John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 this House passed landmark legislation. We passed legislation trying to get the Justice Department under control. Some of my colleagues may remember Joe McDade, who was a personal friend to many of us and who went through 8 years of the Justice Department investigating him and indicting him; and then, in about 4 hours of deliberation by a jury, he was found not guilty. We passed legislation then saying that the Justice Department would have to reimburse out of their money anybody that was indicted and not convicted. That still stands today. We also passed legislation that said any prosecutor, meaning any U.S. Attorney, must practice under the State laws, the ethics of the State laws. Well, the Justice Department, some U.S. Attorneys, have fought us all during this period of time. Matter of fact, in this legislation, prosecutors from all over the country came to this body, lobbied against us, the White House lobbied against us, and we beat them 350 to 50. Why? Because there was no confidence in the Justice Department. No confidence in the FBI. During that trial, Joe McDade, where they charged him as a subcommittee chairman with racketeering, they charged him with illegal gratuities, meaning campaign contributions; they charged him with bribes, meaning honorariums. They leaked information during this entire 6 years. I sat by Joe McDade when I was chairman of the committee and he was the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Defense, and every day he deteriorated in health and emotional stability, and it ruined his life for 8 years. He was acquitted, but he still has not gotten over this. Now, the point I am making today is that I was prepared to introduce legislation, because two of the things that were introduced that were thrown out in conference, and it was an omnibus bill, is that there would be an independent counsel investigate the Justice Department and then it would publicize what happened to the people that did wrongdoing. Those two things were thrown out. Now, I have hesitated since that time because the Justice Department kept saying we are going to get it under control. Well, I find the new Deputy Attorney General has said some things that give me confidence that he is going to try to get the FBI and the Justice Department under control. I have confidence the new FBI director realizes that the public has lost confidence in the FBI. As a matter of fact, this House would not have voted 350 to 50 to condemn or to put controls on the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys if it had not been for the lack of confidence of the public throughout this great country. But I am not going to offer that amendment, those two amendments, because I believe the new Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and the FBI director are moving in the right direction. But I hope by this time next year that this subject will be a subject of the past and people will regain confidence in the FBI and the Justice Department.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, from an urban setting to the furthest reaches of rural America, Americans have come to expect and rely on health care that includes emergency ambulance service. Unfortunately, for many of us, our first exposure to medical care is, all too often, the EMS unit that responds to our call for help. Yet, for millions of Americans living in rural America this cornerstone of medical care is in danger of collapse. Typically, rural EMS is a small one or two unit service, staffed by volunteers, not affiliated with a major medical facility, that responds to 350 to 500 calls per year within a large radius (37 miles average) who's greatest danger to its existence comes from Medicare. From the Pacific Northwest to the Florida panhandle to the rural setting of Pennsylvania, an unrealistic and unresponsive Medicare fee schedule has done more to erode emergency medical service in rural America than any other threat to medical care in this country. Because Medicare fees fail to accurately reflect the rural medical environment, rural EMS is facing grave danger of being put out of business by a fee schedule that fails to recognize the actual costs confronting rural ambulance/EMS service. Therefore, I am introducing the ``Medicare Rural Ambulance Service Equity Act of 2001,'' to increase by 20 percent the payment under the Medicare program for ambulance services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas. For rural ambulance/EMS, the majority of their revenue (60 to 70 percent) comes via Medicare reimbursements. Unfortunately, existing reimbursement fee schedules do not accurately reflect real-world circumstances confronting rural service. New Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) (previously referred to as HCFA) fee schedules, anticipated to go into effect by early fall, will not adequately correct the problem. Rural ambulance/EMS providers in every State will remain the hardest hit under the new fee schedule due to their low- volume of calls and transfers each year. Timely and accurate reimbursement schedules for ambulance/EMS services that accurately reflects real-world costs and expenses are critical to the rural providers' ability to continue to operate. Passage of the ``Medicare Rural Ambulance Service Equity Act of 2001'' will level the playing field for rural emergency medical service. All too often we are seeing rural EMS providers go out of business-- citing financial loss. The primary contributing factor they cite for their loss--an unrealistic and unresponsive Medicare reimbursement fee schedule. Recently the town council in Avonmore, Pennsylvania voted to close their ambulance/EMS after 27 years. Their reason, they couldn't afford to remain in business. Why, because with nearly 68 percent of their revenues from Medicare reimbursements they couldn't afford any longer to maintain the service for the community--A sad but all too true reality confronting rural medical care in America. The ``Medical Rural Ambulance Service Equity Act of 2001'' is not the panacea for the growing shortcomings of health care in American, but its 20 percent increase in reimbursement will stop the hemorrhaging that we are experiencing in rural emergency medical service. We all have something to lose by not putting a halt to the erosion of rural EMS. Therefore, I call on all Members of Congress to immediately pass this important piece of health legislation.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have 600 years of coal reserves underneath the ground. Even in my district people want to burn coal cleanly, and in order to burn coal cleanly we have to have research to do that. It is absolutely essential to my district, as well as western Pennsylvania. We have lost 10,000 or 12,000 coal miners in western Pennsylvania in the last 20 years. The thing that worries us is that if we do not do the research, in the end we will not be able to burn the coal cleanly. Every year, we try to balance in this bill all the agencies that need money. We increased weatherization. We increased fossil research. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) offered the amendment. We supported the amendment. Now that we are going through an energy crisis, when 52 percent of our electricity is produced by coal production, it would be foolish for us to eliminate this resource. So I would urge all the Members in the House to vote against this amendment. It is essential to the future of this country to have a consistent, low-cost energy resource. So I would hope that we would vote against this amendment and get on with the bill.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for a tremendous performance as chairman of the Committee of the Whole. Speaking for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and it is a pleasure. It has been stated many times, says the gentleman from Wisconsin, that this supplemental appropriation bill is deficient in a number of ways. For this reason, he is moving to recommit the bill with instructions to strike the rescission of $389 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief fund. We have heard from a number of eloquent speakers about the devastation that has occurred as a result of Tropical Storm Allison and the need for disaster assistance. Speaking again for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), while there are currently monies in the disaster relief fund, these funds will not be sufficient to cover all previous ongoing or projected disaster requirements. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter prior to the full committee markup on this bill stating he was puzzled by this rescission. The director of FEMA has sent a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) expressing his concern about this cut. Finally, yesterday the administration sent up its official position on the supplemental appropriations bill. It stated, ``The administration strongly opposes the proposed rescission of $389 million in disaster relief funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.'' The rescission should eliminate much of the normal FEMA funding needed by the agency to provide quick and effective assistance to disaster-stricken communities and victims. Given the disaster relief need due to the impact of Tropical Storm Allison as well as other disasters, this is not the time to be cutting FEMA. Instead of taking a reduction in disaster relief or making a mindless decision to take on across-the-board cuts to all Federal agencies as an offset, this motion would send the bill back to the Committee on Appropriations where thoughtful deliberations could take place as how best to proceed.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I apologize because I was part of the unanimous consent agreement. I am sure the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) did not mean in any way to violate the agreement, but I agree that we should not have violated the agreement. We have a legitimate agreement to talk about this. As important as it is, I understand the emotion; but I would hope we would be able to continue on with the other agreements that have been made. I apologize that it is such an emotionally charged issue and that we got a little out of hand here.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is trying to do, and I agree with the idea that FEMA needs to be restored. We got a letter from OMB which says it needs to be restored. We got a letter from FEMA which says it needs to be restored. A member of the other body wrote us a letter and says it needs to be restored. So I do not argue that. Later on, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the committee, is going to offer a recommital motion which will say that we are going to restore the money. But the problem with this cut, at three-quarters, almost at the end of the fiscal year, we are cutting veterans' medical care. It does not have to be in that area. I know that is what it says. We do not know where it might be. We cut VA claim processing, cut Social Security Administration, and we cut highway funds. If we look at the back of this yellow sheet, we will see the amount of money cut from every State. Now, there are none of us that travel throughout our State that do not need more money for highways. The money for highways comes from the taxpayer, and we voted this last year, to say that all the money that is collected in taxes is going to go to the highway fund. So it would be a mistake, in my estimation, for us to in any way make this cut in order to restore the FEMA funds.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Most of this bill is a bipartisan bill. The defense portion of it, which is the largest section, is bipartisan. But it is late and certainly inadequate. The gentleman from Florida just mentioned the fact that it is inadequate. The chairman of the subcommittee mentions that it is inadequate. In the past normally, we have gone to the emergency side where we were not artificially capped by the legislation and passed an adequate amount of money. But realizing the problems we have not only here but in the other body, we know that it is going to be very difficult to pass anything any larger. The thing that worries us the most on this side is some of the disaster relief money that is not available and the fact that one of the ways we have found money to fund some of the other programs is take out of FEMA. Yet we have gotten a letter from the OMB Director and also from the FEMA Director that says he estimates demands far in excess of the amount of money that is available. We have nothing in the Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief program. It is out of money completely. Certainly those kind of considerations should have been made. I do not have to say that we always have fires and storms in California or in other places in the Midwest and we always have to fund those programs. I am disappointed that we do not address the energy crisis, but I know that as we go along, we are getting closer and closer to getting something done. I think public pressure has finally gotten to the point where everybody realizes it. The President has said it is a crisis in California and something needs to be done. All of us recognize that we do not have the answer to it. But as a whole, this bill is in my estimation inadequate. All of us know, though, that voted for the balanced budget amendment that we have to live within the constraints of what we have. We have room in this bill, and I am hopeful that in the conference we will be able to make some adjustments. I know that in defense, after the review, we have indications there will be more money to take care of things that are so important to our national security. We have a substantial housing shortage, we have a shortage in the amount of money for health care even though we added to health care. We have some problems with this bill, but ultimately I am going to support the bill. Depending on the amendments that are offered and accepted, hopefully we will have a better bill and a bill that all of us can vote for when it is finished. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MURTHA. This is an interesting thing. The ranking member on our side actually realizes there is a shortage in defense, and it may have something to do with his laryngitis that he cannot get the words out.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know we have set up a unanimous-consent request which will give people time on the amendments. I really think we ought to get into the amendment process since we are going to have a late evening, anyway.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I was the one that personally offered the amendment in subcommittee for both these airplanes. I talked to the CINC Central Command who has responsibility for Saudi Arabia, who was flying in an airplane where he had no communications. This is a battlefield commander in a sense. He had no communications at all, he had an antiquated 40-year-old airplane, and he could not take his entire staff to make his decisions. General Zinni happened to be the CINC at that time. He convinced me, I convinced the subcommittee, and we have, as the chairman just said, two airplanes in place and we need the logistics systems to support those two airplanes. So it would be a mistake, in my estimation, to cut this money, and I would oppose this amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. MURTHA. Yes, I think it would be certainly devastating to Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, because the money has already been obligated; I think any other State, also, and there are a whole list of States that would lose money. I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do. I went through a flood in 1977, which had a devastating impact. FEMA was absolutely essential to our recovery. We spent $350 million in Federal money trying to help the area, so we are going to help him at some point. But we cannot afford to take money out of these programs, the highway program in particular, in order to restore the FEMA money.

Mr. MURTHA. The gentleman knows how hard we fought over the years to increase this. Every administration has not had enough money for veterans' affairs, so I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment.

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

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I come before my colleagues to pay parting tribute to a beloved friend and mentor of mine in this body, the late Congressman Joe Moakley of Massachusetts. I got to know Joe originally through another close long-time friend, Tip O'Neill. I was a young freshman right out of Vietnam when I came here and quickly gravitated to Tip and Joe because they brought to Congress and to our country principles I admired and sought to uphold: a strong commitment to helping people, working for the less fortunate, pulling together to get things done, and doing what is right. That is what Joe and the Speaker exemplified and I am grateful to have served with both of them and to have learned so much from them. I learned a great deal about statesmanship and how to get things accomplished in this body through Joe's leadership. Joe Moakley was without a doubt one of the most influential, dedicated and effective Members of the U.S. Congress. The country and this House have been lucky to have a man of such great character as Joe Moakley serving here for so many decades. It goes without saying how much he will be missed. There have been many of us Members of Congress, but there are few who will always be remembered by those who served with them the way that Joe will be remembered. Joe Moakley is one of those rare solid friends and outstanding Americans we will always feel blessed to have known. We will remember his friendship, his character, his grace, his concern for people and for our country, his tireless work in service to them, his example. I pray we will always strive to live up to it. God Bless and Keep you, Joe.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the way we are doing this. I voted against every tax cut so far. When I go home, and I have been home the last 8 weeks in a row, only one person has brought up to me that we need a tax cut. Only one person has said, and I ask them, How many of you in this room make over $300,000 a year? Not many hands go up in my district. The point I am making is the way we are doing this is what worries me. We have a pent-up demand in defense; we have promised the troops we are going to give them a 7 to 10 percent pay increase. We have all kinds of weapon systems which are out of date. We have an O&M problem. And all these are outlay problems. We have a procurement problem as far as the ships go in the Navy. I remember back 20 years when half our airplanes were grounded because of lack of spare parts. I remember offering an amendment to put $5 billion in for spare parts; $5 billion for O&M. Now, I voted for the last tax cut. It was a bipartisan tax cut. When I say the last tax cut, the tax cut that came in the Reagan administration that most of us were convinced by President Reagan and the leadership in the House that this was going to improve things. We ended up with $4 trillion worth of deficit. Now, we can blame it on spend, we can blame it on everything, but the facts are we ended up with a bigger deficit. I worry about the same thing again. It seems to me that before we take up a tax cut of this size, we should figure out exactly what we are going to do with the money. When I went down to Austin to visit with President Bush, he asked a number of us what we thought needed to be done. I told him I thought this year alone we needed $30 to $35 billion more for defense alone. I worry about my district. They just cut off the gas to some of the people that could not pay their bills. In Pennsylvania you cannot turn the gas or electricity off during the wintertime; obviously, people would freeze. But they have now turned it off. They could not afford to pay for prescription drugs and heating; and yet we are passing a tax bill, however it is configured in my estimation. That worries me that we are going to be right back to where we were before. Now, they assured us that supply-side economics would work. All of us believed that at the time. I remember sitting in a corner and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means came back there and said, Look, this is going to work. He said, You need to vote for this tax cut because it will stabilize policy, it will increase economic activity, it will make more money available for investment. Well, as all of us know, for whatever reason, it did not work right. But my major concern is our national security. I have not seen any of the details of what the President's going to propose. I hear all kinds of rumors. I hear the President saying he is going to spend more money on defense. I listened to him during his campaign. I think most of the people in the military thought that by this time there would be a supplemental appropriation and that there would be more money available for the military. And I understand that he wants to study the situation. I appreciate that. He has some of the best advisers that any President ever had, and I know he is committed to a strong national defense. But I frankly do not see how we are going to get there. I do not see how we can increase the quality of life for the troops. I was for the draft, one of the few people in the Congress that voted to continue the draft. I was not for the volunteer army because I knew that personnel costs would be exorbitant, but I thought a cross-section of Americans ought to serve in the military. It turns out it is very expensive. We have to offer bonuses; we have to pay extra money. If we want to keep a quality force, it is essential. Today's force must be a quality force for them to meet the issues that they face today. So I would urge the Members to vote against this reconciliation bill until we see the details of the budget.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Thomas E. Starzl, a pioneer in the field of organ transplantation, on this year's 20th anniversary of the first liver transplant performed in Pittsburgh. Born on March 11, 1926 in LeMars, Iowa, Dr. Starzl received a bachelor's degree in biology at Westminster College before going on to earn a master's degree in anatomy, a Ph.D. in neurophysiology, and an M.D. with distinction at Northwestern University Medical School. Following postgraduate work and a number of surgical fellowships and residencies, he returned to Northwestern University to serve on its faculty. Dr. Starzl moved on to the University of Colorado School of Medicine in 1962, and performed the world's first human liver transplant the following year. Dr. Starzl joined the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, which already had an established kidney transplant program, in 1981 as a professor of surgery. On February 26 of that year he performed the region's first liver transplant. Amazingly, of the 30 transplant patients that first year, 11 are still alive today because of Dr. Starzl's commitment to the great promise of the procedure despite earlier failed attempts. A major factor in the success of organ transplantation is the development of immunosuppressant drugs. Dr. Starzl was instrumental in this development, which advanced transplantation to an accepted form of treatment for patients with end-stage diseases of the liver, kidney and heart. It also shed light on the possibility that other organs could be successfully transplanted. With Dr. Starzl as chief, the University of Pittsburgh transplant program soon became the largest in the world. In the past two decades, over 11,300 transplants have been performed at UPMC Presbyterian, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and major advances by university faculty have had a tremendous impact on the entire field of transplantation. Among the countless ``firsts'' for this transplant program are the world's first multivisceral transplant, heart/liver transplant, and heart/liver/ kidney transplant. From the first successful liver transplant in 1967, through the development of surgical techniques and anti-rejection drugs that revolutionized the field, to his pioneering efforts at xenotransplantation, Dr. Starzl is among the most cited scientists in the field of clinical medicine. Now retired from clinical practice, he continues to influence all aspects of organ transplantation as director emeritus of the institute that now bears his name, the Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Dr. Tom Starzl for his tireless devotion and countless accomplishments in the field of organ transplantation.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to express concern about the increasing challenges facing health care providers, both hospitals and long-term care providers. Pressed by continued government underfunding, inadequate managed care payments, exploding professional liability costs, growing numbers of uninsured, and workforce shortages, these providers are struggling to meet community needs. Access to care is being threatened. At the federal level, we have been trying to right the wrongs created when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 cut millions of dollars in Medicare payments to hospitals. We have made progress to return some of this money, but more must been done. And to succeed, we need the continued support of all elements. I've spoken with Pennsylvania hospital administrators about efficiency, and Pennsylvania now has the second most cost-efficient system in the Nation. Costs in Pennsylvania acute care hospitals are 6 to 7 percent below their expected costs. Also I've spoken with Governor Ridge and Pennsylvania legislators about growing problems with nurse shortages, long-term care, and care for children and pregnant women and encouraged more support from the Commonwealth to help meet costs and address these problems. In addition, a special independent Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee study released recently shows that hospitals' financial condition continues to deteriorate, and that Pennsylvania is paying only 74 cents for each dollar of Medical Assistance care provided. The study reveals Pennsylvania hospital margins have deteriorated markedly since 1997, with total margins dropping to 2.4% in 1999 and operating margins averaging only .03%. Nationwide, total hospital margins in 1999 were 4.65% and operating margins were 1.07%. The low margins in Pennsylvania's hospitals are not due to cost inefficiency since costs in Pennsylvania acute care hospitals are 6 to 7 percent below their expected costs. Pennsylvania hospitals are the second most cost efficient in the nation. And add to the overall cost problem the fact that professional liability costs will go up this year a minimum of 35 to 50 percent and that we have a decreasing payment-to-cost ratio of commercial insurers, and a growing uninsured rate, the writing is on the wall. No organization can continue to survive and provide all the services our citizens need. On the long-term care side, two reports delivered last week to the Pennsylvania Intra-Governmental Council on Long-Term Care revealed that Pennsylvania and long-term care providers must find new ways to raise the pay and status of long-term care workers or face an extended workforce crisis. There is a worker shortage across the ``spectrum of elder services'' that affects access to care and quality of care for our elderly. Turnover rates are skyrocketing. If we do not get a handle on this problem today, we will have a vulnerable population of seniors counting on a broken system that can't deliver. Over one-third of long-term care providers reported serious problems finding and keeping direct-care workers. More than 40 percent of private nursing homes and home-care and home-health agencies report a serious problem with either recruitment or retention of workers. We have Area Agencies on Aging with growing waiting lists because people can't arrange home services for needy clients. Nursing homes are looking to temp agencies to fill vacancies among staff aides, and between one-third and one-fourth of the long-term care workforce in the state have less than one year's experience with their employer. Currently about 94,000 Pennsylvanians are employed by more than 3,400 providers to help dress, feed, bathe and transport frail elderly persons. Low pay and low respect are to blame. Combine these issues with a growing demand for services and we find long-term care providers in a major dilemma. We have the second largest senior population in Pennsylvania and an ever-growing number of seniors over the age of 80. Access to healthcare and all forms of long-term care are critical. Pennsylvania leaders, Congress and health care professionals must all work together to resolve these problems.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 25, 2001, a decade after the Iraqi Scud missile attack on the U.S. barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a young woman who lost her husband and the father of her two children spoke eloquently about the impact of that awful event. While the magnitude of such a tragedy can never be fully overcome, her story is also one of renewal and healing and joy. It is a poignant and fitting tribute to the men and women who perished that day. I want to share her remarks with my Colleagues: If ten years ago I could have looked ahead to today, and could have seen myself standing here telling all of you that I'm happy, healed, and whole again, it would have made my time of grief so much easier. Because then I would have known that my heart would someday heal and life would be worth living again. That's not how I felt then. My life was shattered into a million pieces and I couldn't see how they could ever be put back together again. John and I worked at the Baptist Homes, a nursing facility in Castle Shannon. My mother introduced us and we became instant friends. John was so easy to like. He was friendly and outgoing . . . always with a twinkle in his eye. A couple months into our friendship, John asked me to be his date at a party he was throwing. Of course I said that I would go. He asked me to dance to a slow song that came on the stereo, and that dance was the beginning of a great love in my life. John and I married the following summer. We had two beautiful children, Matthew and Melissa. John loved fatherhood and it suited him . . . really he was a kid in an adult body so it sort of came natural to him. We bought a house and spent Melissa's first Christmas in it . . . that's when Saddam Hussein intruded on our lives. Before I knew what was happening, John was on his way to the Persian Gulf and I knew my life would never be the same. The day of February 25th started out with a letter from John. He said all the things that he said in every letter I ever got from him, how much he loved us, how much he missed us. Then he told me about the SCUD alerts. He talked about the gas masks and the chaos and I worried. That evening I was out with my sister and I returned home to find family members waiting for me. My brother was standing in my living room and the television was on. On it I saw soldiers running and heard yelling and chaos and sirens blasting . . . but that didn't grab my attention as much as the look on my brother's face. He asked me where John was in Saudi. I told him I didn't know. He said that there was a SCUD attack in Dhahran and the missile hit a warehouse and they believed the 14th was being housed there. As I was taking in what he was telling me, the room started to spin and a feeling of dread came flooding over me. I asked, `Were there casualties?' he said there were some. But the highest number were injuries. I knew that john was in that warehouse. My family tried to reassure me that chances were that he was injured, but in my spirit, I knew that he was gone. I had already felt the separation. I waited all night for the officer to come. And at 6 am my doorbell rang. I A few weeks after John's funeral my friend invited me for dinner. She wanted to spend a little time with me and to get me out. Her husband, who is also my friend, had done a large portion of John's funeral service, and he asked me so sincerely how I was doing. I told him that I was okay, but that the nights were so difficult for me to get through. When I would sleep, the nightmares were terrible, so I was trying not to sleep at all. He told me something then that helped to change my life. He said, ``Paula, when you go through the worst times of grief, you need to find an anchor. Something stable for you to hold onto so that grief won't sweep you away. Something that can never change or be taken away from you.'' I went home that night and looked for my anchor. The only thing I had that could never be taken away from me was that God loved me. He loved me so much and He wanted to comfort me and to heal my heart. He wanted to put the shattered pieces of my life back together. Jer. 29:11 was one of many promises: I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. That was what I needed, and that was what I began to build my life on. It was the second spring after John's death. I went outside on my deck and the sun was shining and the trees were budding, and the smells of spring were so heavy in the air. All of a sudden I realized that I was enjoying the sun on my face and the smells of spring. It was as if everything I saw was in color, and I had been seeing life in black and white. The feeling of contentment only lasted a brief time but I realized that day I was getting better. That someday I could enjoy life again. Then four years after I lost John, I found Phil, or maybe he found me. However it was, we just seemed to fit together. The kids fell in love with Phil right along with me, and he fell in love with us too, and he married us. He made our family complete again and I thank god every day for him. Then four years into our marriage, God gave us Alison, our nineteen month old daughter. Alison had a difficult beginning. She was born with Down syndrome, but more importantly, with two little holes in her heart that were life-threatening. She was life-flighted to Children's Hospital and I was afraid that I would never see her alive again. I wrestled with God for three nights over her diagnosis. I questioned His reasons for making her with such a disability. But more than anything, I wanted her to live. I told God that if He spared her life, I would be the best mother to her that I could be. I understand how precious life was and that God makes no mistakes. Boy did He answer my prayer. She was a miracle baby. She got better and stronger and both of those little holes closed over and her heart is healthy. And she's the love of my life. She brings me so much joy every day. When she smiles, her whole face smiles. All the love that I lost in that scud missile attack, God gave back to me and multiplied it. How grateful I am to Him. I am so thankful for God's faithfulness and love to me. This is just my story. We all have a story, wounds and scars of our hearts that tell the stories of our lives. They make us who we are. But if those scars and wounds make us more compassionate toward others who are suffering, if they makes us more grateful for every day we live and for the ones we love, and stronger for the difficulties that lie ahead on this journey called ``life,'' then our soldiers' sacrifice is all the more meaningful--to us and to all of those whose lives we touch, because we have become better human beings. I want to thank my family, who loved John so much and grieved with me, to my children who are my angels--they gave me reason to get up every morning and gave me so much love. I want to thank my friends and my Church family who prayed for me faithfully and encouraged me daily, and most of all to my mom, who was the best friend I ever had and I'll always miss her. I also want to thank the families of the 14th Quartermaster. We have cried together and laughed together. We have shared our deepest pain and our greatest joys. Your strength gave me strength. Your courage gave me courage. The circumstances of our meeting were so tragic and yet I am so grateful to have known you. And to Janet Glasser, our family support coordinator. Janet, you were the glue. Without you, we would never have had the support system that we had. You were so far above what your job required of you. You have been like a big sister to me. I can't even begin to thank you for everything you've done. I am so grateful to have you in my life. To my husband Phil, for always loving me and letting me be who I am. For taking Matt and Melissa into your life and making them your own. For our little Alison, our little angel that we are so privileged to be parents to. For being my best friend. And my utmost gratitude to John Boliver . . . for the love he brought into my life, for the two children he made with me, for all the laughing we did, and all the silly arguments. . . . I loved it all and I wouldn't change a thing. He brought me so much joy and taught me so much about courage. I will always hold him in my heart until we meet again in glory. Thank you--Paula Wukovich.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, this is the last day for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), one of the most dynamic experts on transportation in the entire country. There has been no individual that has had more of an impact on transportation in Pennsylvania, in the commonwealth in his district, in my district, in the entire country. He was an expert in the field. Even when he was in the minority, he had a tremendous impact on transportation things. He convinced the Congress and the White House that the taxes we collect for transportation ought to go to transportation; and, even against tremendous odds, he was able to win that battle. It will be a long time before we see another person with his ability. He was a Ph.D with a Phi Beta Kappa. He was an Army veteran. He was a person of great compassion, and sometimes it was overshadowed by things that he was interested in. But I will say this, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will be long remembered for all the things that he did in Pennsylvania and for his legacy and there will be a better transportation system in this great country. And that is absolutely essential to our economic progress.