John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman may think that, but we are over 50 percent dependent today. Then we were 34 percent dependent. So it is all relative, in how dependent we are. In the short term the gentleman may be right. But, long-term, we could have a breakthrough with one of these research projects and reduce the emissions and increase the efficiency substantially. So we think this is a counterproductive amendment, and we would hope Members would vote against it.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. Even though that company was sold off with less than 50 percent to Seimans, it will still be run by an American company. Of course, that research ties in. We are continually trying to work with fossil fuel, oil research and so forth to increase the efficiency of these resources in the United States. So that is the reason I am so concerned about cutting fossil research.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman has discussed this with me and a number of members of the subcommittee. We appreciate his bringing this to our attention. We certainly accept it on our side of the aisle.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we are anxious to accept the gentleman's amendment and appreciate his work in this area.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I made all my comments on the rule, and I am prepared to yield back at any time.

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

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was allowed to speak out of order for 1 minute.) Announcement of the Death of Paul O'Dwyer

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), the Navy has really handled this badly as far as keeping people informed and it is unfortunate. I think the gentleman has taken a very reasonable position that they have not consulted with him or talked to him, barely notified him as they were about to move things through. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman from Texas that we will watch this carefully. Any amendment offered would make it even more difficult to solve this problem. As a matter of fact, a couple of people came to me with ideas about how to solve the problem and they sent them to the Navy. Hopefully, we will be able to solve this problem quickly. It is a very big problem in California because it is starting to leech out, so we have to do something about it. I assure the gentleman we will work with him and try to do something.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to address what I consider one of the serious problems that we face in defense. The chairman just said, and I agree with him completely, we are far short of the amount of money we need in order to address the tempo of operations that the President has set for this country. I agree with the fact that we have to deploy troops, that we have to lead throughout the world. But, on the other hand, I worry when we do not have enough money in order to fund the tempo of operations, and consequently our readiness is slipping. But we are even shorter than that. We are $10 billion short in procurement. Technology is what did so well in the Gulf War. We have trucks that are out of date, we have airplanes that are out of date, we have helicopters out of date. So we have real problems. But one of the most serious problems that we face today is the Y2K problem if we do not address this problem. We have, as the chairman just stated, 2,800 mission critical systems in the Defense Department. It would take them 3 years at the rate we are going in order to correct those problems. We sat down in subcommittee, and I do not believe we have had a vote for 5 years in that subcommittee. We have always worked it out, unanimously, so that everybody agreed. We listened to new members, we listened to members that had been there and we have always come to an agreement without a vote over the 5-year period. In this particular case, the President did not ask for this money, and I think he made a mistake. He should have asked for the money. But we believe, as we have many times in the past, that we not only need the money that is there, we need more money, and one of the things that has to be done is to fix this problem. How do we fix the problem? We do not have any extra money. We could not take money out of recruiting. They are 7,000 short in the Navy. The Army is having trouble recruiting. They are paying a bonus to the Air Force of $100,000 now over a 5-year period in order to recruit. There is no money anyplace else. So we believe it was enough of an emergency that we should declare an emergency and make the request, as we have done in the 20 something years that we have been on the committee many, many times, we have made emergency decisions, declared emergencies and put extra money in because we felt it was important to the security of this great country. We unanimously agreed to that. We went to the full committee, and the full committee almost unanimously agreed. What worries me is that if we pass this rule, we will then be in a position where we have to depend on somebody else later on solving the problem. I have heard it was not going to be offset and I have heard it is going to be offset. I think we ought to have a freestanding vote, and I think we ought to let the Committee on Rules go back and give us a rule where we can vote on whether this should be an emergency, and I think we would find a majority of the Members in this House would agree, Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan manner would agree that this should be an emergency situation, that we should vote the almost $2 billion for Y2K and for computer security, both those being essential to the many mission critical systems that we have available in this country today. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members of the House to think hard, to vote this rule down, to let the Committee on Rules go back and set up another rule and give us a vote, let us make a decision without voting this down and then later on having to depend on somebody else to maybe offset it from programs that we do not like so the Defense Department does not get what it wants and we offset things that are already cut to the bone. I would request the Members to vote this rule down, and then consider a separate vote on the extra money.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity before my Colleagues in the House of Representatives to honor a great America, Mr. Cecil Leberknight. We've heard many people praised for being ``great Americans'' in this Chamber, and in most cases, you think of some nationally known figure. Cecil is not nationally famous for his achievements, but he still fits the description as well as anyone. Mr. Cecil Leberknight is a native of Cambria County, Pennsylvania who has devoted his life to public service where it most directly impacts people and communities, at the local level. For fifty years he has served, in numerous capacities, as the champion of Pennsylvania's boroughs. He began his incredible career of service in the winter of 1948, when he became Dale Borough councilman in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, which is still his and his wife Dorothy's home. Since then, he has served with over 100 council members. The list of career accomplishments of this one man is amazing. Just reading the list is exhausting. In the 1950's he was elected and reelected to serve as President of the 33 member Cambria County Borough Association and has represented that county at the state borough association level since 1957. In 1962, he was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly, where he continued to champion the cause of public service, working tirelessly to obtain better working conditions and pay for police, firemen, school teachers and administrators, and nurses. Mr. Leberknight also chaired the Governor's Justice Commission in the last 1960's, served on the Johnstown Flood Museum and Heritage Association as both president and board member. Additionally, he has also been: vice chairman of the Johnstown Area Regional Planning Commission, president of Dale Borough Historical Association, board member and treasurer of the Johnstown Symphony Orchestra, president of the Historic Sandyvale Cemetery Association, charter member of the Cambria County Chapter of Pennsylvania Clean Ways, organizer, charter member and treasurer of the Pennsylvania 12th District Equipment Center, and member of the Greater Johnstown Watershed Association. He hasn't stopped. Currently, Mr. Leberknight serves as president of the Cambria County Housing Corporation, where he's been for the last seven years. Additionally he holds numerous citations from, and honorary lifetime memberships in, local volunteer and civic organizations. If that weren't enough, Cecil is also a champion of education. His interest in improving and promoting education has led him to hold positions such as the State Legislative Chairman of the Pennsylvania Congress of Parents and Teachers, president of the Cambria County Council of Parents and Teachers, Adult Scouter with the Robert E. Peary Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and a charter and current board member of the Cambria County Ethnic Arts and Cultural Center. I think that is an extraordinary resume. I am so proud and honored to have known Cecil for most of my life and feel fortunate to live in a town that has a person like him working for it. In addition to being a person who is so civically motivated and cares so much about his community, he is also a great friend and a great family man. He is truly an outstanding person and I am very pleased to be able to congratulate him as he celebrates fifty years of public service. Congratulations, Cecil, and thank you.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute before the U.S. House of Representatives to the St. John Cantius Parish in Windber, Pennsylvania, as it celebrates its 100th Anniversary today. The St. John Cantius was the first Catholic Church in Windber, from which sprang all the other Catholic Parishes serving the Windber area today. St. John Cantius, originally established in 1898 as the Immaculate Conception Parish, has a fascinating early history that classically demonstrates how immigrants from many different countries who came to America--and particularly to our area of western Pennsylvania--at the beginning of this century were united by their faith. The church was the central entity that helped bind these people together, overcoming different cultural backgrounds, language barriers, and traditions to create a strong, cohesive community. Even the clergy themselves came from different countries and spoke different languages. This strength and unity served these faithful people well as they struggled to make their way in America, overcoming the hard realities of the grueling daily worklife in the farming and coal mining regions that built and fed this country. The St. John Cantius Church has not only endured, but has thrived and multiplied, increasing the numbers of its parishioners as well as parishes and preserving the tradition of devotion to family and faith for succeeding generations. In addition, it has provided its community with strength and support throughout all the trials and tribulations of this century, from the hardscrabble days of the Industrial Revolution, when the area's miners and steelworkers endured long work hours, low pay and abysmal working conditions, even through the Great Depression. It supported and comforted the people of the community through many wars that saw many of its young men head off to distant lands to defend their country and its ideals of freedom, sometimes never to return. It has held its community together through more modern struggles--the decline of the steel industry that brought lasting economic hard times and crippling unemployment. Through it all, the St. John Cantius Church has been a constant in the lives of the people of Windber--a source of support and sustenance, spiritually and in many other ways. I am deeply honored to join in celebrating this wonderful occasion with the parishioners and clergy of St. John Cantius. May the church as well as the community it serves continue to grow and prosper for another one hundred years.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my Colleagues the following excerpts from an interview with the new President of Ireland, Mary McAleese. In her poignant description of President Clinton's visit to Northern Ireland in 1995 and his consummate diplomacy in that extremely delicate political environment, she notes how grateful the people of Ireland are to the President for his commitment and effort toward bringing about a peace treaty in Northern Ireland. I felt it should be brought to your attention. The interview, with reporter Niall O'Dowd, appeared in the May/June 1998 edition of Irish America Magazine. Irish America: You met President Clinton during his visit to Northern Ireland in 1995. What were your impressions of him then and now? On the day that he came to Northern Ireland, I don't think there is any doubt that the Unionists, for instance, were very skeptical. And you know as well as I do the minefield that is Northern Ireland. If you use the word Derry instead of Londonderry, or Londonderry instead of Derry, everyone is exercised. The opportunities to make a mess are total. For a president to come, and speak off the cuff as he did was amazing. He spoke flawlessly. He did not put one single foot wrong. He didn't get one inflection wrong, he didn't get one name wrong. I was absolutely mesmerized by his sheer intellect--the man is incredibly clever. I don't know a politician on this planet who has the intellect, the depth, the charismatic skills of this man. He is extraordinary. What he did that day was a miracle, because there was a lot of Unionist skepticism about him, a lot of determination that no matter how good this party got, they weren't going to enjoy it. And yet they did. Over the twenty-four hour period, he effectively seduced them. He won them over. He and his wife worked a miracle that day. I just want people to know how very grateful we are for this president who is so committed. He has been a large part of the scaffolding that is holding up this kind of precarious edifice of peace.* * * We are very grateful to the ongoing American commitment to Ireland in all its aspects because we are on the way to achieving phenomenal success. As a small island off the west of Europe, it is desperately important to us that we have friendships that open a window onto an entirely different world to ours. It helps us to blossom and grow. I want to be able to celebrate, and thank people for that and develop a sense of the global Irish family.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the chairman of the full committee because I stood here several weeks ago and I told him what might happen, and he took it to heart and he got the bill done, and I know it was not an easy bill to pass. So my compliments to everybody that was involved. I am delighted to see in defense nothing is offset. And it is so important because we have such a problem with O&M and readiness and defense. I could not have voted for this bill if it were offset even domestically for defense. So the compromise was exactly the right compromise. I am disappointed that IMF is not in this bill. We have assurances it will be brought up sometime in the near future. I hope it will be. I have a concern about section 8 housing. I hope it is not a ploy where the Committee on Appropriations next year suffers because we have to find the money to pay for it. I hope they do raise the caps, as they said they are going to do. But I believe this is important that we vote for it because the money has been spent for defense. It takes care of a very important shortfall in defense. And I would urge all the Members to vote for this supplemental, which was worked out so carefully, and so many things that were kept from being put in the bill which would have made it impossible for us to vote for it.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I agreed to cosponsor this amendment with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) because I felt it was so important for us to send a message to the court system and to our judicial system that, when a person is sentenced, that person should spend that appropriate time in prison. Now, I realize there may be some deficiencies in this amendment. I realize if this goes to conference that maybe a few things ought to be changed. But I think one of the reasons that we do not have as much crime as we had a few years ago is because people are staying in jail longer. We put mandatory sentences in. I worried about mandatory sentences, but the results are the crime rate has dropped dramatically for violent crime throughout the country, and I think it is important for all of us to think about the victims of the crime. One way to make sure that they are separated is to keep them in prison for the time. They spend a lot of time in thinking about how long the sentences ought to be. If we put them out, drug dealers, a person that commits a violent crime, out on the street prematurely, there is no question in my mind the crime rate will start to go back up again. So I would urge Members to support this amendment and to vote overwhelmingly to send a message that we do not want people, just because of a technicality, overcrowding, to be out in the street before their time that they have spent in prison.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I include the following speech by retired General George Joulwan, who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 1993-1997 and the overall commander for NATO's forces in Bosnia. This is one of the best assessments of the situation there that I have heard. What a great introduction! Thanks. And though I do not need to tell this group, you are indeed fortunate to be represented in Washington by Congressman Jack Murtha. Not only is he devoted to his district in western Pennsylvania, but he is absolutely dedicated to the security of our Nation. In my 7 years as a CINC, as commander-in-chief of US forces in both Central and South America and in Europe, Middle East and Africa--no other Member of Congress was more supportive than Jack Murtha. He cares deeply about this country and he cares deeply for the young men and women who wear the uniform of our country. I want to thank him personally for his support--and on behalf of the millions of troops I was privileged to command. Let me also say a special word about Mrs. Murtha. She, too, cares about both Country and Community. Her dedication to the Girl Scouts of America here in Johnstown is indicative of her concern for the youth and future leaders of our Country. Thank you--for your interest, commitment, and concern. I might add that another reason I am here is that I am the father of three daughters--all three were in the Girl Scouts. And that included girl scout troops when we were stationed in Europe. The Girl Scout experience instilled poise, self esteem and character into my daughters. It was a wonderful foundation on which to build as one matures. All three are graduated from college--Penn State, I might add--and all three are married. And I have two granddaughters who soon also will be girl scouts. So it is indeed a pleasure to be here. So I am pleased to be here with people who truly care about young children and our country. And I thank you for all you are doing. And it is in that spirit that I want to talk to you tonight. As a former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and as a father and grandfather. My purpose tonight is to discuss a true success story for the United States and Europe--Bosnia. Bosnia is important to the United States and to NATO and the world because it symbolizes a new era in preventive defense--that is to prevent conflict rather than to fight a war. And that concept is important to you here in Johnstown who suffered more from casualties in the Gulf War than any other district in America. Bosnia is also important because even though American leadership is crucial, Europeans are providing the bulk of the troops--to include Russia. And Bosnia is important because with success in Bosnia a new security arrangement is possible for Europe. A security arrangement for the 21st Century built on democratization and free enterprise; on mutual trust and confidence and on freedom, justice and liberty. This is what General Marshall envisioned in the Marshall Plan of 1947. 50 years later we have the opportunity to realize Marshall's dream. That's why we must get it right in Bosnia. And the main message I want to leave with you is the absolute need for clarity of mission and purpose by our political authorities anytime we commit young American men and women in harm's way. And as we are on the verge of a new phase in Bosnia, my purpose this evening is to share with you my thoughts on the way ahead. I will do so as one who was closely involved with the Dayton Accords and as one who was overall responsible for the NATO and military operations in Bosnia. As one who strongly believes in the importance of US leadership and involvement in not only fighting and winning our nation's wars but being proactive in preventing deadly conflict. And as one who sees a genuine opportunity for peace, stability, and a better life for all the people of Bosnia. To achieve this stability we along with our NATO allies and partners have taken risks for peace in Bosnia--and continue to do so today. It is interesting that as we meet tonight, planners from 36 countries are meeting at my former headquarters in Mons Belgium to determine the force structure for the next phase. I started this process nearly three years ago and it works. Indeed European forces will comprise nearly 80% of the new force for SFOR after June of this year. And U.S. forces will drop from 8,500 to about 6,000. But the issue that still needs to be answered is ``to do what?'' When the President agreed to keep American troops in Bosnia beyond June of 1998, he did so ``in principle'' pending clarity on the missions to be assigned to the follow-on force. The President was right to do so. As the vanguard of NATO, U.S. troops are essential to the consolidation of the gains that have been made since Dayton and to the nurturing of peace and stability in the Balkans. It is doubtful whether the peace will hold without the presence of outside military forces. Now the President needs to assure the American people, Congress, and, more important, the troops, that the mission and tasks to be performed after June are spelled out before the final decision is made to keep American forces on the ground in Bosnia. Not to do so can result in failure and unwanted casualties. As one who had the responsibility for providing military advice on the implementation force (IFOR) and the stabilization force (SFOR) to the President as well as the 16 nations of NATO, I suggest that a comprehensive dialogue take place for the next phase of the operation. When I briefed the President and his advisers in the oval office in November 1995, I recommended the following conditions be met for the commitment of US troops: clarity of mission and purpose, unity of command, robust rules of engagement and timely political decisions. The President agreed with the comprehensive military plan based on those conditions as did the 16 nations of NATO. As a result, when the NATO-led force deployed to Bosnia in December of 1995 and the US troops crossed the Sava River, we did so with great confidence and determination because the mission was clear and the troops were well trained for the tasks assigned. Despite dire predictions, the multinational force was successful in accomplishing all tasks assigned and without, to date, one hostile death casualty. That's 855 days! That's because we did it right. And we need to do it right in the next phase of the operation beyond June 1998. Given the conditions mentioned above, what then should be the issues for the post June 1998 commitment of US forces to Bosnia? The key question that must be answered is the specific mission of the follow-on force. In November 1996 when the decision was made to down size IFOR from 60,000 to an SFOR of 30,000, I had several sessions with NATO and US decision makers on the missions to be performed. To determine the size of SFOR I asked the 16 ambassadors of NATO's North Atlantic Council three questions. Do you want SFOR to hunt down and arrest indicted war criminals? Do you want SFOR to perform civil police functions? And do you want SFOR to forcibly return refugees to their homes? The answer to all three questions was no. Indeed the written political guidance of 26 November 1996 from the Council reflected this intent of NATO's political authorities. If the answers were yes then I would have recommended additional troops and training. Those same questions need to be addressed now before a decision is made to extend the mandate beyond June. The answers to these questions must provide clear political instructions so that the senior military leadership can give the best advice to our political authorities on the force required to do the tasks assigned, the resources needed, and the risks involved. Most important, such guidance will provide the framework to train the force to the tasks. And it is training that is absolutely paramount for our forces in Bosnia--train to mission enhances mission success and minimizes casualties. Clarity of mission is also needed because SFOR is a multinational operation. 36 nations contribute forces. Over 75% of the SFOR is from nations other than the United States. Indeed NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative is bearing fruit in Bosnia. There is a Russian brigade conducting joint patrols in the American sector; I had a Russian general on my staff as my deputy; Ukrainian troops are in Mostar; and Polish soldiers work along side those from Scandinavian countries. As a result of our success to date in Bosnia, mutual trust and confidence is being developed between former adversaries. An unprecedented number of treaties are being signed between countries that for centuries have been bitter enemies. NATO is now ready to admit three new members-- Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Stability and democracy are taking root in Eastern and central Europe. But the path for long term security in Europe goes through Bosnia. It is in this larger context that Bosnia is important. NATO's credibility and relevance are on the line in Bosnia. Therefore the tasks and missions need to be understood and debated now. And we must get it right not only for the military but primarily for civilian implementation as well. Again, let me be more specific. Under the Dayton accord the military force provides a secure environment for the international police force (IPTF), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and other UN and international agencies to operate. It does so by ensuring the military and paramilitary forces of the former warring factions do not engage in hostilities, conducts over a hundred patrols a day, monitors 600 heavy weapon storage areas, and within capabilities provides assistance to civil agencies. On the latter task the support has been significant; 60 bridges have been built, 2500 kilometers of road paved, four airports opened, and significant support provided to the High Representative and international organizations. Three elections held in Bosnia in the past two years were successful in large part due to IFOR and SFOR support. Another question that must be answered therefore, is to what extent the new military force will support civilian tasks in Bosnia. The military force required to carry out those tasks is significant. While I accept the need for soldiers to provide a secure environment for civilian agencies, it is also important for civilian agencies to have a sense of urgency in meeting the goals set forth in Dayton. There were 11 annexes in the Dayton Agreement--only one applies to the military, the other 10 are the responsibility of civilian agencies. As we enter the next phase clear milestones should be established and met by civil agencies and organizations. An integrated civil-military plan must be developed for all facets of the Bosnia mission. I say this because the military can create an absence of war; but only the civilian agencies and the ethnic groups themselves can bring true peace. And one of the critical areas that needs to be addressed now is that of the police. If the political authorities in Washington and Brussels want the new military force to assume other tasks such as internal police functions, then Washington and the North Atlantic Council need to clearly state that mission. Surely there is a requirement for a robust functioning police force in Bosnia. Crime and corruption are rampant. Custom violations are the norm. Citizens are intimidated and refugees are denied returning to their homes. But is the military force the right organization to do police actions? Temporarily seizing radio towers is one thing; arresting citizens and shooting rubber bullets into an unarmed mob is yet another. The President made the point in his December speech when he called for a ``self-sustaining secure environment in Bosnia that will allow us to remove our troops''. I agree. Therefore, a key issue for discussion before our troops are committed beyond June is what is the future security plan for Bosnia that will meet the President's objective? Right now a capability gap exists between the heavily armed troops of SFOR and the unarmed international police task force (IPTF). In two years the IPTF has never exceeded 2000 police from over 20 nations and funding has been very difficult to obtain. What the President needs to insist on is a more robust role for the international police and a sense of urgency is establishing a multiethnic police academy that graduates 500-800 professional police every three months. Not to do so only ensures that the military force will slide down the slippery slope and become policemen without adequate training and rules of engagement. And without a long-term security plan, the probability increases that US and NATO forces will remain for a very long time in Bosnia. But there is an alternative--an armed international police force. The armed international police force could come from several of our allies and partners and perform the critical policing functions until sufficient local police trained by the IPTF graduated from the police academy. France, Belgium, Italy and Germany have highly regarded paramilitary police forces. Organized in battalions, properly armed and equipped, these paramilitary police are exactly what is needed for the next phase in Bosnia. Many of these organizations are now under the ministers of defense in their respective countries and routinely work side by side with the military. The armed international police force should come under the command and control of the military command in Bosnia and thereby preserve the principle of unity of command. An integrated staff would ensure tasks were understood and assigned to the right organization. With an armed international police force, the capability gap between the unarmed IPTF and the heavily armed NATO force is filled. The armed international police force could operate within the secure environment of the military force and with the local police assist in crowd control, return of refugees, and other police functions. With an armed international police force in place plus a sense of urgency in graduating professional local police from an IPTF monitored police academy, then it is possible to see an eventual end to a large military presence in Bosnia. Of course, some officials within our own government would prefer to give police tasks to our soldiers--and so would several of our allies. If that is the case--and if the President agrees-- then the administration should clearly make known the police function requirement before the decision is final to extend the force beyond June 1998. But soldiers generally make poor policemen. Law and order need to be institutionalized with the support of an armed international police force. However, if the President and the Alliance want to give the military police functions then let's get the mission clear now and not back into it after June. Another issue that requires discussion is the role of the follow-on force in hunting down and arresting indicated war criminals such as Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic. Certainly these indicated war criminals need to be brought to justice before the international tribunal at The Hague. Right now the NATO-led force is restricted in what actions it can take in actively conducting operations against those accused of brutal atrocities in this war. Those restrictions were imposed by the 16 nations of NATO. Indeed, Dayton places responsibility for bringing war criminals to justice on the parties who signed the agreement--Presidents Milosevic, Tudgman and Itzebegovic. But SFOR will do all within its mandate to bring indicated war criminals to justice as was done recently in Prejidor and Vitez. However, if the political authorities want the military multinational force to hunt down and arrest Karadic and Mladic then that guidance must be given in the written mandate from the North Atlantic Council of which the United States is a leading member. Given that clarity, the military authorities will generate the force, request the resources, identify the risks, develop actionable intelligence, and when the political decision is made will execute the mission. As I said, clearly war criminals belong before the International Tribunal in the Hague, Netherlands. And I strongly believe we need to be proactive in doing so. In fact in November 1996 I presented a plan to the head of the International Tribunal Judge Goldstone and his successor Judge Arbor on how NATO could assist in apprehending indicated war criminals and stay within its mandate. The plan called a force of police or military other than SFOR; formed and trained outside Bosnia; and committed to arrest indicted war criminals to include Karadic and Mladic whenever there were actionable intelligence. SFOR would form the outer ring of protection for this apprehension force and coordinate the action. Last March we began planning and training for the first operation under the new plan. The targets were two war criminals identified in sealed indictments--that is the war criminals did not know they were indicated and subject to apprehension. Since the two suspected war criminals were in the British sector, the United Kingdom had the lead. We began an intensive intelligence collection effort to locate the two suspects. I spend a great deal of time coordinating with the Secretary General of NATO to ensure that clarity of mission and the political guidance were sufficient. Indeed, I briefed the President of the United States in Madrid in July. I told both that if there was any reaction by the Serbs to attack SFOR I would immediately respond with air strikes. Both agreed. The only deviation from prior guidance I made was that the military would determine the time and place for apprehension. This was to protect the troops and to improve our chances for success with minimum civilian casualties. Once we had good intelligence the force was formed and trained in June in the UK; deployed to Bosnia on July 9; conducted its mission on July 10 and withdrew on July 11. In this encounter one of the indicated war criminals drew a pistol and fired at the British soldiers wounding one of them. The British returned fire and killed the indicated war criminal. Thus are the hazards of conflict. If we had listened to the media and other critics who thought you could send two soldiers to a cafe where the indicated criminals were drinking coffee--tap them on the shoulder and arrest them we would have two dead soldiers. I value our soldiers lives to risk them so foolishly. We did it right in Prejidor. And subsequently, it was done right in Vitez and just last week again in the British sector. If the political authorities want SFOR to do more in the next phase then make it clear in the written guidance. This assures political, as well as, military accountability. No more Somalis! The long range security plan the President has called for also should include the evolution and role of the militaries in Bosnia. National institutions in addition to entity security structures need to be developed. A national level Minister of Defense and joint staff and commanders should be the objective. NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) initiative could be used to encourage the development of national security institutions. The three ethnic groups have all expressed interest in joining their neighbors in the PfP program. In time, NATO and 27 partner nations could be exercising, conducting seminars, and building trust and confidence with a multiethnic military in Bosnia. With a continuing NATO PfP presence in Bosnia the need for a large armed NATO force could be significantly reduced over the long term. Indeed the Partnership for Peace initiative could be used as an incentive for Sarajevo, Zagreb and Belgrade to join the rest of Europe in accepting the basic principles of respect for international boundaries, human rights, and democratic norms. This is an effective means by which to transition to what the President called a ``self-sustaining secure environment'' in Bosnia. Let me briefly summarize: It is important that the missions and the tasks for the follow-on force in Bosnia be clear before the final decision is made. That an armed international police force be formed to work with the NATO force and the IPTF to develop a ``self-sustaining security environment in Bosnia''. That clear political guidance be given on hunting down war criminals, police functions, and forcibly returning refugees. That the Partnership for Peace initiative be offered as an incentive for Sarajevo, Belgrade and Zagreb to join their neighbors in Europe in respect for borders, human rights, and democratic principles. To provide this clarity now creates the best conditions for success in Bosnia. Ladies and gentlemen, much has been accomplished over the past two years in NATO's first operational mission since its inception. Optimism has replaced pessimism; hope has replaced despair for the people of Bosnia. The United States and its partners have demonstrated their ability to respond to the new threats that confront the Euro-Atlantic community and the world. Within the framework of NATO, American political and military leadership have been instrumental in providing the resolve and resources to create the conditions for success in Bosnia. This has been done with candor, compassion, vision and clarity. And our troops, along with those of 36 nations to include Russia, have performed superbly for over two years. It truly is one team with one mission! A new security framework for conflict prevention in Europe will result with the success of this multinational force. But it is important that the United States stay engaged--not as the world's policeman, but the world's leader. The President is right to stay the course in NATO. But this important mission requires thoughtful consideration before final approval. It must be based on well considered tasks for all those who continue the tedious and potentially dangerous work of building the foundation for a lasting and truly self- sustaining peace in Bosnia. Ladies and gentlemen, I was a 2d lieutenant in Germany when the Berlin Wall was being built and a LTG Corps Commander in the famous Fulda Gap when it was torn down. I saw Germany reunited and Russian troops depart from Central Europe. As Supreme Commander, I witnessed NATO's transition in mission and structure to a new NATO but one built on the rock solid foundation of the past-shared ideals and values, and mutual respect and confidence. Indeed, these are exciting times! There is unprecedented opportunity for peace stability and prosperity in a Europe that has seen two World Wars and millions of death in this Century. We can enter the 21st Century with great hope for our children and our grandchildren. It has been my privilege to serve my Country for 40 years to create this opportunity for peace and freedom. We must not fail. And with the help of patriotic citizens as we find here in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, I know we will succeed. I urge you to stay involved and interested in world affairs, to commit yourselves to make the world a safer, better place. I know you will. God bless you for your support of our troops and of our great nation. Thanks for what you're doing for the young people of Johnstown. And thank you for keeping Jack Murtha in the Congress of the United States. Retired General George Joulwan was Supreme Allied Commander, Europe from 1993-1997 and the overall commander for NATO's forces in Bosnia.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me stress the fact of why this supplemental is so important in the overall context of what we are talking about. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, said there is no amendment before the committee. But what will be before the Committee very shortly is a motion to recommit this bill. And the reason I think it is important to look at it, I just have been trying to find out what is the Defense Department all about? What is it trying to do and what is it looking at as far as what will happen if this recommittal motion does not pass, and why? Now, I explained earlier this bill will be so different, if it is offset, than the bill in the other House. Here is what they are considering: Laying off substantial numbers of civilian workers, because they are not sure that there will finally be a final resolution of the bill; furloughs at Defense bases across the country; they are also talking about delays in promotion, delays in moving families, and training cutbacks throughout the entire Defense Department. The thing that worries me is that if this bill passes with offsets, we are talking about a stalemate between the House and Senate. We are talking about substantial disruption of the Pentagon's ability to operate because it is so late in the year. And when I offer the motion to recommit, I hope the Members will consider the fact that the motion to reconsider will only strike the domestic offsets, and immediately we can report the bill back without the offsets. Then the Defense Department can go forward without these offsets which destabilize the Defense Department

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me say what worries me about this whole procedure. We anticipated that this bill would come out of committee not offset. We expected to have some sort of a vote on the floor, where on the floor they could make a decision one way or the other. Now the normal procedure in the House is that we pass a version and the Senate passes another version, and in most cases we can reconcile that. Here is the problem with this bill: This bill is so different from the Senate version of the bill. From everything I can get from the Defense Department, there is a high degree of possibility that we will be laying off civilian employees in the Defense Department after this is passed because they cannot anticipate that a bill will be passed finally that will be agreed to beyond the Senate and the House. For instance, the version in the Senate side has IMF in, it has all the things that many Members in the House do not agree on. The House obviously does not have all those things in it. The Mexico City language will come into play. So we have a strong possibility, if this rule passes and we are not able to amend it, that this bill may never be passed into law. It means that training will be cut back substantially, it means that we could only train at the platoon level, that recruiting would have to be cut back. The Defense Department right now is working on a plan about what they would have to do because there is only four months left in the end of the fiscal year after we get back in June. So I would urge the Members to vote against this rule. I will offer a motion to reconsider in the bill which will eliminate the offsets, and I think it is important that the Members of the House recognize the seriousness that this supplemental is in if it passes the House because there is a great danger that neither will be reconciled and that the Defense Department, because of the short time they have left, will lay off substantial numbers of civilian employees. So I urge the Members to vote against this rule, come back with another rule where we can offer some amendments which will allow us to adjust the bill.