John Murtha

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes care of a problem which for 2 years the Committee on Appropriations has worked out. There was a perception it saved a lot of money by changing the formula for retirement of the military. We find that it has not saved a lot of money. We are offering an amendment to rectify that problem.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we applaud the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and have no problems with the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the amendment.

Mr. MURTHA. Let me just say there is $12 billion in backlog of real property maintenance. There is a backlog in depot maintenance. We have put it off for years. The military has put it off for what they think are other priorities. The across-the-board cut is the worst kind of a cut available to the Members. The cuts were offered individually. The Members did not accept those cuts. Some amendments were accepted, some were not, but the point is an across-the-board cut is not the way to cut defense. We have accepted across-the-board cuts, and I would strongly object to and ask the Members to vote against a 3-percent cut across the board.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Let me just urge the Members to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I oppose my friend's amendment, and I say we worked hard in trying to balance the intelligence-gathering effort in this country. Over the years we saw that there was excessive spending, and we cut it dramatically a couple of years ago, against the advice of the President himself and the Director of the intelligence agency. But we think we made the right cuts, the threat had changed so dramatically. We are continuing that trend to make sure it is leaner and does a better job with the changed threat.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent on the defense bill today that we have a limitation of 5 hours on the bill and all amendments thereto.

Mr. MURTHA. How about 6 hours?

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the bill H.R. 2126 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 205 continue for a period not to exceed 5 hours--excluding time consumed by recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto. The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the practical aspects of the B-2 bomber. One of the things that we try to make decisions on is which weapon system will be the most important to the national security depending on the threat to the Nation. The most effective weapon system we can buy is the one that deters war, that is never used in a war, and I think the B-2, with the amount of money we have available to us, it is certainly not the time to stop it. For instance, if we had less money, it would be a tougher decision, but, with the amount of money that the Committee on the Budget allocated to the defense subcommittee, it certainly would be a mistake for us to cut out the B-2 at this stage. Mr. Chairman, what I recommend to the Members, and I have been involved in the B-2 for years; as a matter of fact, I was willing to jump over the B-1 and go with the B-2 because of the technology, because of the ability of the B-2 to penetrate defense systems: Now, even though we do not have the threat now, what we want is an airplane that will deter an enemy from attacking us, and I think the B-2 is that airplane. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members of Congress to allow us to go forward, to go to conference. Hopefully we will have a good allocation in conference and we will be able to continue the B-2. The big expense for the B-2 comes next year. But I am confident that, as the threat continues, as the threat changes, this Subcommittee on Defense will make the appropriate decision on the B-2, and I think at this point the Members should feel confident to vote for this with the amount of money available. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to strongly support the B-2 as we move forward to conference.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me say that one of the previous speakers talked about supporting President Reagan in Central America, and I did that. He talked about supporting President Bush in Saudi Arabia, and I did that. I opposed their effort in Somalia. I felt it was a mistake. The United States can only do so much. The gentleman who just spoke, said if somebody is fighting in the middle of the street, reminds me of one of the Members who said they got involved in a domestic quarrel; and when they got involved, in the end they both turned on the individual Member who tried to interfere with a domestic quarrel. There was a physical battle. We are talking here about the most complicated type of situation. I remember one time going to Bosnia, 3 or 4 years ago, and Helen Bentley said to me, a former Member of Congress, ``Do not forget, this started in 1389.'' The animosity and deep feelings of the two sides, the three sides, in Bosnia are very difficult. All of us feel we would like to solve it. It is a tragedy. I walked through the mud in Vietnam, up to my waist in the water. I saw young Vietnamese killed, and I saw young Americans killed. I was wounded twice. I know something about what it is like to send Americans into harm's way. If I thought it would solve the problem, I would be the first to step in front, but it will not solve the problem. For instance, if we were to lift the arms embargo, France and Britain will withdraw their troops. America is committed, the prestige of the United States, the prestige of the President of the United States, is committed to sending in 25,000 American troops. It will not be an easy evacuation. For instance, if we go into Split, it will take one ship at a time, it will take one C-5 in that small airport. The roads are narrow, the foliage is deep. It took us 40 days to get a light infantry unit into Saudi Arabia. It will take much more time to get 25,000 troops into Split, and we cannot send them in piecemeal. If they go over the roads, which are 10-ton roads, with our heavy equipment, it will break the roads down, so it will take all kinds of time to reinforce or to get a rapid deployment force into position, if we have to fight our way in and fight our way out. What we are saying is we are authorizing a defeat. We are actually saying we are in favor of lifting an embargo which withdraws the British and French, and the United States will go in and bring them out. It is a Diepee. It is a Dien Bien Phu for the United States. We are starting out by saying we are authorizing a defeat, and what will it cost? One billion dollars, at least, and how many lives we do not know; and it will not solve the problem. What is the next step? Croatia gets more involved, Serbia gets more involved, the Russians get more involved, Hungary gets involved, Greece and Turkey get involved. I stood on the spot where World War I started. I looked out and thought to myself, how could this have happened, that this incident where the Archduke Ferdinand was killed started World War I? We are, in effect, starting the possibility of a wider war with much, much more loss of American lives. The President changed his policy dramatically. He now has got the key to eliminating the dual key of bombing. The military asks military-to-military. Second, the hostage situation is eliminated. They will not stop the bombing because of hostages. Instead of pinprick bombing, there will be massive bombing. That is a big difference. That will make a difference. There is no one who knows better than I do how much air power means in an operation, especially in the short term. When we go in and drop bombs, we will usually drive off any enemy. We are facing a major decision, one of the most important decisions that Congress will face. I would urge Members not to lift the embargo, because they are in fact declaring war, and they are endangering American lives.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] just said about the Reagan administration and the support. Many of us Democrats supported the Reagan administration's foreign policy, and we felt very strongly about it, and there were very few of us. I supported President Bush very strongly when he went into Saudi Arabia and when he defeated the Iraqis in the desert. This policy, though, of lifting the embargo looks like to me we are inviting a defeat, we are inviting a Dien Bien Phu, in the United States. If we lift the embargo, what we are saying to our allies is, ``You're going to have to get out because they have said they are going to get out.'' We have committed ourselves to send in 25,000 American troops on the ground to get to help them out. Now I was just 2 weeks ago over in Split, in Split, a very inadequate port facility that takes one ship a day, that takes one C-5 at a time. The roads from Split to Sarajevo are very narrow with 10-ton bridges. None of the heavy equipment could get through this very narrow winding road. The military situation in the wintertime is impossible. Air power is not near as effective. So we are inviting a defeat. We are inviting, we are saying, ``All right; we're going to lift the embargo, and the results of that are the French and British pull out, the United States is going to deploy troops into Bosnia to withdraw and actually face a defeat.'' So the vote we are casting is actually to defeat the U.S. forces or to defeat the United Nations. The policy change that has been made is a key factor here. The President has said, well, the dual authority for bombing is gone. We now have military-to-military to be able to using bombing in order to reinforce the people on the ground. That is important. This a key. We no longer are going to be concerned about it; we are no longer going to stop fighting because of hostages. That is obviously an important change in policy. In the United States, we will use massive air power in order to stop the Serb aggression around the enclaves, and negotiation is going forward. For us to lift the embargo sends exactly the wrong signal. There is no worse signal we could send because the French and the British would immediately withdraw, and I say to the Members of Congress, ``This vote is actually participating in voting for the authorization of going to war because it will be essential that we go in to help rescue the French and British. They are on the ground, and we have committed ourself. The American President has committed our prestige and the power of the United States to help the British and the French withdraw.'' And the physical conditions of just getting in; let us talk about just getting into Sarajevo and how long it will take. It took us 40 days to get a light helicopter division into Saudi Arabia with the most modern port facilities, the most modern airport facilities in the world. Here we have inadequate port facilities, with mountainous roads, with impossible terrain, within 40 to 60 days of having all kinds of bad weather. Now I participated in the fighting in Vietnam. I was wounded twice. I know the advantage of closed air support. I know the advantage of having air support when in a tactical situation. That did not win the war. We had 450,000 American troops on the ground, and that did not win the war. If we were to withdraw the troops from Bosnia, and try to lift the embargo, and try to force-feed the Bosnian troops--we tried to train the Vietnamese, we tried for years to train the Vietnamese. They do not have the long-term training of officers. It takes 10 years to train a staff sergeant, takes 15 years to train an officer in the American military, 20 years to train a battalion commander, and we are saying in a few weeks we can train the Bosnians to use heavy equipment. We can train them to use individual pieces of equipment, but we cannot train them to use a coordinated attack. We had trouble with our guard units, training them in 60 days, and they were already well trained, and many of them experienced in Vietnam. So we are asking for a disaster, and I support this rule, but I ask the Members of Congress to think very seriously and to vote against this lifting the embargo because it will be disastrous to American foreign policy.

Mr. MURTHA

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

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in some detail, and we are going to do everything we can in conference to get this change made. I think the gentleman from Colorado has made a good point to us, and we will certainly do everything in conference that we can to get this worked out.

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

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me speak from a practical standpoint in favor of the Hyde amendment. In the last couple years we have had real problems with peacekeeping, for instance, and I have always felt that the President should get authorization from Congress before be deploys troops in peacekeeping mission. But I separate peacekeeping from war making. And I think there is a distinctive difference, and I think it is very difficult for us to insist on the convoluted war powers requirements for a President to make decision on sending troops into battle. Now, I remember vividly, and Vietnam war hangs over us with all the concerns and problems that we had, but I remember vividly going to meet with President Bush upstairs in the White House. And the thing we discussed it how long would the American public support a war in Saudi Arabia. As we discussed that, there were recommendations that probably the public would support it anywhere from 6 months to the next election. And this all grew out of the hostilities that were throughout the country during the Vietnam war. [[Page H5671]] My prediction was that the public would support this deployment for about 6 months. And after 6 months, if you remember, we started to get requests, or at least in my office I did, we started to get requests from people in my district that were serving overseas in the hardship position that these folks ought to come home. It is never popular to put people in harm's way. Nobody believed that the Congress would pass an authorization to send troops into harm's way. As a matter of fact, I remember after talking to the public at home, I came up and called General Scowcroft, who was the national security advisor at that time, and I said to him, I think the Congress, because the public supports the need for national security and the importance of the Middle East and the energy supply, they will support an authorization to go to war. An awful lot of people did not agree with that. But when the Congress met and debated, one of the finest debates that this Congress has ever been involved in, we did the right thing. By an overwhelming margin in the House we authorized this great Nation to send our young people into harm's way. It worked out fine, and that is the way it should be. We had public support. We called up the Reserves, and we did it the right way. The danger in the War Powers Act in my estimation is by inaction. We can stop the President from making a decision. We should have to take action. It should be hard. No President is going to send troops into harm's way without a national security reason. It is not an easy thing. I supported President Reagan all through the Central American crisis. I supported President Bush in Saudi Arabia. I opposed him in Somalia because I felt Somalia was a mistake and we would not be able to solve it. It was an internal problem. I oppose using ground forces in Bosnia except to extract U.N. forces under NATO. But let me say this: I believe that when the American people elect a President, that President should have the leeway and the right to send people into harm's way with the advice and counsel of the Chiefs of Staff. I do not believe that in an emotional situation the Congress should be able to stop this in any way. I do not think there should be hope that because we have something on paper that the Congress of the United States is going to stop the President from making the right decision. So I support very strongly what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is trying to do in getting rid of this. Now, can we do something in the future? I do not know. But at this time in our history, I think it is up to this Congress to step up and say that it is the President's prerogative, and if we want to take exception to that, we can stop the appropriation funds. So I strongly support and urge the Members of this Congress to vote for the Henry Hyde amendment and to eliminate the War Powers Act.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, one of America's best-loved actors over the last 60 years is Jimmy Stewart. Recipient of the Academy Award for best actor for ``The Philadelphia Story'' in 1940, Jimmy Stewart appeared in more than 80 full-length feature films and numerous television specials. Who can forget his performances in such American film classics as ``It's a Wonderful Life'' and ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''? Although Jimmy Stewart is best recognized for the many film roles he played, too many people forget the role he also played as a fighter pilot in World War II. Less than a year after winning the Academy Award, he was in training in the Army Air Force, and by 1943 he was in command of a squadron in Europe. He returned from World War II a veteran of over 20 combat missions, and he's one of the true American heroes that we honor in 1995, the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of World War II. When he returned from the war, he didn't immediately go to Hollywood; he did what thousands of American soldiers did, and went back to his hometown--in this case, Indiana, PA. Indiana, PA, is the birthplace of Jimmy Stewart, and this western Pennsylvania town is justifiably proud of its native son. To celebrate his 87th birthday on May 20, the James M. Stewart Museum in Indiana will be dedicated. The town is planning a gala celebration, including a dinner, parade, and ribbon-cutting ceremony. The James M. Stewart Museum is bound to be a favorite stop for movie buffs all over the United States. I'd like to salute the folks in Indiana, PA, who have worked tirelessly to put this museum together and make it a place which tells the Jimmy Stewart story. And most of all, I'd like to salute Jimmy Stewart, the actor who has brought us many hours of pleasure in his movie and television roles, the American hero who fought for his country, and the native son of western Pennsylvania who has never forgotten his hometown.

Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, true American heroes hold an honored place in the hearts of all of us who love our Nation. The Congressional Medal of Honor is one of the ways we have chosen to honor their heroes, and it is an award that is only given to those individuals who have exhibited an exceptional amount of courage on behalf of the United States. Lt. Col. Matt Urban is a true American hero and a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. His resume of awards does not stop here, however, as he is recognized as America's most decorated combat soldier. His bravery in numerous battles in World War II is an example of the courage so many American soldiers showed in this monumental struggle. The Uniontown, PA American Legion Post 51 holds an annual Americanism Day each year, and this year's event will take place on May 1. The American Legion has chosen to honor Lt. Col. Matt Urban this year, and he will serve as Grand Marshal of the parade which marks the highlight of this special celebration. I know the American Legion Post 51 is extremely excited to have Lt. Col. Urban as their guest of honor, and as we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the conclusion of World War II, I can't think of a more appropriate guest for this event. I know I join all Americans in saluting Lt. Col. Matt Urban for his courage and devotion to the United States, and I wish the Uniontown American Legion Post 51 all the best in their 40th annual Americanism Day celebration.