should be a must-read for all Americans. Author C. Coco DeYoung based the award-winning novel on her family's experience, with vivid details brought to her through her family's tradition of storytelling. Though written as a children's book by a former educator, the short novel is equally compelling to adult readers. Published by Delacorte Press, the book won the Sixth Annual Marguerite de Angeli Prize for historical fiction and the 2000-2001 Keystone to Reading Book Award. Selected by Booklist as a Top 10 First Novel of 1999, and a Teachers' Choices 2000 by the International Reading Association, this book has also been recognized as a Notable Social Studies Trade Book for Young People by the Children's Book Council and the National Council of Social Studies. To date, it has been nominated for state book awards in seven states. The story is based on real events involving De Young's grandfather, and her father whose childhood is depicted in the character role of Charlie Bandini in the book. As a six-year-old boy, Charlie injures his leg, the bone becomes infected and doctors want to amputate. Charlie's father (De Young's grandfather in real life) uses everything the family owned to borrow $5,000 to bring in a doctor from Massachusetts to save the leg. But as the Great Depression set in deeper, he cannot keep up with the payments through his business as a shoemaker in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. ``Papa'' Bandini, an Italian immigrant, spoke five languages doing business with the various immigrant groups that had settled in the mill town. Despite their difficulties, he sometimes feeds hobos who come to the house for food, and when customers had no money, he would accept produce from their gardens as payment for fixing shoes. Having witnessed the fate of neighbors whose homes had been posted for Sheriff Sale, the sense of security of 11-year-old Margo Bandini crumbles when she comes home to discover that her own family home had been posted by the Sheriff. As the family struggles and grapples with their fears, desperate to save the family from despair, Margo writes a letter to the First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt. Distributor Random House, in its Online Teachers Guide available free at www.randomhouse.com, says the book is an excellent tool not only for teaching about the history of the Great Depression, but also for teaching about brotherhood, family, pride, fear and courage. The real-life Coco family became one of the first in Johnstown to receive a loan through the Home Owners Loan Corp., a New Deal relief project created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. And De Young's father, the book-character ``Charlie,'' remarkably is now in his 77th year of working in his shoe business--he's been at it since the age of six. A ``Letter to Mrs. Roosevelt'' creates a vivid sense of time and place during the Great Depression and tells a heart-warming story of one family's struggles and courageous triumph through dark times. I recommend it to anyone.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding Naval Officer, Commander John Miley. He has served with distinction and dedication for three years as a Congressional Liaison Officer in the Appropriations Matters Office. It is a privilege for me to recognize his many outstanding achievements and commend him for the superb service he has provided to the Department of the Navy, the Congress, and our great Nation. During his tenure as a representative of the Department of the Navy to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Commander Miley diligently and successfully worked budget submission and resource issues. During that time he has accompanied me on numerous fact-finding visits to Navy and Marine Corps facilities both stateside and abroad. I could always count on him to provide well through out and candid input. Commander Miley was always on top of the issues of the day, and be relied on to insure Congress got the ``right information at the right time''. Additionally, Commander Miley has provided members of the Appropriations Committees, as well as our professional and associate staffs with timely and accurate support regarding Navy plans, programs and budget decisions. He has earned our respect and trust for his dedication, knowledge of the Navy and the way he handles himself in this demanding position. His valuable contributions have enabled the Congress and the Navy to strengthen its close working relationship and to maintain the most modern, well-trained and well-equipped naval forces in the world. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Commander John Miley before the Congress today. It is clear through his stated and unstated accomplishments that he is a true leader with a clear sense of purpose, conviction, and conscience of service to his Nation. As he departs the Washington area to command Helicopter Combat Support Squadron EIGHT in Norfolk, VA, I call upon my colleagues to wish him and his wife, Anne-Marie, and their young son, Sean, continued success and the traditional Navy send-off ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the leadership in protecting the prerogatives of the Congress but protecting the prerogatives of the people of this great Nation with the largest supplemental that I have ever seen since I have been in Congress. I think it is a well thought out and carefully drawn bill. But what I wanted to really talk about was in my district, the tragedy that unfolded there. When we sat in the Capitol, when Jerry Lewis and I sat in the Capitol and heard that a plane was headed towards the Capitol, we evacuated, we listened to the various stories of it hitting New York, hitting the Pentagon. Then I traveled back to the district. I listened to the people who saw the airplane crash. I listened to the people in the tower in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, who explained to me they had a notification from Cleveland center about 10 minutes before the plane went over. It went over Johnstown airport at about 6,000 feet. I recognized, with all my years of experience listening to reports on terrorism, that that crew, those passengers, were struggling, that whole time. The plane started to disintegrate, apparently, four or five miles from the site where it landed. When a reporter has asked me, why do you not think it was headed for Johnstown, Pennsylvania, well, as proud as I am of our district, there is no question in my mind the Capitol of the United States is a symbol of freedom worldwide. There is no question in my mind this airplane was headed towards the Capitol and it would have been disastrous with the loss of life and the symbolism that it would have presented to the perpetrators of this tragedy. I am convinced they struggled. They fought. They missed a school by about a mile. They missed an industrial park by a couple of miles. They missed the airport by a couple of miles. But when I say a couple of miles, I am talking about seconds. This plane was traveling at just under the speed of sound. And as it rolled over and the people that saw it crash into the ground said it was upside down when it hit. I have seen tragedy in Beirut the day after the bombing. I have been to Somalia and Bosnia and Vietnam. I have never seen anything as horrendous as this crash. It apparently came straight in, avoided all the land, all the houses, the structures and so forth, and their purpose was consummated. As a matter of fact, a number of people, and I agree with this, recommended we should put a small monument out there at the location where this plane hit. We are going to do that. We are going to also put a plaque with all the names at the Johnstown airport, because I consider these folks as real heroes. If anything came out of that, it shows the strength of America. These folks decided in their own mind, and having been a combat veteran myself, I understand the tough decisions you have to make when your life is threatened. These folks made the decision that they were not going to let this plane hit a populated area. I want to commend them. I want to console the families. As tragic and sorrowful as this is, the fact that they saved innumerable lives, if there is any bright spot at all in this terrible tragedy, it is the fact that these people gave their lives to protect the Capitol of the United States, which is the symbol of freedom throughout the world.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act of 2001, I urge the House of Representatives to pass this legislation--it marks a vital opportunity to strengthen the retirement benefits for thousands of railroad families. This legislation modernizes and strengthens the retirement system which has covered railroad workers for 65 years. It provides more secure benefits at lower costs to employers and employees, has the support of both rail management and labor, and provides the kind of solid retirement support we need for the 673,000 retirees and beneficiaries. Among the key elements of this legislation we debate today are: --provides for increased responsibility by the railroad industry for the financial health of the Railroad Retirement system --the legislation improves the benefits for retirees and their families; in particular it makes major improvements in benefits for widows and widowers--a key in meeting today's high costs in areas like energy and health --reduces the current early retirement age of 62 with 30 years of service to age 60 with 30 years of service --tax rates are substantially reduced for employees --and currently it takes 10 years to vest for retirement benefits, but this reduces it to 5-7 years, much more similar to other industries. This reform legislation is the result of 2\1/2\ years of negotiations and it will build on the stability of the railroad retirement system, the fairness of retirement benefits, and the need to make adjustments to help retirees meet their needs. This bi-partisan legislation is fair, is needed, and is long overdue. I urge the House of Representatives to overwhelmingly pass this legislation and the Senate to do likewise.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Steve Tobash, a fellow Pennsylvanian and good friend, who recently retired after forty years of faithful service as head golf professional at Army Navy Country Club in Arlington, Virginia. Steve is the sixth of nine children born to Peter and Anna Tobash. He was raised in Schuykill Haven, Pennsylvania, where he attended and graduated from the public school system. Steve developed a love for the game of golf early in life, first as a caddy and later working at a driving range. After apprenticeships in Florida and Baltimore, Maryland, he enlisted in the Army and was assigned to Ft. Meade. The Army quickly recognized his golf talent and placed him in charge of golf operations. After his discharge he remained at Ft. Meade as the golf professional and later became the head professional at Chartwell Country Club. In 1961, he was selected as Golf Professional at Army Navy Country Club. At Army Navy, Steve developed and maintained a people-oriented operation that served more than two thousand members. He has also been an excellent mentor for young aspiring golf professionals. The measure of his success is that many who got their start with Steve have risen to the top echelon at their respective clubs. Steve loves the games and all those who play it, from the youngest toddler with a cut down seven iron to the super senior with his custom made golf clubs. All were guaranteed to be greeted by Steve with a big smile and ``Welcome to Army Navy.'' He is the Dean of Golf Professionals in the Mid-Atlantic and Washington Metropolitan Areas. We are truly going to miss his presence in the pro shop, on the golf course, and around the club. The membership can consider itself fortunate to have had Steve Tobash as their golf professional. To Steve and Alma, his wife of forty-six years, I wish you God Speed.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have ever spoken on an amendment which I am not sure is going any place, but I will say this: I can remember when it was first introduced they were talking about $1 billion. Most people thought there would not be that kind of a need or application. But in my district this has been one of the most popular things we have done in this Congress. We are having trouble getting volunteers. They are having trouble getting equipment. So this is the type of thing we will have to get involved in. I predict that in the end there will be a lot more money in this program. It is going to be just like defense. It is going to increase more and more. So I support the program and enthusiastically endorse what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) are trying to do.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the long-term care debate continues to grow as a key health care issue and it will continue to grow more in the coming decade as Americans live longer. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be focused on long-term care; the bad news is that there is a tremendous gap in ideas and solutions to make sure every family has access to affordable, quality long-term care when it is needed. In Pennsylvania already 1.9 million seniors and nearly 220,000 individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare to meet long-term costs, and 84,743 Pennsylvanians are in nursing homes. In the next decade, the first of the ``baby boomers'' will reach 65 sending the need for long-term care much higher very quickly. While long-term care is usually thought of in terms of the elderly, two of every five Americans will need long-term care at some point in their lives, often because of an injury or disability as well as advanced age. It is therefore, essential that the health care system provide families with affordable, available options for long-term care--options that provide the kind of quality everyone wants to see for a family member or friend. A major trend in long-term care is away from nursing homes, to keep people in their homes or with family as long as possible, to look at alternative living arrangements and to stress community support and involvement. As we sort through this issue, it is imperative that long- term care promote individual dignity, maximize independence and self- sufficiency and be provided in the least restrictive setting--that includes providing home and community based, flexible, benefits and services. The trend in long-term care is moving away from institutions like nursing homes. This is well illustrated in Pennsylvania where most people, particularly the elderly, dread the idea of leaving their home and family and moving to a nursing home. Consumers have become more sophisticated and are looking for alternatives of service and care that will allow people to retain their independence, including staying in their home or with family-member care givers. Research suggests that a highly important cultural change is at work--a trend toward home and community based long-term care services. This means that government must recognize this important shift and encourage the expansion of home and community-based care programs and services. While current government policies support and promotes public funding for institutionalized care (the type of care that those in need do not prefer) society has come to rely almost exclusively on informal family- care givers to provide the type of care desired by the majority of care recipients. Researchers estimate that the value of care giving responsibilities regularly assumed by family members and friends exceeded $200 billion in 1997. In comparison, federal spending for formal home care in 1997, was $32 billion, with an additional $83 billion for nursing home care. Informal or family-care givers provide more long-term care and support, free of charge and with limited support, than the federal government in all settings combined. The obvious question becomes: how about paying or providing relief to the informal or family-care giver? I am taking steps to do just that by introducing legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a $1,200.00 tax credit for care givers of individuals with long-term care needs. A $1,200.00 tax credit is the logical first step designed to recognize and compensate care givers for the long-term cost associated with informal or family-care giving.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is getting into an area that has always caused a controversy in the Congress. I thought we spoke clearly a few years ago when we said 24 hours is what the check should be. I get very nervous when the FBI retains weapons and/or other material. I understand they lost 100 computers. They mislaid a number of weapons, and one of those weapons was used in a murder. The longer they retain records, the more chance there is for abuse. Most of the people, the majority of the people, a vast majority of the people that work for the Department of Justice and the FBI are qualified, highly competent people. But the longer we retain any kind of records about any of these things, the more mischief it can cause. Mr. Chairman, I am an advocate of privacy; and the government has enough records. I would urge Members to vote against the Moran amendment because I believe it does not improve the privacy system. As a matter of fact, it is detrimental to the privacy system. I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I am very nervous when the government maintains records for any period of time. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to wait and see how it is working. If it is not working, maybe we ought to make a change. But I feel very strongly about it, and I urge Members to vote against the Moran amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to have joined with Congressman Duke Cunningham in introducing this Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the desecration of the American Flag. The American Flag is recognized around the world as a symbol of freedom, equal opportunity, and religious tolerance. Many thousands of Americans fought and suffered and died in ways too numerous to list in order to establish and preserve the rights we sometimes take for granted, rights which are symbolized by our Flag. It is a solemn and sacred symbol of the many sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers and our Veterans throughout several wars as they fought to establish and protect the founding principles of our great Nation. Most Americans, Veterans in particular, feel deeply insulted when they see our Flag being desecrated. It is in their behalf, in their honor and in their memory that we have championed this effort to protect and honor this symbol. We are a free Nation. No one would disagree that free speech is indeed a cherished right and integral part of our Constitution that has kept this Nation strong and its Citizens free from tyranny. Burning and destruction of the flag is not speech. It is an act. An act that inflicts insult--insult that strikes at the very core of who we are as Americans and why so many of us fought--and many died--for this country. There are, in fact, words and acts that we as a free Nation have deemed to be outside the scope of the First Amendment--they include words and acts that incite violence; slander; libel; and copyright infringement. Surely among these, which we have rightly determined diminish rather than reinforce our freedom, we can add the burning of our Flag--an act that strikes at the very core of our national being. No, this is not a debate about free speech. Our flag stands for free speech and always will. Over 100 years ago some words were written that most of us remember reciting in school. They sum up what we vote on today: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Let us join today in overwhelmingly passing this amendment to revere, preserve and protect our Flag, the symbol of our country, the embodiment of our principles, and the emblem of our people.