John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I see as we go forward with this process. Normally, when we pass a bill, we have a good idea that we will be able to continue the process in the Senate. It is not so late in the year, and if it is, we will pass a bill very similar to the Senate bill. Now, this bill is so different than the Senate bill, we have a bill here which has a lot less money in it. We have a bill here which, in my estimation, when it is offset from domestic policy, will either assure a veto or, in the end, the Senate will not recognize it. I just do not see any possibility of this kind of a bill being the end product when it goes to conference. Now, if we do not accept the amendment that I am going to offer, the recommittal motion I am going to offer, then we have a situation where the Defense Department will not be able to go forward because it will not be assured of a bill happening. One of the things that has happened in the past, when they are assured of a conference, they can work different departments, they can get money, they can hold back money, and they can work out something to get them through. But here, they are not going to be able to do that, because they cannot be assured of a bill. Now, why do I say they cannot be assured of a bill? Let us say that we pass this bill with offsets. Well, in the first place, the White House is against that. We go over to the Senate, we sit down, the Senate adds IMF, the Senate adds UN, and the Senate adds Mexico City. Now, in my estimation, there is no way that they can come back to the House with a bill the size it is, with no offsets, and pass it in the House, and yet, on the other hand, there is no way we can go to the Senate with all offsets and pass it in the Senate. So we have got a real problem, which leads me to believe that past history shows that the Defense Department cannot predict that they are going to have a bill. They only have 4 months left in the fiscal year, and the problem we are going to have when you only have 4 months, the Defense Department has to make a decision, how do I find the money to get us through the rest of the year. All right, we cut back on training, we layoff civilian employees, substantial numbers of civilian employees for 10 or 15 days. We shut down the Defense Department. There are all kinds of options the Defense Department is investigating right now, looking at what we can do in case a bill, which is absolutely the opposite of the bill that is pending in the Senate, it has not passed yet, but it is pending. We always in the past have been able to work these things out. This is an entirely different situation, which worries me. I am concerned, all of us have been through the committee process, if we pass a bill that is offset with domestic policy, the additional thing we do, we set domestic policy against defense policy, and when that happens we lose. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to support my motion to recommit when it comes up.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to title III.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the fallacy I see in the argument that both gentlemen are making is that we have forced Saddam Hussein to back down. Our inspectors are doing their work, and at a critical stage in the inspection process where half of it is over, we are saying to Saddam Hussein, okay, Congress is going to have to vote on this issue. We voted in 1991. Members know, I led the fight on the Democratic side for going to war, and I believe very strongly a President should come to Congress to get authorization. I believe he still has authorization to go to war. I do not think, in this particular situation, there is any need for the Congress to act again on something that is clearly in our national security interest. There are deployments Presidents have made I have disagreed with, that I do not believe were in our national security interest. I believe this is in our national security interest. More than half the energy resources in the world are in this area. It is absolutely essential we have stability. We need to react timely in order to prevent a war. What happened the last time is when the United States had to react, he had to react immediately. He sent in the 82nd Airborne right before the marines. He sent in the marines. He sent in the air wing. They could have run over us, but because of the force of the United States, because the President of the United States acted, we were able to stop him from going into Saudi Arabia. I am absolutely convinced, though, if he thought Congress was going to wait, and he was convinced Congress was going to vote against going to war. It is very easy now to say Congress passed a resolution to go to war, but let me tell the Members, in those days President Bush withstood tremendous pressure. He did a phenomenal job in getting that authorization passed. It was bipartisan, but it was obviously a very difficult debate. So I think the timing is terrible. I know the President will veto this bill. There is another reason for him to veto this particular bill, if this provision is in this piece of legislation. So I would hope that the Members would think very clearly, they would listen to this debate, and then when it goes to conference, that we will be able to get this amendment removed so we can go on with our business, if this gets to conference.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate my concern about this piece of legislation. Normally, when we would come to the floor from the Committee on Appropriations, we would have pretty well fashioned legislation which we knew was very close to something that the Senate was going to consider; and, in the end, we would be convinced that it would pass both bodies. As late as Thursday or Friday of last week, we believed that we would be able to report out of Committee a bill that was not offset. Even today, the Defense Department is not sure whether this particular piece of legislation will be offset. They know now that we will not have IMF. We know that we will not have the U.N. attached to this bill. On the other hand, the other body has an entirely different bill with no offsets. It is over $5 billion, almost twice as large as this particular bill. Under normal circumstances, the Defense Department would not be caught in the middle. It would be able to say, okay, we are going to try to get a bill and work things out. All day long, as I understand it, they have been trying to come up with provisions of what would happen if we passed a bill that is offset with the Skaggs amendment, which the President will veto, and with provisions which offset the domestic policy, which concerns the White House and they claim they will veto. It puts us in a position where we have a bill which will not be signed into law, and they only have 4 months left in the fiscal year. So the Defense Department is in a position where it has to begin to find ways to find the money for the last 4 months of operation. We have cut the Defense Department substantially. There is no question about it. They have been overdeployed. There is no question about that. But we are talking about money that is absolutely essential to replace the money for the deployment in Iraq and the deployment in Bosnia. We have already voted on the floor of the House to continue the operation in Bosnia. We have already spoken to the fact that we believe it is absolutely essential to our national security to be in Iraq. So what are they talking about? Here is what they are talking about as far as what they would do in order to recoup the money because they are not sure it is going to be passed into law and signed by the President. Civilian worker furloughs at defense bases. And it may be, I have heard a rumor, as high as all the Defense Department civilian employees could be laid off across the country for 10 days. My colleagues can imagine how disruptive that would be. They are also talking about delays in promotions, which has happened before with minor delays in funding from the Congress, delays in moving families. I remember last year going to the Presidio in California, and they were talking about they could not move students from one place to another. They had to delay the moving of students because they had run out of money at the end of the fiscal year. We talk about training cutbacks down to platoon level. That is what could happen if the Defense Department did not get this money. Now I paint dire circumstances, but I paint that because the Defense Department is in the middle. And I do not doubt the integrity of the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations if he is going to tell us there is going to be a bill passed and if it passed he can assure that. But he also thought before we brought this bill to the floor that it was not going to be offset. And I do not know if he advised that, and I understand. I think all of us appreciate the need to offset some of these expenses that the Senate has in, and I think in the end we could probably work something out like that. So I would hope that the Members of Congress would not take a chance on destabilizing the Defense Department and they would vote to recommit this bill and then report it right back out without the offsets and allow the Defense Department to find a way to get by the next month until a final bill is passed into law and signed by the President.

Mr. MURTHA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to mislead the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I am not saying if they do not have the money. I am saying that they had no way of knowing what the supplemental was going to agree with. Until last week, all of us thought it would come out of committee with no offsets and then we would decide the issue on the floor. So the Defense Department was in the unenviable position of not thinking that we were going to have the offsets and they also thought that bills might be put together. They did not face this thing until over the weekend, and I started to nose around and this is when I found out that this is a problem.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman here is the problem. As he knows, in the past when we have come to the floor with supplementals, the Defense Department knew that the Senate and the House were very close in the versions they were going to pass. Here we are talking about two versions which are so different, and the addition of IMF and the U.N. and the Mexico City language, and the fact that the President will veto it if the Skaggs provision is in the bill. They are not sure they are going to get a bill. So by March 31, which is today, they are in serious planning right now. And if this bill passes with the offsets, they say that they will have to take some of these steps in order to protect themselves.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it's been a great honor for me to work with Congressman Dellums over the past twenty three years since I came to Congress. By the time I arrived, in 1974, Congressman Dellums was already an experienced Member of Congress and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, staking out his reputation as a scholarly, well-informed and thoughtful debater of military policy. People often asked how Ron and I could work so well together--we start from different philosophical bases, we represent very different areas of the country--but the answer is simple. We share a deep concern for the individual American soldier, we share a deep concern for the nation's defense being strong, and we share a goal of finding the common ground that will keep America's domestic and military policy in balance. But it is also because I highly respect him. Ron Dellums is a man who has always been true to his convictions, but still fair and open-minded; a man who has deep and abiding respect for our legislative traditions built on the foundations of free speech and open debate; a man who has studied and has had a clear grasp of the major national security issues of the day; a man who could be a formidable legislative opponent but a fast personal friend at the same time; an honorable man whose legendary statesmanship in the House of Representatives retained a needed measure of grace in an increasingly belligerent forum. He will be missed, and will certainly leave behind a hole in the fabric of this Chamber that will not easily be filled. I wish him the best of luck and happiness in his future endeavors.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my fellow Pennsylvanian, colleague and good friend, Congressman Bud Shuster, on the occasion of his twenty-fifth year of excellent service in the United States House of Representatives as the Representative of the good people of the Ninth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Bud was victorious in seeking his first term of office in November 1972 and the rest is history. As president of the Freshman Class of 1973, Bud Shuster brought to Congress his vision of economic prosperity for Central Pennsylvania and a true commitment to the nation's infrastructure. To this end, he has been the principal author of much of America's transportation legislation. On January 4, 1995, Bud became Chairman of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, the largest committee in the U.S. Congress. I am honored to join in making this tribute his Congressional Staff, past and present, who share a common bond of great respect for their ``boss'' for his unparalleled service to his constituents, his skilled mastery of the legislative process, and for his dedicated mission to provide a better standard of living for Pennsylvania and for the United States of America. He is a leader of the first order whose ideas are clear and whose goals remain constant. He is a man whose strength sustains his colleagues and those staffers who have served him throughout these past twenty five years of American history. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Congressman Bud Shuster, a native son of Pennsylvania, on his twenty five years of excellent service in Congress.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a comment on the uniform?

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me join the Members with their concern about what the Assistant Secretary said, but let me also say I just talked to her, and she says that she was taken completely out of context. I think we should give her an opportunity to appear before the committee and let her have her say. Now she is in the process. She has already resigned. She is in the process of leaving the job. She resigned several months ago, and it just seems to me that, as terrible as what was reported that she said, she should have an opportunity to say to a committee what she said, and give her an opportunity to explain. For instance, it was recorded in the press that she is for women in combat. She says she denies that, she is not for women in combat, and many of the things that she says have been reported are inaccurate. So it just seems that for us to take precipitous action on something like this, without giving her an opportunity, is unfair to her, whether you agree with her philosophically or not. I certainly do not know enough about what she said or what her position is to be able to judge whether she is right or not, but it seems before we rush to condemnation, that we should give her an opportunity to appear before a committee and have her say about these comments she has made. She is shattered by what has happened. She has the highest regard for the Marine Corps. She says she started her career working closely with the Marine Corps, and everything she told me personally, just a few minutes ago on the phone, was that she has the highest regard, and she feels absolutely devastated that these comments she made were, as she says, taken out of context. Now, whether they were or not, I do not know. But I do know I think that we should give her an opportunity to come before a committee and explain what she said, what the circumstances were, and exactly what she meant by these comments. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chairman, who I have such a high regard for, and he and I have served on so many committees, and he is a recipient of the Iron Mike Award, but if he would not consider allowing, perhaps allowing this go to committee, and allow the committee to take this up and discuss it with her before we rush to a vote on this very delicate situation, which could chastise the woman who is serving this position, maybe prematurely and unfairly, possibly. I do not know. I am not judging. I am just asking that we might be able to do something here that would be a little less onerous and perhaps give her an opportunity to have her say.

Mr. MURTHA. She says that she was not the one that made the comment about the uniform. She says absolutely it was the woman who was on the panel, and she did not say one word about the uniform. That is what I am saying, there was some confusion. That is what she said. Now, I can only tell you what her comments were.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the article below appeared in the New York Times. It was around this time that I had just returned from Bosnia visiting our troops and U.N. officials. I take exception to the article, which left a strong impression that the United States policy of arming and training the Bosnian Federation Army has reversed the balance of power in Bosnia and created a potent military force that is now capable of crushing the Bosnian Serb forces. An unnamed European NATO commander also is quoted making the irresponsible statement that ``the question no longer is if the Muslims will attack the Bosnian Serbs, but when.'' I have been involved in military affairs for a good portion of my life having served in the Marine Corps during the Korean and Vietnam wars and on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the House of Representatives since 1979. I have been in Bosnia nine different times over the last 5 years including visits during the war when the UNPROFOR mission was on the verge of collapse. I have discussed our ``train and equip'' policy in detail with NATO commanders on the ground in Bosnia, with American, British, Bosnian, Croatian, OSCE, and U.N. diplomats, with intelligence analysts in Washington, with the military trainers doing the actual training, and with United States sergeants who patrol the streets of Brcko. I get a far different picture from most of these experts than what was stated in the article. Most knowledgeable experts agree that the Bosnian Federation army is years away from being an effective fighting force capable of combined arms maneuvers. During the devastating Bosnian conflict, the Muslim army was personnel-rich but equipment-poor. The Bosnian Serb army was the reverse, equipment-rich but manpower-poor. The Bosnian Serb military also enjoyed large advantages in organization, training, leadership, and logistics since the preponderance of the force was from the old Yugoslav National Army. The Muslim army avoided utter defeat only by being able to replace its casualties and fill the gaps faster than the smaller Serb army was able to fully exploit its battlefield successes. But even near the end of the conflict when Muslim forces achieved their greatest success, the weakened Bosnian Serb army was still able to counterattack effectively and retake some key contested areas. It is too simple to conclude that upgrading Bosnian Federation army equipment and providing a little more than a year's worth of fundamental training will reverse the military balance in Bosnia. The experts I talked to believe the Federation is years away from developing a trained and cohesive army capable of armored maneuvers. They still have not developed a professional NCO corps necessary to any modern army. They have no ability to supply or sustain the equipment they have received. Their officer corps--which is being taught defensive tactics, not offensive tactics--is still in its infancy. They have no intelligence capability and only a fledgling communications system. While the Bosnian Serb army has been substantially degraded, it is no secret that supplies, modern equipment, and other warfighting assets could quickly become available to them if renewed hostilities broke out, especially if the Bosnian Federation were seen as the aggressor. While morale among the Bosnian Serbs is low at this time and there are deep division, I believe that this would quickly change if they were attacked. Even if the Federation forces were to have initial military success, they know that such early successes could easily evolve into a wider regional conflict in which the Federation would have few international supporters. This is not to say that we should turn a blind eye towards how the ``train and equip'' program is progressing. There is wisdom in achieving rough military parity between the adversaries in this region. It would be a serious blunder if, in the name of achieving this parity, we were to actually reverse the balance and create a new military power capable of offensive action that was bent on revenge. I am satisfied that our experts in the region understand this delicate situation. They are working hard to ensure that the new Bosnian Federation military is a professional, defensive-minded force that understands both its capabilities and limitations. [From the New York Times, Oct. 3, 1997] Bosnian Muslims Said to Intensify Efforts to Rearm in Secret (By Chris Hedges) Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina.--The Muslin-led government in Sarajevo appears to be intensifying a clandestine program to arm and train its military, and senior NATO officials say it is close to--or may already have achieved--the ability to mount a crushing offensive against the Bosnian Serb-held part of Bosnia. ``The question no longer is if the Muslims will attack the Bosnian Serbs, but when,'' said a senior European NATO commander. ``The only way to prevent such an attack, at this point, is for the peacekeeping mission to extend its mandate.'' The NATO officials were united in favoring an extension of the NATO peacekeepers' mandate, and none of them suggested that the Sarajevo government would attempt a military offensive with NATO troops still in place. The peacekeepers are scheduled to leave next June, but the Clinton administration, recognizing the slow pace of reconciliation in Bosnia, has recently joined other NATO allies in favoring an extension of the NATO force, which includes American troops. U.S. congressional opposition, the strength of which has yet to be tested, appears to be the only remaining obstacle to a continued NATO presence that the officials agreed would offer the best chance of averting a resumption of the 1992- 1995 Bosnian war. It appeared that the NATO officials willingness to talk about the Muslim buildup was an attempt to influence the debate on Capitol Hill. NATO aside, all other factors point toward renewed military confrontation. The NATO officials noted that while the Muslims are busy building a formidable military machine, the Bosnian Serb army is imploding under the weight of the current power struggle, a lack of funds, poor morale, a severe shortage of spare parts and high desertion rates. There have been several indications over the last few weeks that the Bosnian government's secret weapons acquisition program and clandestine training has been stepped up. For example, an Egyptian freighter sailing under a Ukrainian flag sits quarantined under NATO guard in the waters off the Croatian port of Ploce, its hold filled with 10 Soviet-built T-55 tanks half were to be delivered as part of a secret arms shipment to the Bosnian Muslim army. All weapons deliveries are supposed to be shared between Muslim and Croatian units in the united force established under the peace accord. The Muslim-Croat force exists largely on paper, however, and NATO officials said the T-55s were to be delivered only to the Muslims. A spokesman from the State Department's Task Force on Military Stabilization in the Balkans reached in Washington described the impounded weapons as a ``procedural'' problem that ``will be resolved shortly.'' But senior NATO officials described the Americans at being angry about the shipment, and said that other shipments have managed to elude NATO monitors and have been delivered. There have been reports in recent weeks of heavy arms shipments arriving in the Croatian port of Rjeka which is not monitored by NATO soldiers as Ploce is, senior officials said. These officials also said that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general was posted to the Iranian Embassy in Zagreb, Croatia's capital, and that since his arrival in August he has apparently been working out deals with the Croats to smuggle more weapons to the Muslims. And NATO officials say they have received several intelligence reports of clandestine infantry training for Bosnian Muslim soldiers in Iran and Malaysia. The clandestine effort to build up the Bosnian army is in violation of the Bosnian peace agreement which sets strict limits on the number of heavy weapons possessed by each side. The rearmament effort comes in parallel to a Washington- backed program, known as ``equip and train,'' that provides instruction and NATO armor and artillery to the Bosnian Croats and Muslims. The $300-million program, which has included the delivery of advanced American tanks two generations ahead of anything in the Bosnian Serb arsenal; has in the eyes of many senior NATO officials including the British, already tipped the military balance in favor of the Muslims. Senior Russian commanders, who are increasingly nervous about the Muslim buildup against their traditional Serbian allies, recently met with senior Bosnian Serb generals and handed them classified NATO satellite photos of military training camps set up for Bosnian Muslims in an effort to warn the Serbs of the impending debacle, according to Western diplomats. ``The Bosnian Serb generals were stunned,'' said a senior Western diplomat who was informed of the meeting. ``The mood in the room was very black.'' The Bosnian Muslims insist that they are only acquiring weapons and training under the strict limits set down by the Bosnian peace agreement and under the guidelines of the ``equip and train'' program. ``A needle can't get in here without NATO knowing about it,'' said Mirza Hajric, and adviser to President Alija Izerbegovic of Bosnia, ``Anyone who believes this stuff can be smuggled in here is a fool. Apparently the Ministry of Defense did not properly inform the U.S. officials about this ship, but NATO was informed. It is just poor communications. I assume it was a mistake. As far as training goes there is no military training of Bosnians in Iran or other countries. All training is done under equip and train.'' NATO strategists, who expect the Muslims to first try to seize the Serb-held lands in eastern Bosnia, say the region could fall ``in a matter of days.'' ``We also expect most all of the Serbs there to be driven into Serbia,'' said a senior NATO commander, an event that could force Belgrade, even against its will, to intervene. This is a high-risk operation.'' The officials also outlined a scenario in which the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia would resume the joint offensive in northwestern Bosnia that they pursued with such success in the final months of the war. The Muslims and Croats recaptured large chunks of territory in August and September 1995 and threatened Banja Luka, the largest town under Bosnian Serb control, before Washington imposed a cease fire. Muslim and Croatian commanders often speak bitterly of Washington's decision to intervene. Croatia, which has a larger military budget at $1.4 billion than Poland, a much larger country, is as busy rearming as the Muslims, cutting arms deals worth tens of millions of dollars with companies in Turkey and Israel, these NATO officials said. ``The Croats are very interested in getting their hands on western Bosnia,'' said a NATO official. ``The attitude is that they will get whatever they can get now by helping the Muslims drive out the Serbs. They think they can deal with the Muslims later.'' Washington's ``equip and train'' program, despite all the mounting danger signs, plows ahead as if the peace agreement was on the verge of fulfillment. It is touted by Washington as an effort to build a joint 45,000-strong force of ethnic Croats and Muslims. The Bosnia Croats and Muslims are normally part of a federation, but their continued antagonism has so far made a mockery of American efforts to form joint units and commands. Military Professional Resources, a Virginia-based private contractor that is carrying out the training, has 200 American trainers, all retired U.S. Army officers or noncommissioned officers, currently in Bosnia. Since Aug. 1, 1996, the contractor has trained close to 5,000 soldiers, most of them Muslims under the 70-30 ratio that is supposed to exist between Muslims and Croats in the putative federation army. The trainers, accompanied by translators, conduct classes on the operation and maintenance of the donated equipment each day at the old Yugolsav tank base in Hadzici, 15 miles south of Sarajevo. The warehouses on the base, once filled with old Soviet- style tanks, are now occupied with modern weapons, including 45 American M-60A3 tanks, 12 130mm field guns, 12 122mm howitzers, 36 105mm howitzers, 80 M-113A2 armored personnel carriers, 31 French troop transport vehicles, and 31 French armed scout vehicles donated by the United States, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. A factory in Travnik, controlled by the Muslims, is producing about 50 more 122mm howitzers and the United States is scheduled to provide 116 of the biggest guns in its field artillery arsenal, 155mm howitzers. The federation is permitted, under the quota imposed by the Dayton agreement, to have 273 battle tanks and 1,000 pieces of artillery. The trainers said the hardware being provided to the federation outclassed anything the Bosnian Serbs could put in the field. The M-60A3 tank's gun has a longer range than that of the T-84, a Ukrainian variant of a Soviet design that is the Bosnian Serbs' best tank. ``This gun can put out four to five rounds a minute with a good crew,'' said John Reed, 40, from Killeen, Texas. ``I would put it up against a T-84 or a T-72 in a minute. It is the best tank in Bosnia.''

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to the House of Representatives that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] has now been confirmed by the other body, the Senate, as the Ambassador to Italy. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] says, ``Make your reservations early.''

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity before my colleagues in the House of Representatives to congratulate and pay tribute to the Memorial Baptist Church of Dilltown, PA, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this month. It gives me great pride--and at the same time, humility--to be able to stand before you to tell you about a church that has been part of its community for an entire century. Memorial Baptist, and many other small churches like it, have been quietly going about their work of teaching and strengthening families and communities so long that we hardly realize, until we stop and think about it, to what great extent they form the backbone of our country. A 100-year anniversary gives us this opportunity. Memorial Baptist Church has been a source of strength to its members and neighbors through many hard times. The church has provided spiritual support through two World Wars, the Great Depression, two more wars, times of social upheaval that tore many communities apart across our country, and the family struggles that come with many years of high unemployment. Dilltown is a very small, close-knit rural community located in southwestern Pennsylvania, a region hard-hit economically by the downsizing of the steel industry some years ago. Were it not for the good works of the small community churches like Memorial Baptist, many families might have been torn apart--many people might have lost their faith and their hope. But the Memorial Baptist Church has continued on, continued to be there to serve the people of Dilltown, and for that, we should all be humbly grateful. So again, I congratulate the pastor and members of Memorial Baptist Church on its 100th anniversary of service to God and community. Keep up the good work, and may you be there for 1,000 more years.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I support it slightly.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the Congress of the immminent retirement of Lt. Col. Daniel R. Cunningham, a truly outstanding soldier in the U.S. Army. He has served this Nation faithfully and honorably for more than 26 years. Lieutenant Colonel Cunningham is most deserving of our tribute. His career accomplishments reflect the type of military leader this Nation has depended upon for over 200 years during peace and war. I would like to take a few minutes to outline Dan's career milestones. On May 9, 1971, as a distinguished military graduate from the Gonzaga University's Reserve Officers Training Corps Program, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry, Regular Army. For the next 7 years, he served in a number of troop-leading assignments that took him to the 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA, the 3d Infantry Division, Kitzingen Germany, and the Infantry School, Fort Benning, GA. While in Germany, he commanded a mechanized infantry company and served as the infantry battalion's principle staff officer for logistics. Following his tour in Germany, he attended military schools and completed a masters degree in business. After schooling, Dan's career turned toward military comptrollership and resource management. As a comptroller, he served in the Ballistic Missile Defense Advance Technology Center, Huntsville, AL, and at Headquarters Forces Command, Fort McPherson, GA. A highly successful comptroller, Colonel Cunningham went back to troops serving as an infantry brigade adjutant and an infantry battalion executive officer in the 25th Infantry Division, at Schofield Barracks, HI. The last 7 years of Dan's career have been spent in the Pentagon with the exception of 7 months duty in Saudi Arabia with the 22d Support Command and Army Central Command during Desert Storm. For the past 5\1/2\ years he has served with distinction as the Army's liaison to the Appropriations Committees. Colonel Cunningham dilgently and successfully worked budget submissions and resource issues through seven legislative cycles. During that time he has accompanied me on countless trips to almost every trouble spot in the world from the hunger and violence of Somalia and Haiti, to the destruction in the Balkans. This officer was always on top of the issues of the day, and could always be relied on to insure the Congress got the right information. Lieutenant Colonel Cunningham's awards include the Legion of Merit, five awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, two awards of the Army Commendation Medal, and two awards of Army Achievement Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Kuwait Liberation Medal, the Parachute Badge, the Air Assault Badge, and the Army Staff Badge. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to present the credentials of Lieutenant Colonel Cunningham before the Congress today. It is clear through his stated and unstated accomplishments for his country that he has been a man who daily dedicates himself to the peace and freedom we enjoy as a nation today. All his actions reflect a true leader with a clear sense of purpose, conviction, and conscience of service to his Nation. We wish him continued success in his future endeavors.