John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Vermont to let me comment first. The conferees included a general provision, section 8122, which is intended to ensure that no taxpayer funds be used to pay for special executive bonuses triggered by corporate mergers. The conferees directed the Department to promptly revise its policies and regulations to make it absolutely clear no taxpayers' funds shall be used to reimburse any contractor for special executive bonuses or any other special retention incentive, payments for executives triggered by the corporate merger acquisition, or any other change in corporate control. Now, this was agreed to by all the conferees. Since the, I guess even before then, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and I had written to the Secretary of Defense and pointed out that we are very serious about this language and we expect it to be carried out, and they have said to us in private conversations they intend to carry out our direction.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of comments. I want to compliment the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] for holding off on his motion on Bosnia because I think we are in a very delicate stage in the negotiations and I think any action by the House at an inappropriate time could endanger the talks that are going on, and I would even appeal in the House that it is delicate and we certainly would not want to send the wrong signal and be responsible for what happens if it turned out the wrong way. The other thing, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit and say that we worked out the best we could work out with the Senate on the language, on the pension at the recommendations of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the support of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I would hope that Members would vote against recommittal. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to make one other point. There is not money in this bill for any troops to be deployed in Bosnia. This is for the ongoing operations that are gong on right now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the things we do every year in the hearings is to try to adjust the bill, depending on what we consider is the threat, and we work hard at that. I do not think we can depend on our allies to come to our aid in any circumstances. I think we learned after World War I and World War II that if we are not prepared for what we consider the immediate and long-term threat, we could have a problem. We have cut the defense budget substantially over the years. As a matter of fact, most of the cuts made to the Reagan and Bush budget were made in defense. We cut $155 billion out of defense over that 12- year period. I think that the Iraq war, the war in Saudi Arabia, shows we did cut it in a very sensible way. We cut it in a way that we still had good troops, quality people, and good technology. Now, lately, we have allowed procurement to start to slip. The reason we had a low number of casualties was the fact that we had superior technology, superior training, and superior troops. And that was a tribute, I think, to the House, and the House can be proud of what happened. This year, we are starting to get behind again in a number of areas. Real property maintenance, there is a $12 billion backlog. In depot maintenance, there is a $2 billion backlog. All those things are important to readiness. Now, we try periodically to overcome those, but we take the amount of money allocated to us by the budget resolution, and we do the best we can. The area where we saw slipping dramatically was procurement. We have reduced procurement from $120 billion over a 6- or 7-year period to about $40 billion. Now, $40 billion is a lot of money, and we feel it is well spent, because if we do not keep our industrial base, if we do not have the most modern technology, our people are at risk. Even in an operation like Bosnia, which is not an all-out war, but an area where you need technology to protect our troops, we want to make sure we have the finest equipment available to our troops and there is a minimal risk to them. I remember in Iran when we sent a helicopter to Iran, we had to borrow spare parts; we had a disaster where a number of Americans were killed because the training was inadequate. As a matter of fact, at that period of time, half the combat aircraft in our arsenal were dead- lined because of lack of spare parts. We do not want that to happen again. I assess the type of deployments that we have been making is what will continue. Our troops have been denied for long periods of time away from home, the same troops over and over again. Our AWACS airplanes, we have 10,000 people in the Adriatic supporting this long- term commitment we have for humanitarian airlift to Bosnia. As a matter of fact, it is the longest airlift in the history of the United States. Without that, people would have been starving. We have a commitment there. We have upheld our commitment. But the airplanes are wearing out. As a matter of fact, the 141's, we are flying the wings off of them. We have to reengine a number of KC-135's. As the C-17's come into the arsenal, we need to continue to upgrade the 135's and the 141's. So we have a problem with procurement. We have a problem with modernization, and we have tried to balance that out. [[Page H 13057]] We also set aside, and this was a suggestion of the chairman, we set aside money for the operations as they go on, for continual flights, the operations in the Adriatic, the continual flights into Bosnia. That is the kind of thing we should be doing so the American people and the Congress know what is going on. So our military is ready. It is stretched thin, but I think that the amount of money we have appropriated here is just about the right amount. One thing for sure, if the Defense Department does not agree, they will come back and ask for rescissions, and we will adjust that as the year goes on, as they always do. So I think we have a good bill, and I hope Members will vote for the bill. One of the issues that came up in the passage of the bill was an issue that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] brought up. The gentleman got up and brought to our attention the fact that there were a number of people at the highest level being reimbursed because of the build-down and consolidation of these defense companies. The gentleman was absolutely right. The gentleman believed that we should do something about it. The gentleman believed that in the conference, and we accepted that language, and in the conference we have tried to address that language. The Defense Department at first did not agree with us. They felt that it was appropriate what they had done. We pointed out to them, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman, and I pointed out that we felt this was not only bad public policy, but it is something we felt needed to be changed. We have been negotiating with those folks. We think that we have done the best we could do in order to comply with what the gentleman from Vermont wanted. I would be glad to answer any questions that the gentleman may have about that issue. We appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, no, I support the bill.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what the gentleman said about this rule. It should be a bipartisan rule. I hope it will pass quickly so that we can move on with the debate on the bill itself.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and applaud Chairman Young for the work that he has done, and against the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California. There are two reasons: One is obviously energy independence is so important, and this is a provision I think that is well thought out and will certainly help us in that direction. The other is domestic jobs. We have suffered greatly in western Pennsylvania over the years with the decline in the steel industry. The steel industry is now back on its feet. I have been deeply involved with the steel caucus for years trying to produce as many jobs as we can. This will take a lot of steel. It will create a lot of domestic jobs. We feel very strongly about it. Western Pennsylvania at one time had as high as a 24-percent unemployment rate, and anything that helps bring it down, at the same time reduces our dependence on foreign oil, is a real asset to this country. I applaud the gentleman from Alaska and am in strong support of his legislation and would ask the Members to oppose the gentleman from California's motion to recommit.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee, what effect does this have on the law?

Mr. MURTHA. It is a sense of Congress resolution, it has no effect in law, and I would ask the Members to vote against it in order not to confuse the negotiators and reduce our ability to have an impact on settling this peaceably.

Mr. MURTHA. It has no effect at all.

Mr. MURTHA. The reason that I asked the gentleman the question is because of my concern of mixed signals that we could be sending. I think all of us have the same mission. All of us want to stop the fighting. All of us want to contain the fighting. When I was in Bosnia just a few weeks ago, the people were so happy that the fighting had stopped, the fact that they could continue their lives in some sort of normalcy. I just did not want there to be any mistake by the negotiators that we were actually doing something that would prohibit the U.S. troops. I have a great concern myself about U.S. troops being deployed and at this point would not agree until I saw what the agreement is, and I think we should all take that situation. I think the President should ask for authorization. But I wanted to make sure that the negotiators did not misunderstand that this is only a sense of Congress and that we have a concern about stopping the fighting, and this does not prohibit in any way American troops from being deployed if the President finally decides to deploy troops.

Mr. MURTHA. I understand. But I wanted to make sure. What I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the possibility of the people who are negotiating after 4 years, and I have been to Bosnia 5 times and I know the Chairman has been over there. I am concerned they may misunderstand us trying to actually resolve this situation by all at once sending the wrong kind of message. There is no question that in a sense of Congress, we are saying that American troops ought to be authorized before they are sent. We are not cutting off funds. We are not doing anything to stop the deployment of troops. We are just saying that a sense of Congress is not to count on it. That is what we are saying.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, often in the course of our hectic, day-to- day lives we fail to remember the significance and importance of the activities and institutions that mean the most to us and our communities. One way in which we make up for this is in our celebration of anniversaries--the anniversary of our Nation's independence, the anniversary of important personal events, or the anniversary of the things that bind a community together. One important community institution in the Johnstown, PA area is Our Mothers of Sorrows Parish, which will be celebrating its 75th anniversary with a special Mass and dinner on October 29, 1995. The community will be celebrating the founding of the Parish on November 3, 1920, by the Most Reverend John J. McCort. In its 75-year history of serving the people of Johnstown the parish has had only three Pastors--Rev. Msgr. Stephen A. Ward, Rev. Msgr. Linford F. Greinader, and the current Pastor, Rev. Msgr. Thomas K. Mabon, who is a native of Johnstown and was assigned to Our Mother of Sorrows Parish in 1993. I'd like to join all the people of Johnstown in extending congratulations and best wishes to all the parishioners of Our Mother of Sorrows Parish as they celebrate their 75th anniversary. We've certainly experienced many ups and downs in the past 75 years in Johnstown, but it has been our faith and the guidance offered us by the stabilizing influences in our community that enable us to continue to look forward. I'm certain that Our Mother of Sorrows Parish will continue to be an important part of the lives of many of the people of Johnstown, and I wish you another wonderful 75 years and more as a Johnstown institution.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot solve Medicare in a partisan manner, and that's why this is the wrong bill, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. It's the wrong bill because it increases premiums, reduces coverage and reduces choices for older Americans while closing rural hospitals--as many as half the hospitals in our area would close, according to the Pennsylvania Hospital Association. It's the wrong time because we're not in a crisis situation that demands the drastic steps contained in this legislation--we have time to study the alternatives and develop a bipartisan consensus. And it's the wrong reasons because the savings won't go to the Medicare trust fund, but instead would go toward a tax cut slanted toward the wealthy. [[Page H 10369]] Let's separate Medicare from the budget-tax cut issue, and work for legislation which guarantees that older Americans will continue to have access to affordable, quality health care of their choice. For the last 30 years, Medicare has worked very well--it's enabled senior citizens to get the health care they need without facing financial disaster. The backers of this legislation claim we're in a crisis situation which demands the drastic steps contained in this legislation, but that's simply not true. This bill does everything senior citizens don't want--it makes health care more expensive, it forces them to go to doctors they don't want, and if they need to go to a hospital, it may risk their lives by forcing them to travel farther, because according to the Pennsylvania Hospital Association, half the hospitals in western Pennsylvania may close if this bill is signed into law. And the legislation doesn't do what everyone, including seniors, feels is necessary--to guarantee the stability of Medicare for more than 10 years. The supporters of this legislation should stop worrying so much about reaching a certain number for savings and start paying attention to the needs of senior citizens. We should take our time and come up with a bipartisan solution which starts with addressing the waste, fraud, and high administrative costs in the Medicare system. The savings we could get from those areas are enough to stabilize Medicare and avoid the premium increases and limits on care which are going to penalize older Americans. Medicare is too important to too many people to be lost in political rhetoric. Seniors should feel confident they're receiving the best possible care at a cost they can afford. So let's not throw 30 years of success away in a panic--let's protect Medicare, and not make it a program where only the wealthy can get the best care.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, all of us on the subcommittee have the same concern that the gentleman does. As the gentleman knows, I just came back, from Sarajevo. We stayed overnight there, not intentionally, but could not get out because the last [[Page H 10253]] flight was canceled because of the activity--we might define it as activity--going on around Sarajevo. I have a great concern about putting troops in, and for 3 or 4 years we have been working in the subcommittee trying to convince the administration that, before they make humanitarian deployments, they must come and get authorization from Congress. Now, why do I say humanitarian deployment? I do not think a deployment to Sarajevo or to Bosnia is a national security issue. I believe it is a humanitarian deployment. On the other hand, I think they are only 20 percent of the way. I do not think that they have come close to settling the problem. What I said in talking to the chief of staff of the White House and talking to Secretary Perry and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], we have agreed that we think they have to have ironclad assurances from all the participants before any Americans are sent in. And Holbrooke is the one that said they are only 20 percent of the way. So they have got 80 percent to go. They are a long way off. I think in conference we can deal with this as we see it developing. I doubt very much if we will see an agreement before the first of the year. The gentleman from Wisconsin just mentioned to me, will they get them in before the weather gets bad? To me, it is more important that we get an agreement, which is enforceable with robust rules of engagement, with a robust force agreement, with the participants saying, the United States or the NATO allies can enforce this agreement, rather than have them come to an agreement which is a compromise and a danger to American forces. So we are a long way from agreeing to this. I think in conference, I hope we work something out that would be acceptable and yet agreeable to the Congress.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about some of the comments that the ranking member of the full committee made and the concern I have about passing instructions to reduce the amount of money available to the Defense Department. When I was just over in Bosnia over the weekend, I found that they are using some of the money from the next quarter already and we are trying to sort out exactly how the money should be spent. Now, what we have done this year is try to make adjustments in the various programs that the Defense Department has asked for. For instance, over the years, we have put language in the bill, or we have put a number of programs in the bill that have been absolutely essential to the national security of this country. Mr. Speaker, I remember well, probably 15 years ago, when a number of us offered an amendment to put SL-7's in. The Navy did not want it. The Defense Department did not want it. It took us 2 or 3 years before we could get that legislation through. As a matter of fact, we passed the legislation and in the gulf war, it was essential, since 95 percent of the materiel that was sent over to Saudi Arabia went by ship, much of it went by these SL-7's, which are large cargo-carrying vessels. We do adjust what the Defense Department asks for. That is our job. Our job is to try and set the priorities for the Defense Department. Now, we are going to go back to conference. We are going to look at all the things, the adjustments that the Members have asked for, the concern that they have about the various issues, and if I remember on the floor, there was an amendment to reduce defense in the initial phase, before the conference, by 5 percent, by 3 percent. Both of those were defeated substantially. I believe we have the right mix. I have talked to a number of people in the Defense Department, and they think we have the right mix. I disagree with the gentleman from Wisconsin who said that the members in the military are looking for a handout. I believe very strongly that they serve with dedication. They try to get the most for their money. They do not ask for money unless they feel they need it. They feel that it is essential that our troops be prepared for the type action they may be sent into. We have got a concern about the deployment to Bosnia. We want to make sure that any troops that are sent there are prepared. We want to make sure they have the most modern weapons possible. We made the decision on the B-2. The House made the decision on the B-2; made the decision that we need that modern weapons system in order to save money in the long run. Mr. Speaker, I was the one that offered, years ago, an amendment to jump over the B-1 and go to the B-2, because I felt the B-1 was obsolete at that time. It was defeated on the floor of the House. I accepted the fact that it was defeated on the floor of the House, and I predicted that it would be very difficult for us to build a number of B-2's, but we are now in a position where we found the money to fund the B-2. We cut intelligence. We found that there was extra money that had not been used and could not be used and was not obligated in the intelligence sector that we could put into this issue. One of the major weaknesses in the Navy Department right now is the fact they have not bought the modern airplanes. We are not going to have airplanes that are stealthy. Our airplanes are slower than they were in Vietnam. Even though some of them are modern, an awful lot of them, the bombers in particular are not only not modern, but they are antiquated and very susceptible to ground fire. So, we are now in the process of trying to upgrade the Navy Department. The B-2 plays a part in that. The military leaders themselves feel that the F-22 is an essential part of the defense of this great country. If we allow this equipment to become antiquated, we become vulnerable and we start to lose lives. We found 50 years ago that 50 percent of the aircraft were deadlined because of the lack of spare parts. We have tried to take care of that. We have tried to reach the delicate balance of continued research and development, spare parts and readiness. Mr. Speaker, we sat in hearings for 5 months. Hours and hours of hearings, trying to make sure we made the right decisions. This bill came out of committee, adjusted between the House and the Senate, with what we felt was something that the White House could sign. Mr. Speaker, I predict that this bill, with a very minimal change, will be signed by the White House at some point. We will have to make some changes, but I would urge the Members to defeat the motion to instruct by the gentleman from Wisconsin and let us go to conference and work it out.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and that he be permitted to control that time so that he will have 5 minutes to close.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we have gotten the message across to the White House. I think the compromise we have made on this issue they recognize, and I think the Congress will have a very important role. The fact they are meeting right now to consult with the Congress is a very important part of this overall solution to this problem.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points that I think are important. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations made the recommendation in the subcommittee that we eliminate the language on Bosnia. He felt it was very important, because the White House was objecting to that language. I, on the other hand, had a great concern about eliminating the language. Now, since that time we have got a commitment from the White House, I believe, to come to us for authorization and appropriation of money before they commit troops to Bosnia. So I think it is not a good characterization. I think he can be rightly upset because we thought this took care of one of the problems that would help us keep the bill from being vetoed. I still do not believe the President will veto this bill, if we work our way down the road. We are hopeful that the changes we made in raising TRP, in making a compromise on Nunn-Lugar, by eliminating the Bosnia language, we hope that we will be able to get a bill through.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language the gentleman offered is the exact language that we agreed to on the floor and that the conference agreed to.

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