[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                              HON. JAY KIM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives
                         Tuesday, June 13, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1530) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for 
     other purposes:

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman amendment 
which modifies section 563 of the pending bill regarding the 
determination of whereabouts and status of missing persons.
  First, though, I want to take a moment to recognize the unselfish 
support and dedication our colleague Ben Gilman, the chairman of the 
International Relations Committee, has given to trying to help realize 
the fullest possible accounting of American POW/MIA's. Since coming to 
Congress in 1973, Ben Gilman has been a responsible voice in protecting 
the rights of the families and trying to find answers to the questions 
about the fates of their missing loved ones. I think we all owe a debt 
of gratitude to Chairman Gilman for his never-ending service and 
commitment to this most complex and frustrating of issues.
  Section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act would require 
the Secretary of Defense to centralize the oversight and policy 
responsibility for accounting for missing personnel. It also codifies 
and standardizes the procedures for accounting for members of the Armed 
Forces or civilian employees of the Defense Department who become 
missing as a result of military operations.
  The Gilman amendment further refines and improves these new 
procedures:
  First, it requires that the State Department, the Transportation 
Department, and the Central
 Intelligence Agency and other relevant agencies appoint an officer 
responsible for handling missing person issues. Among the 2,204 
Americans still missing and unaccounted for from the Vietnam war are 
civilians associated with the State Department and Coast Guard 
personnel.

  Second, it directs the Defense Department office to coordinate with 
these other agencies thereby ensuring a common, focused approach to 
achieving the fullest possible accounting of missing Americans.
  Third, it changes from 24 hours to 30 days the time allotted to a 
family member in responding to the Defense Department board of inquiry.
  Fourth, it extends the time after which the Defense Department can 
terminate the board after first notice of a disappearance from 20 to 30 
years. Many of the still unresolved POW/MIA cases from the Vietnam war 
date back to a loss over 20 years ago.
  Fifth, it provides the family of the missing American the right of 
judicial review for any finding of death made by the board.
  I support this effort to improve the system of determining the status 
of missing Americans. While some may claim the system does not need 
fixing, the last 22 years of very frustrating experiences by the 
families of missing Americans underscores to me the need for statutory 
reforms. I think this measure goes a long way in implementing the kinds 
of changes these trying experiences have identified.
  However, that is not to say that section 536, even with the 
improvements offered by the Gilman amendment, is perfect. I have 
reviewed the concerns raised by the Defense Department about these 
proposed changes and I believe further refinements are in order to 
address some of these issues.
  Furthermore, I am concerned about the lack of definitive language 
regarding the rights of the primary next of kin, especially with regard 
to other family members. While I understand the interest in expanding 
the decision-making process to include other family members, I am aware 
of the complications this can present to both the Government and the 
families themselves. The present set of rights and responsibilities 
accorded to the primary next of kin should be maintained. This 
relationship in its current form appears to have worked well. In fact, 
I believe that some of the overall concerns raised by the Defense 
Department could be mitigated by clearing defining the principal role 
of the primary next of kin.
  I am sure that these further improvements can be made during 
consideration of this issue by the other body or during the House-
Senate conference on the fiscal year 1996 National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Hopefully, with more comprehensive accounting from Vietnam and these 
new procedures for determining the whereabouts and status of missing 
personnel, we will be able to bring a close to this final chapter of 
the Vietnam war.


                          ____________________