John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just hope we can come to a vote here because we are trying to get this thing over. A lot of people have commitments and so forth, and I just wonder if we could not get a vote here.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman would withdraw this, give us an opportunity to look at this amendment, see what the gentleman is trying to do, and see if we cannot work something out.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a good government amendment and we always try to accommodate Members, but on the other hand we make sure that it is something that the services need, something that is important to the services, before we accept any amendment. This amendment is so widespread, and I understand the point he is making. We certainly never ask where the jobs come from, we do not ask whose district creates how many jobs. We ask what is military implication, how does it apply to the threat, how important it is to our national security. That is what we ask when we are doing any kind of amendment to the bill. I would ask the gentleman to give us an opportunity to study this. This is the first we have seen it. I have to oppose this as it is now. Maybe we can work something like this out in the bill, if the gentleman would give us an opportunity to take a look at this thing and work it out as we move to conference.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] numbered 20 may be considered as the Smith-Sanders amendment at this point, notwithstanding it addresses a portion of the bill not yet read, because one of the Members cannot be on the floor later on.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA

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

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

Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, what I am doing here is trying to make sure that in extreme, rare circumstances the President could waive the rules or waive the law so that a journalist in acts of terrorism or something like that would be able to allow a journalist to be used in the best interests of the country. It is a remote possibility. The DCI does not want to completely foreclose the option, if the national security interest cannot be furthered in any other way. I just think this is what we need in order to be able to pursue this amendment. There is widespread support for the amendment, but I think we need a clause which would allow the President of the United States to decide that something like this can be used in the best interest of the country.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to rise and join me in a moment of silent prayer for Admiral Boorda, who apparently either shot himself accidentally or intentionally. Admiral Boorda was one of the finest naval officers that I have ever known; a person who came up through the ranks, and all of us had so much admiration for, and who has done so much for this great country over the years. The Navy and the country is a better place because of his fine service, and I would ask that we would bow our heads for a moment of prayer. Amen.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you the concern I have about this amendment. If you remember, the subcommittee on defense, as it was called then, is the one that funded this initially. This was not funded or authorized; they asked us to fund it in a supplemental. We put several hundred million dollars in. We put very strict interpretations on the language about how it could be spent, because we knew of the concern in the House about how this money should be spent. I appreciate what the gentleman from New York is trying to do, but everything I have seen, and I had great concern about this amendment initially, is that this program has been successful. They are demilitarizing nuclear weapons. I would hope we are not trying to interfere in the Soviet elections because I think that would backfire in our case. And I would hope that we would base our decision on the merits of whether this is working or not. Everything I have seen, from Secretary Perry, is that it is working. We may need to make some changes. We made need to make some sort of certification. But I think the certification that is required in this amendment by the gentleman from New York, which has entirely good intentions, I think goes too far. So I would hope at some point we could come up with adequate restrictions but certainly not this kind of a certification. I ask the Members to vote against the Solomon amendment at this point and see if we cannot maybe in conference work something out. I feel very strongly that what we are doing with the money we are making available to the Russians is not going to something else. It is going to the very specific purpose we have said. And if they are using other money, they just would not demilitarize their nuclear weapons. That is what it amounts to. So we are getting a tremendous benefit from the amount of money that we are spending in this area. I ask the Members to consider very carefully voting against this amendment at this point and then later on making some sort of an adjustment in the conference to add restrictions which the President is able to adhere to.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words of congratulations and thanks to a distinguished member of the community in my district. A lifetime member of American Legion Post 57, and the most recent Western Vice Commander, William H. Bowers has made numerous outstanding achievements that have greatly benefitted his fellow veterans and citizens in his home county of Indiana, PA. He has held numerous offices in addition to the American Legion Western Vice Commander. While serving as post commander, Saltsburg, he received the National Americanism Award. He has been honored as Post Commander of the Year in Pennsylvania, as well as Indiana County Veteran of the Year; in addition he has served as Commander of the Indiana County United Veterans, Indiana County Commander, District 27 Commander, District 27 Adjutant, and Vice Chairman of the Citizens Flag Allegiance. He has also been recognized by the ROTC for his many accomplishments. In addition to being a lifetime member of the American Legion, Commander Bowers is also a member of the VFW Post 7901, Amvets Post 277, and VVA Chapter 286. Among his many civic contributions are establishing bylaws for the Indiana County United Veterans Advisory Council and serving as chairman of the Indiana County Veterans Memorial Committee. He organized and still serves as the CEO of Boy Scout Troop No. 157 in Saltsburg and manages the Young Township senior legion baseball team. He has also been a guest speaker at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania's sociology department representing VVA Chapter 286. 1991 was a very painful year for us in and near the 12th district of Pennsylvania, when 25 local gulf war soldiers were killed in action. Commander Bowers gave a memorable tribute to those young men and women by organizing a veterans honor guard of over 300 veterans with colors for their funerals. Commander Bowers was also instrumental in having a gulf war honor roll erected on the Indiana County Courthouse lawn, listing all Indiana County veterans serving in the Gulf. William H. Bowers served in the Army with the Military Assistance Group overseas. I salute Commander Bowers for his lifelong dedication to his fellow soldiers and his community.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, it is a rare thing these days to find someone like Dr. Bob Mazero. He reminds us of the kind of doctor our parents used to call at his home and ask to come over on a Saturday night if one of the kids had a fever. In a small community like Latrobe, PA, being on call is not something that you schedule. It is getting called away from your family's Fourth of July picnic because a boy on the other side of town got too close to a bottle rocket, or pulled away from Thanksgiving dinner because one of your patients had a bad fall and you're the only one she trusts to examine her. For over 30 years, Dr. Mazero has been that type of doctor, one that everyone in town has seen at some time or other in their lives, and he always remembers their names, and usually remembers to ask how their father is doing or how their daughter is getting along in college. He's one of the most depended on, faithful, trusted members of the community. In times of crisis, he often is the one a whole family looks to for reassurance, and he has to provide that the best way he can. He is a true community leader, and we could use many more like him. Dr. Mazero did not have to return to his little hometown to practice medicine. He could have stayed in Washington, or Cleveland, or Pittsburgh, where he studied, or gone to some other big city with opportunities for a bright young doctor. But he came back to the town where he grew up and devoted his life, not only to making sure Latrobe had one of the best community hospitals in the country, but to advance the role of a community hospital in creating an educational environment for other physicians as well. He was not content to be just one of the doctors who made his rounds and went home. He cared about teaching other young doctors, and about connecting the community to its medical centers and to its source of health care. That is why, as director of Latrobe Area Hospital, he has worked to create partnerships between the hospital and several regional colleges, medical schools, as well as other area medical centers. For his outstanding achievements in these areas, he has earned numerous civic and academic honors throughout his career. As we debate health care reforms in Washington, we have to always remember that the medical personnel are at the heart of any system, and that no matter what we do to health care, it's only going to be as good as those individuals providing it. It is because of these professionals that America has the best health care system in the world. And against that measure, it is why we are all so glad to join in recognizing Bob Mazero as Latrobe's Italian American of the Year.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I wanted to point out to the Members that I think is so important in the recommittal motion that we had, and this may not be the right time and I know the Members that voted for the authorization feel that they have taken care of the two problems that we have in this recommittal motion, but in this recommittal motion we have language which will take care of the disparity in the COLA between the military retiree and the civilian retiree. We think that is important. We also have in this legislation to take care of the increase in pay for the military. Now, I know the President is going to veto the bill. I know it passed by a slight majority in the Senate. As I understand it, the majority leader on the other side may add this to their bill at some point, but I just want the Members to realize, this is something that has to be done by the first of the year. If we do not take care of it, if we do not put this type of language in one of our appropriations bills, if the authorization is vetoed, then it means that the members of the armed services would not get their first month's increase or whatever increase it was or the COLA disparity would continue. For 3 years the Subcommittee on National Security has taken care of the COLA disparity. We put the money in, even though it was forced on the authorization. So I would hope as the Members vote they think about this one particular provision in this recommittal. It is a very simple provision that takes care of those two things. As I say, since the authorization has not been vetoed at this point, my colleagues may feel that this is not the time to do it. but at some point we have to do this. I would hope that the majority would recognize this so we could get it done before the first of the year.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, a year ago we stood on the floor and we debated the Haiti resolution. This House had a very good debate on deploying United States forces to Haiti. We heard the same kind of concerns. We heard that people were going to come back in body bags. We heard all kinds of recriminations about the policy, about the United States deployment, about the ability of the United States Commander in Chief to put United States forces in Haiti. Not long ago, I became concerned about what was going on in Haiti. I went down there on Saturday. I found out that Aristide is going to step aside. They are going to have an election, that the human rights violations have receded substantially, that the 22,000 troops we had there at one time have been reduced to 2,500. In 2\1/2\ months we will have all the troops, all the United States forces out of Haiti, and we will not have had one casualty. Now, will it be a long-term success? All we did was allow them to have an opportunity to have a free election and to get their country in order. It will take a long time for them to straighten this out. I have been involved in the Bosnia situation for almost 4 years. When the Bush administration was in their last year, I went to Sarajevo. I could not get from the airport into town because the shelling was so heavy. The shells were landing in the houses. Two young children were killed not far from where I was. The next time I went in, I stopped at the location where 70 people were killed with one mortar shell in town. The people were in disarray. The buildings were destroyed. There was no heat, no electricity, and the people did not know where to go. The British commander, General Rose, said to me, stay out of it. We can handle it. The U.S. forces do not need to be involved. And I listened to that. I told President Clinton that I did not think we should be involved as long as the fighting is going on; I adamantly opposed any U.S. intervention. I did not think we had any business going in as long as they were fighting. Then the President took a real risk. A year later, I went over and talked to Gen. Rupert Smith. He thought it was time that something could happen there. Our emissaries went to Bosnia. Our emissaries talked to all the parties, and they did a marvelous job. I do not have the highest regard for the State Department, but in this particular case, they did a marvelous job in getting the parties to agree to a cease-fire, which has held for a period of time. When I was there, I saw every single building in Sarajevo had been destroyed or in some way hit by shellfire. People were starting to feel better about what had happened. And the British commander said, we cannot do it. Only the Americans can cause peace in Bosnia. The British and the French and the Germans have to many long-term animosities. If you want stability in Europe, you are going to have to have American troops involved. I still doubted it. I still had concerns. I believed there had to be a peace agreement where the troops withdrew. I felt the Russians had to be involved. I thought the terrorists had to be pushed out. And all those things have been agreed to. Now we stand on the threshold of a very serious decision by the United States Congress, very similar to what we did in Saudi Arabia with a difference. We were going to war in Saudi Arabia. We are going to make peace in Bosnia. I do not think that any of us take it lightly. I have no concerns about the patriotism of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] or his feeling or anybody else's motives in why they believe that they should vote one way or the other. But there is no question in my mind that if the United States is not involved, that if we do not take the chance, and I sat down with the President of the United States for an hour and a half and with my year in Vietnam, with my different experiences in the Congress of the United States, like the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], wounded twice when I was over there, I know something about the fighting. I know how difficult it is. But the President listened to my objections and concerns. I told him of the military concerns. I told him that politically he could be making the biggest mistake of his Presidential career. And I said, I do not expect you to make this decision based on politics. I would hope you would make it based on what is right and wrong, but I am just telling you the danger you are getting involved in. He listened to me and obviously made what he considered was the right decision as the Commander in Chief. There is no one in this country that I have a greater regard for than the majority leader of the U.S. Senate or the other body, no one who has taken a more courageous position in this incident, even though he has the same concerns that every person in here has about putting American troops in harm's way. But he made a decision based on the American commitment. The President of the United States made a very tough decision, a decision he considered was right, a decision he considered was in the best interest of this country. It behooves us not to undercut that President as he goes forward to sign or to agree or to witness a peace treaty by the participants who have been fighting. No question we will have casualties. But I would ask all of my colleagues to think about the involvement of the United States in world affairs. We cannot be the policemen of the world, but we can, when we see an opportunity, exert our moral force and insert our troops, who are so well trained, to do a job to make peace and not war. I would urge my colleagues not to cut off the funds for these valiant troops who are on their way to Bosnia at this very minute. Defeat my good friend's amendment. Vote down the Dornan bill and vote for the support of the troops later on.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate the future of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, I'd like to ask my colleagues to consider the views of Ms. Carolyn Scanlan, president and chief operating officer of the Hospital Association of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's hospitals would be particularly hard hit by the Medicare and Medicaid provisions we are considering because of the high percentage of senior citizens who live in Pennsylvania, but her concerns reflect those of hospitals all across the Nation. We will not improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs by forcing hospitals, particularly hospitals in rural areas, to close. Downsizing may look good to accountants and bookkeepers, but it's not an encouraging concept for senior citizens when it means closing hospitals. We've got to work to improve availability, access, and affordability in Medicare and Medicaid, and we can do it without forcing seniors to accept care that is anything but the best. The text of Ms. Scanlan's letter follows: The Hospital Association of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, November 16, 1995. Hon. John P. Murtha, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Murtha: I have reviewed the U.S. House/ Senate Conference Report and am deeply disappointed that the proposal does not sufficiently address the issues of health care restructuring, patient access and beneficiary choice. I must therefore ask that you oppose the conference report when it comes before you for a vote. For the past several months we have communicated to you, and House and Senate leadership, the message driving our efforts to help Congress achieve a balanced budget while preserving Medicare and Medicaid and improving health care delivery: Inclusion of House provider sponsored network provision. Inclusion of the lower House Medicare spending reductions. Reduced and capped House Medicare ``failsafe'' provision. Guaranteed Medicaid coverage for children, pregnant women and the disabled. Inclusion of House language on medical malpractice, antitrust, fraud and abuse and self-referral provisions. Inclusion of House trust fund for Graduate Medical Education (GME) and Indirect Medical Education (IME) and lower IME reductions. Inclusion of Senate carve out for medical education and Disproportionate Share (DSH) and lower DSH reductions. The conference report falls far short of meeting these goals, which are essential to ensure that the more than 250 hospitals and health systems in Pennsylvania can better address community health needs and offer beneficiaries health care coverage with a local focus. As the process moves forward, the hospital community remains available to work with you to craft a budget reconciliation bill that includes these critical elements. Your ``no vote'' will provide us with an opportunity to work together toward a better bill that will ensure our ability to continue to provide appropriate and necessary services to our senior citizens, the disabled, children and low-income families.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, at the very end of the Bush administration, during the election, I went over to Bosnia for the first time. I flew into Sarajevo and was not able to get out of the airfield because the fighting was so heavy, the shelling, the mortar fire. As a matter of fact, only a few blocks away from where I stood two young children were killed in a bus. Members may remember the incident. I have gone back four times since then, three times in Sarajevo. The second time I stood in the area, in the marketplace, where 35 or 40 people were killed by a mortar round. The last time I went into Sarajevo, every building had been damaged. I stood by the national library that had been destroyed by shell fire. The people were going to work, and dressed like they were going to work, and they were satisfied, that because the United States was involved, they were hopeful there would be a peace agreement. Now I do not know why President Clinton suggested we put American troops in, but I believe he felt it was necessary in order to bring some sort of an agreement from a war that had been going on 3 years since this killing that had been going on. There is no one that has fought harder in this Chamber over the years to get a President to agree to authorization. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber that believes this fighting would have come to a halt if the United States had not gotten involved. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber that believes if the President had not made a commitment of American troops, that the fighting would have come to a halt. But I also believe that he should have authorization; I believed in Saudi Arabia he should have had authorization. Now this is not the time to ask for a vote. This is the weekend where we can come to agreement. The President in a meeting the other day said he would give us ample time to discuss and debate this issue. The President of the United States assured us that he would ask for authority to send troops, and I do not think he should send those troops unless he gets authority or authorization from Congress. I think it would be a mistake not to have the support of Congress and the American people to send troops to Bosnia. But the point is they would not have stopped fighting and killing, and, if my colleagues stood there and looked at the blood on the ground, they would have understood how serious it was. They would not of stopped if it has not been for the intervention of the President of the United States. Now the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and I have been on opposite sides many, many times, but I remember one meeting at the White House last year where everybody was clamoring for the United States to get involved. All the big shots around here wanted the United States to bomb them to oblivion, to send troops to lift the embargo, do everything, get this thing settled because the killing was so great. As soon as the killing slowed down a little bit, as soon as there was an agreement, things quieted own. Everybody thinks it is going to end peaceably? It will not without our involvement, and down at Dayton right now they are talking peace, they are trying to come to agreement. This is a delicate time. Anything could disrupt it. The President of the United States said to us the other day this could very well destroy the momentum of the peace talks. This could stop the peace talks from coming to a conclusion. Now I would ask the gentleman who is sincere, because I have had the same thought in my mind; I have tried over and over again to get every President to ask authorization for whatever deployment of American troops. But I would ask the gentleman to think about at this very delicate time why it is necessary to ask for a vote on something as important as this when he will have plenty of time later on to pass a resolution like this, and the majority party, they will have every right to bring up a privileged resolution and pass that resolution. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that all of us realize the sensitivity of what is going on in Sarajevo and in Bosnia. All of us feel we would like to see this end without one American life being lost. I have been to all the war zones. Every time there is an outbreak, I have seen our American troops frustrated. I was in Vietnam for a year with the gentleman from California, and I know what it is like, and I know how difficult it is to come to a conclusion. I know how important American power is, and I know how we were stopped in Vietnam. I know how we may very well be here, but we will have an opportunity, and I say that unless this agreement is an adequate agreement I will not agree to support the President of the United States in deploying troops to Sarajevo, to Bosnia.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make sure that all the Members understand. What I am talking about is our own defense. And to develop a fighter and to deploy it to the field takes 16 years. And I sympathize with what the gentleman from California said, since he is the top ace of the Vietnam war, and certainly knows as much about fighter aircraft as anybody in the House. The relationship between having exactly what the pilot needs versus something that is inferior----

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

Mr. MURTHA. That is exactly right.