[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 89 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4155-H4166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 169 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1119.

                              {time}  1333


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, Amendment No. 15 printed in Part 2 of House Report 105-137, as 
modified by section 8(b) of House Resolution 169, by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, it is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 1 in part 2 of House Report 105-137.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bachus

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2 Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bachus:
       At the end of title X (page 360, after line 8), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.  . PROHIBITION OF PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY HONORS UPON 
                   DEATH OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF CAPITAL CRIMES.

       (a) Military Funerals.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Transportation, with respect to the Coast Guard 
     when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not 
     provide military honors at the funeral of a person who has 
     been convicted of a crime under State or Federal law for 
     which death is a possible punishment and for which the person 
     was sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole.
       (b) Applicability of Section.--This section applies without 
     regard to any other provision of law relating to funeral or 
     burial benefits.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bachus] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple amendment. It simply states 
that someone convicted of a crime and sentenced to death or life 
imprisonment shall not be entitled to a full honors funeral in one of 
our national cemeteries.
  In considering this amendment, I think we all need to do some serious 
soul searching. Who is in entitled to a hero's funeral? I think when we 
ask ourselves, who are our heroes, in this country, who do we honor? I 
think we can go back to the summer of 1994 to tell us that we may be 
doing the wrong thing, we may have confused celebrities with heroes, we 
may have confused notoriety with character.
  In 1994, on a Sunday afternoon, we will recall that there was a 
famous chase on an L.A. freeway and, in that chase, fully three-
quarters of the news media in the country was focused on it. As almost 
what appeared to be half of the L.A. police force chased someone down 
that highway, America was transformed on to that event.
  At the same time, on our other shore, here in Washington, there was 
another ceremony going on at the very same time. At the White House, 
two young Army Rangers were being awarded the Medal of Honor. It was a 
posthumous ceremony. They had given their lives in Somalia. When they 
left the protection of their unit and tried to save some of their 
fellow soldiers, they were killed. And they and their families were at 
the White House receiving the Medal of Honor. There was no live TV 
coverage. There was no mention of it in my hometown paper, which was 
full of talk about what happened on that L.A. freeway.
  We really have to ask ourselves, who in our country are our heroes? 
Some people are saying that the fact that Timothy McVeigh did what he 
did in Oklahoma City, that he is still a military hero. I would remind 
my colleagues that our country's oldest military force is our National 
Guard; and when it was formed, the word was said that to be a good 
soldier, one had to be a good citizen, too; to fight for the country, 
you had to do it both at home and abroad.
  This amendment is not offered out of disrespect for any one person. 
It is offered out of respect, respect for the victims of those that we 
would honor in our cemeteries with a 21- or 12-gun salute, a chaplain, 
requiring military honor guard to be present. This amendment, the 
catalyst, is not Oklahoma City. The catalyst was Mobile, AL, where last 
week a man named Henry Francis Hayes was given a full military honor 
funeral and laid to rest at the Mobile National Cemetery, over the 
protest of several of the people serving in the unit who attended.
  Henry Francis Hayes was not a hero. He was electrocuted in Alabama on 
June 7 for the murder of a young black man, 19 years old, in Mobile, 
AL, who Henry Francis Hayes and other Ku Klux Klanners pulled from the 
safety of his family, took him to another county, beat him half to 
death with sticks, slit his throat, brought him back to Mobile County, 
put a hangman's noose around his neck, and hung him.
  A jury in the State of Alabama said that he was not a hero. But last 
week, in a military ceremony, we said to our children and 
grandchildren, we are overlooking this. This is a good soldier. This is 
a hero. And he got a hero's funeral, and he is buried in the Mobile 
cemetery.
  I will simply say, who is entitled to a hero's funeral? Who are our 
heroes?
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of Mr. 
Bachus' timely amendment that would not allow individuals who commit 
capital crimes where the death penalty is an option to be eligible for 
a full military burial.
  Regardless of whether you support or oppose the death penalty, it is 
an affront that an individual who, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, has 
been convicted of murdering fellow Americans, to receive the same 
honors to which our veterans are entitled. Active members of the 
military and veterans embody the very virtues we as Americans cherish. 
They are the guardians of liberty and the caretakers of the freedoms we 
all hold dear. Convicted murderers do not represent these ideals and 
should not be honored for their service to our Nation.
  Currently, there are restrictions regarding what veterans are 
eligible for military burials. Anybody convicted of treason, espionage, 
mutiny, or assisting an enemy of the United States cannot request a 
military burial. It is morally right to add to this list those who have 
wantonly disregarded the sanctity of human

[[Page H4156]]

life and have been convicted of a capital crime by a jury of their 
peers. Anything less would be a slap in the face of our veterans.
  Last week, I supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit 
physical desecration of the U.S. flag. This week, I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment which would prohibit the adornment of the 
flag on individuals who have rejected the very ideals which America 
represents.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 105-137.


                Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2 Amendment numbered 34 offered by Mr. Skeleton:
       At the end of title V (page 204, after line 16), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 572. EXPANSION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES RESULTING IN 
                   FORFEITURE OF VETERANS BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6105(b) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       A by inserting ``32, 37, 81, 175,'' before ``792,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``831, 842(m), 842(n), 844(c), 844(f), 
     844(i), 930(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1363, 1366, 
     1751, 1992, 2152, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332c, 
     2339A, 2339B, 2340A,'' after ``798,'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking out ``and 226'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``226, and 236'';
       (B) by striking out ``and 2276'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``2276, and 2284''; and
       (C) by striking out ``and'' at the end;
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) sections 46502 and 60123(b) of title 49; and''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The second sentence of 
     section 6105(c) of such title is amended by striking out ``or 
     (4)'' and inserting in lieu thereof, ``(4), or (5)''.
       (2) The heading for such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 6105. Forfeiture: subversive activities; terrorist 
       activities; other criminal activities''.

       (3) The item relating to section 6105 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 61 of that title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``6105. Forfeiture: subversive activities; terrorist activities; other 
              criminal activities.''.

       (c) Applicability.--The amendment made to section 6105 of 
     title 38, United States Code, by subsection (a) shall apply 
     to any person convicted under a provision of law added to 
     such section by such amendments after December 31, 1996.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skeleton] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment at this time, which changes the 
law as it relates to veterans and veterans' burials. It is like the 
amendment that was passed in the Senate at the behest of Senator 
Torricelli, the gentleman from New Jersey.
  As my colleagues know, the statute of our law state that certain 
veterans are prohibited from being buried in national cemeteries as a 
result of certain acts and convictions under the criminal law. The 
statute includes a good number of crimes that prohibit some veterans 
from being so interned.
  However, the crimes of which Timothy McVeigh was convicted in Denver, 
CO, just a few days ago, the destruction of property and the killing of 
innocent people by mass destruction, and also the intentional killing 
of Federal law enforcement officers, is not included in that list. And 
that is the purpose of my amendment.
  It has come to my attention, however, Mr. Chairman, that subsequent 
to my offering this amendment and putting it in line to be taken up at 
this time, there are some veterans organizations that are concerned. 
And the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Veteran' 
Affairs, Mr. Stump, and I have conferred about this; and as my 
colleagues know, this particular amendment is outside the immediate 
scope of the Department of Defense bill, however, would be and has been 
authorized by the Committee on Rules to be taken up today.
  However, in deference to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], 
because there are to be hearings on this in an attempt to make sure 
that the door is battened down fully and correctly on this issue, I 
will in a moment ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition not because I am in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment but merely to express my thanks to him for 
withdrawing his amendment or he is about to.
  In the rush to deal with the McVeigh issue, everyone drafted a bill 
very rapidly and all fell short. The bill that was passed out of the 
Senate, for instance, will not prevent McVeigh from being buried in the 
common area in Arlington National Cemetery. There are other factors 
that are involved in this issue. For instance, do we really want to 
penalize a widow or dependent children because of what that veteran may 
or may not have done? If the man had committed suicide before he was 
convicted, this would not cover the situation.
  In an effort to try to put all these ideas together, I asked everyone 
to withdraw their amendments, my good friend the gentleman from 
Missouri did this, and we will be ready to draw up a bill in the next 
day or so, have hearings on it and proceed as rapidly and expeditiously 
as possible.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUMP. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman on this. I 
think that this is something that the Congress needs to deal with, but 
the gentleman from Arizona, chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, I think makes a very valid point. We want to do this carefully 
and properly. I urge him to keep up his good work and look forward to 
voting in favor of his amendment when it comes to the floor.
  Mr. STUMP. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time, realizing that we all seem 
to be singing from the same sheet of music and unanimous in our attempt 
to make this law clear and understandable, I do ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words as I understand under the rule whenever the chairman of the 
committee moves to strike the requisite number of words, the member 
from the other side automatically, if he chooses to claim it, has 5 
minutes, and I would like to claim those 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman that that is 
when an amendment is under consideration, and technically the gentleman 
from Arizona was using the 5 minutes allocated to him in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Then I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I would ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to concur in the 
remarks of my distinguished colleague from Arizona and in the remarks 
of my distinguished colleague from Washington and

[[Page H4157]]

compliment the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for withdrawing 
his amendment. There clearly were some unintended consequences to the 
gentleman's amendment, and I think withdrawing is the better part of 
valor at this point.
  Second, I would like to take this opportunity just to make an 
observation and a comment, Mr. Chairman. This is a terrible way to do 
business. It was precisely for this reason that this gentleman rose on 
Friday last to suggest that Monday is an inappropriate time to debate a 
bill totaling $263 billion with enormous long-term policy implications. 
To sit here in a virtually empty Chamber where we are dealing with 
substantive matters on Monday when Members are traveling from all over 
the country trying to get back here is simply an inappropriate way to 
do business.
  I know the gentleman from Arizona and I will continue to do our best 
to try to move the process forward, but I just want the record to show 
that one more time for the purposes of emphasis, Mr. Chairman, that I 
think that this is a wholly inappropriate way to do business, and at 
one level it is rather embarrassing as a member of this body who 
certainly came here to be substantive and deliberative and who wants to 
engage at a serious level that there is something fatally flawed about 
this process.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is 
now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in part 1 of House 
Report 105-137.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Talent

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Talent:
       Strike out section 568 (page 192, line 9, through page 201, 
     line 9) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 568. IMPROVEMENT OF MISSING PERSONS AUTHORITIES 
                   APPLICABLE TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Applicability to Department of Defense Civilian 
     Employees and Contractor Employees.--(1) Section 1501 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(c) Covered Persons.--Section 1502 of this title applies 
     in the case of the following persons:
       ``(1) Any member of the armed forces on active duty who 
     becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action, 
     or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary 
     absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is 
     undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
       ``(2)(A) Any other person who is a citizen of the United 
     States and is described in subparagraph (B) who serves with 
     or accompanies the armed forces in the field under orders and 
     becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action, 
     or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary 
     absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is 
     undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
       ``(B) A person described in this subparagraph is any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) A civilian officer or employee of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(ii) An employee of a contractor of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(iii) An employee of a United States firm licensed by the 
     United States under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2778) to perform duties under contract with a 
     foreign government involving military training of the 
     military forces of that government in accordance with 
     policies of the Department of Defense.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Secretary Concerned.--In this chapter, the term 
     `Secretary concerned' includes--
       ``(1) in the case of a person covered by clause (i) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of the military 
     department or head of the element of the Department of 
     Defense employing the employee;
       ``(2) in the case of a person covered by clause (ii) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of the military 
     department or head of the element of the Department of 
     Defense contracting with the contractor; and
       ``(3) in the case of a person covered by clause (iii) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of Defense.''.
       (2) Section 1503(c) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``one military 
     officer'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``one individual 
     described in paragraph (2)'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) An individual referred to in paragraph (1) is the 
     following:
       ``(A) A military officer, in the case of an inquiry with 
     respect to a member of the armed forces.
       ``(B) A civilian, in the case of an inquiry with respect to 
     a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or of a 
     contractor of the Department of Defense.''.
       (3) Section 1504(d) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``who are'' and all 
     that follows in that paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of a board that will inquire into the 
     whereabouts and status of one or more members of the armed 
     forces (and no civilians described in subparagraph (B)), the 
     board shall be composed of officers having the grade of major 
     or lieutenant commander or above.
       ``(B) In the case of a board that will inquire into the 
     whereabouts and status of one or more civilian employees of 
     the Department of Defense or contractors of the Department of 
     Defense (and no members of the armed forces), the board shall 
     be composed of--
       ``(i) not less than three employees of the Department of 
     Defense whose rate of annual pay is equal to or greater than 
     the rate of annual pay payable for grade GS-13 of the General 
     Schedule under section 5332 of title 5; and
       ``(ii) such members of the armed forces as the Secretary 
     considers advisable.
       ``(C) In the case of a board that will inquire into the 
     whereabouts and status of both one or more members of the 
     armed forces and one or more civilians described in 
     subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) the board shall include at least one officer 
     described in subparagraph (A) and at least one employee of 
     the Department of Defense described in subparagraph (B)(i); 
     and
       ``(ii) the ratio of such officers to such employees on the 
     board shall be roughly proportional to the ratio of the 
     number of members of the armed forces who are subjects of the 
     board's inquiry to the number of civilians who are subjects 
     of the board's inquiry.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``section 
     1503(c)(3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 
     1503(c)(4)''.
       (4) Paragraph (1) of section 1513 of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) The term `missing person' means--
       ``(A) a member of the armed forces on active duty who is in 
     a missing status; or
       ``(B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or 
     an employee of a contractor of the Department of Defense who 
     serves with or accompanies the armed forces in the field 
     under orders and who is in a missing status.

     Such term includes an unaccounted for person described in 
     section 1509(b) of this title, under the circumstances 
     specified in the last sentence of section 1509(a) of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Report on Preliminary Assessment of Status.--(1) 
     Section 1502 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) by striking out ``10 days'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``48 hours''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``Secretary concerned'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``theater component commander with 
     jurisdiction over the missing person'';
       (B) in subsection (a), as amended by subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (ii) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Com- 
     mander.--''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) However, if the commander determines that operational 
     conditions resulting from hostile action or combat constitute 
     an emergency that prevents timely reporting under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the initial report should be made as soon as 
     possible, but in no case later than ten days after the date 
     on which the commander receives such information under 
     paragraph (1).'';
       (C) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (D) by inserting after subsection (a), as amended by 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the following new subsection (b):
       ``(b) Transmission Through Theater Component Commander.--
     Upon reviewing a report under subsection (a) recommending 
     that a person be placed in a missing status, the theater 
     component commander shall ensure that all necessary actions 
     are being taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, 
     to resolve the status of the missing person. Not later than 
     14 days after receiving the report, the theater component 
     commander shall forward the report to the Secretary of 
     Defense or the Secretary concerned in accordance with 
     procedures prescribed under section 1501(b) of this title. 
     The theater component commander shall include with such 
     report a certification that all necessary actions are being 
     taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, to resolve 
     the status of the missing person.''; and
       (E) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     theater component commander through whom the report with 
     respect to the missing person is transmitted under subsection 
     (b) shall ensure that all pertinent information relating to 
     the whereabouts and status of the missing person that results 
     from the preliminary assessment or from actions taken to 
     locate the

[[Page H4158]]

     person is properly safeguarded to avoid loss, damage, or 
     modification.''.
       (2) Section 1503(a) of such title is amended by striking 
     out ``section 1502(a)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 1502(b)''.
       (3) Section 1504 of such title is amended by striking out 
     ``section 1502(a)(2)'' in subsections (a), (b), and (e)(1) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 1502(a)''.
       (4) Section 1513 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) The term `theater component commander' means, with 
     respect to any of the combatant commands, an officer of any 
     of the armed forces who (A) is commander of all forces of 
     that armed force assigned to that combatant command, and (B) 
     is directly subordinate to the commander of the combatant 
     command.''.
       (c) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1505 of such title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--(1) In the case of 
     a missing person who was last known to be alive or who was 
     last suspected of being alive, the Secretary shall appoint a 
     board to conduct an inquiry with respect to a person under 
     this subsection--
       ``(A) on or about three years after the date of the initial 
     report of the disappearance of the person under section 
     1502(a) of this title; and
       ``(B) not later than every three years thereafter.
       ``(2) In addition to appointment of boards under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall appoint a board to conduct an 
     inquiry with respect to a missing person under this 
     subsection upon receipt of information that could result in a 
     change of status of the missing person. When the Secretary 
     appoints a board under this paragraph, the time for 
     subsequent appointments of a board under paragraph (1)(B) 
     shall be determined from the date of the receipt of such 
     information.
       ``(3) The Secretary is not required to appoint a board 
     under paragraph (1) with respect to the disappearance of any 
     person--
       ``(A) more than 30 years after the initial report of the 
     disappearance of the missing person required by section 
     1502(a) of this title; or
       ``(B) if, before the end of such 30-year period, the 
     missing person is accounted for.''.
       (d) Information To Accompany Recommendation of Status of 
     Death.--Section 1507(b) of such title is amended adding at 
     the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) A description of the location of the body, if 
     recovered.
       ``(4) If the body has been recovered and is not 
     identifiable through visual means, a certification by a 
     practitioner of an appropriate forensic science that the body 
     recovered is that of the missing person.''.
       (e) Missing Person's Counsel.--(1) Sections 1503(f)(1) and 
     1504(f)(1) of such title are amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The identity of counsel appointed under this 
     paragraph for a missing person shall be made known to the 
     missing person's primary next of kin and any other previously 
     designated person of the person.''.
       (2) Section 1503(f)(4) of such title is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``The primary next of kin of a 
     missing person and any other previously designated person of 
     the missing person shall have the right to submit information 
     to the missing person's counsel relative to the disappearance 
     or status of the missing person.''.
       (3) Section 1505(c)(1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary concerned shall appoint counsel to 
     represent any such missing person to whom such information 
     may be related. The appointment shall be in the same manner, 
     and subject to the same provisions, as an appointment under 
     section 1504(f)(1) of this title.''.
       (f) Scope of Preenactment Review.--(1) Section 1509 of such 
     title is amended by striking out in subsection (a) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(a) Review of Status.--(1) If new information is found or 
     received that may be related to one or more unaccounted for 
     persons described in subsection (b) (whether or not such 
     information specifically relates (or may specifically relate) 
     to any particular such unaccounted for person), that 
     information shall be provided to the Secretary of Defense. 
     Upon receipt of such information, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the information is treated under paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     of section 1505(c) of this title and under section 1505(d) of 
     this title in the same manner as information received under 
     paragraph (1) of section 1505(c) of this title. For purposes 
     of the applicability of other provisions of this chapter in 
     such a case, each such unaccounted for person to whom the new 
     information may be related shall be considered to be a 
     missing person.
       ``(2) The Secretary concerned shall appoint counsel to 
     represent each such unaccounted for person to whom the new 
     information may be related. The appointment shall be in the 
     same manner, and subject to the same provisions, as an 
     appointment under section 1504(f)(1) of this title.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, new information is 
     information that--
       ``(A) is found or received after the date of the enactment 
     of the the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1998 by a United States intelligence agency, by a Department 
     of Defense agency, or by a person specified in section 
     1504(g) of this title; or
       ``(B) is identified after the date of the enactment of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 in 
     records of the United States as information that could be 
     relevant to the case of one or more unaccounted for persons 
     described in subsection (b).''.
       (2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Establishment of Personnel Files for Korean Conflict 
     Cases.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that a 
     personnel file is established for each unaccounted for person 
     who is described in subsection (b)(1). Each such file shall 
     be handled in accordance with, and subject to the provisions 
     of, section 1506 of this title in the same manner as applies 
     to the file of a missing person.''.
       (g) Withholding of Classified Information.--Section 1506(b) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) If classified information withheld under this 
     subsection refers to one or more unnamed missing persons, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that notice of that withheld 
     information, and notice of the date of the most recent review 
     of the classification of that withheld information, is made 
     reasonably accessible to family members of missing 
     persons.''.
       (h) Withholding of Privileged Information.--Section 1506(d) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking out ``non-derogatory'' both places it 
     appears in the first sentence;
       (B) by inserting ``or about unnamed missing persons'' in 
     the first sentence after ``the debriefing report'';
       (C) by striking out ``the missing person'' in the second 
     sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``each missing person 
     named in the debriefing report''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Any 
     information contained in the extract of the debriefing report 
     that pertains to unnamed missing persons shall be made 
     reasonably accessible to family members of missing 
     persons.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``, or part of a debriefing report,'' 
     after ``a debriefing report''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Whenever the Secretary withholds a debriefing report, or 
     part of a debriefing report, containing information on 
     unnamed missing persons from accessibility to families of 
     missing persons under this section, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that notice that the withheld debriefing report exists 
     is made reasonably accessible to family members of missing 
     persons.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. TALENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce an amendment to 
H.R. 1119 the fiscal year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act. This 
amendment mirrors and expands on the language of H.R. 409, the Missing 
Persons Authorities Improvement Act of 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, last year this body secured a victory for U.S. service 
personnel, their families and the families of POW/MIA's by winning the 
passage of H.R. 945, the Missing Service Personnel Act. That bill 
received unanimous support in the House as part of the defense 
authorization bill for that year.
  The amendment would restore the provisions stricken from the Missing 
Service Personnel Act by a Senate amendment that was offered and passed 
last year. Last year this legislation was introduced as H.R. 4000. It 
received 280 cosponsors and passed unanimously in the House before 
failing to come to the Senate floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I will briefly describe the provisions of the 
amendment. I do not believe that they are controversial. The first 
provision to be restored requires that military commanders report and 
initiate searching for a missing service personnel member within 48 
hours, rather than 10 days as stated in current law, unless prevented 
by combat conditions.
  That bears repeating, Mr. Chairman. The requirement does not apply if 
the local commander is engaged in an ongoing combat situation, 
especially one on a large scale. But it is entirely appropriate for 
peacekeeping operations. Captain O'Grady, for example, was missing for 
6 days before being found. Had he not been reported missing in a timely 
fashion, his story would surely have had a different outcome.
  The second provision in the amendment covers civilian employees of 
the

[[Page H4159]]

Defense Department and Defense Department civilian contractors in the 
same way that active duty personnel are covered. These civilians are in 
the field under orders to assist our military, Mr. Chairman. They 
deserve the same protections afforded our men and women in uniform. 
Moreover, with the downsizing of our Armed Forces that has been 
occurring during the post-cold-war period, the Department of Defense 
has been increasingly turning to civilian contractors for technical 
support with equipment during operations in the field.
  These contract employees face the same conditions in the front lines 
as our men and women in uniform. Since they are assuming the same 
risks, it only makes sense that they are allowed the knowledge that the 
Pentagon places the same priority on their recovery as it does for 
military personnel.
  The third key provision in the amendment states that if a body is 
recovered and cannot be identified by visual means, a certification by 
a credible forensic authority has to be made before the DPMO can 
certify that the person is dead. This provision is simple common sense. 
There have been too many cases where misidentification of remains has 
caused undue trauma for families.
  The last provision I want to mention specifically, Mr. Chairman, may 
be the most important of all. The amendment contains provisions 
relating to pre-enactment cases, cases that occurred before the 
enactment of the Missing Service Personnel Act in 1995. These are 
primarily from the Korean and the Vietnam wars. Should any new 
information be found on such a case and be presented to the Department 
of Defense, the MIA in question must have counsel present at any 
hearing called to decide on the convening of a review board.
  Furthermore, such counsel must be revealed to the MIA's family which 
can then provide the counsel with additional information as warranted. 
Finally, the DOD should treat any new information from pre-enactment 
cases in the same manner as for future cases that may occur. More 
importantly, the law requires that personnel files be established for 
those servicemen last known alive in Korea.
  In recent years, Mr. Chairman, information has been declassified 
which revealed that the United States Government knew that over 900 
soldiers had been left behind in Korea. The United Nations has had a 
similar list available for years, albeit with a much smaller number. 
Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, we need to do everything in our 
power to locate and return these individuals. The establishment of 
personnel files for these cases is a small step in that direction, but 
it does help to organize the information that does exist and begins to 
allow for coordination so that our efforts at personnel recovery are as 
efficient as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not go on about the amendment or about the 
underlying issue. We have a lot of other business to do today. I just 
want to urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting the amendment 
to this year's defense authorization bill and thus show support for 
MIA's, POW's, their families and for the Missing Persons Authorities 
Improvement Act of 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman amendment. The Missing 
Persons Act, as originally signed into law by the President, had two 
major objectives: First to ensure that any member of the Armed Forces, 
and any Department of Defense civilian employee or contractor employee 
who serves with or accompanies the Armed Forces in the field under 
orders, who becomes a prisoner of war or missing is ultimately 
accounted for by the United States, and, second, as a general rule, 
such missing persons are not declared dead solely because of the 
passage of time.
  The Gilman amendment would ensure that the Missing Persons Act is 
restored to those objectives. The need for the amendment is supported 
by an extensive hearing record. In eight hearings conducted in the last 
2 years, numerous witnesses testified in support of the need to improve 
the current process for accounting for POW/MIA's.
  The amendment also makes changes to law that make sense in the post-
cold-war era. For example, DOD civilians and contractors, as well as 
other nonmilitary personnel like those United States citizens now in 
Bosnia are playing an ever increasing role in the support of United 
States military operations. When deployed in support of the U.S. 
military, these people are as much at risk to capture and hostile 
action as military personnel. They ought to have the same protections 
under the law.
  As many of my colleagues know, the United States is in a belated 
effort to fully account for thousands of POW/MIA's throughout the cold 
war era. This amendment would give emphasis and direction to that long 
needed effort. In addition, the amendment would also provide family 
members and others greater access to information about missing persons. 
Finally, the amendment unequivocally makes a clear and strong 
congressional commitment to achieving the fullest possible accounting 
for persons missing as a result of hostile action today and in the 
future.
  I extend a great compliment to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent] for his leadership on this issue and that of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman]. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Gilman amendment.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying this is an issue that we have 
been working on on the House side on a bipartisan basis for a number of 
years. We have made real progress in trying to make sure that what has 
happened in the past to many of our men who have been lost overseas and 
never returned, never came home, does not happen again. I want to thank 
and congratulate the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on National 
Security, for his comments and for his very hard work and his 
leadership in this.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman for his 
leadership on this issue. I rise in very strong support of his 
amendment.
  Mr. TALENT. I am happy to hear that and I thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment to H.R. 1119, the Fiscal year 1998 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I was unavoidably detained while returning to 
Washington from my district, and I thank the gentleman from Missouri, 
[Mr. Talent] for offering this amendment in my absence. This amendment 
parallels and broadens the language of H.R. 409, the Missing Persons 
Authorities Improvement Act of 1997.
  Early last year, the Congress secured a victory for U.S. Service 
Personnel, their families, and the families of POW/MIA's by passing 
H.R. 945, the Missing Service Personnel Act.
  H.R. 945 received unanimous support in the House as part of the 
Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1996.
  When they were unable to prevent the passage of H.R. 945, the 
opponents of the legislation attached a Senate amendment to the 1997 
Defense Authorization Conference Report. This amendment removed several 
key provisions of the Missing Service Personnel Act.
  This amendment being offered today would restore those provisions 
deleted from the Missing Service Personnel Act by that Senate 
amendment. In the closing days of the 104th Congress, this legislation 
was introduced as H.R. 4000. That bill received 280 cosponsors and 
passed unanimously in the House before being blocked in the Senate.
  The first provision being restored requires that military commanders 
report and initiate searching for a missing service personnel member 
within 48 hours, rather than 10 days as stated in current law, unless 
prevented by combat conditions.
  Although current regulations require local commanders to report any 
individual missing for more than 24 hours, individuals often fall 
through the cracks, especially during military operations.
  It should be noted that this requirement does not apply during 
ongoing combat situations. However, it's application and enforcement 
are entirely appropriate for peacekeeping operations. If my colleagues 
would recall Captain O'Grady was missing for 6 days before being 
rescued. Had he not been reported missing for 10 days, it is highly 
doubtful that he would have been rescued alive.
  The second provision in this Amendment covers civilians employees of 
the Defense Department and Defense Department civilian

[[Page H4160]]

contractors. These civilians are in the field under orders to assist 
our military, and they have earned the same protections afforded our 
men and women in uniform.
  Moreover, with the downsizing of our Armed Forces that has been 
occurring since the end of the cold war, the DOD has been increasingly 
turning to civilian contractors for technical support with equipment 
during operations in the field.
  These contract employees are facing the same conditions on the front 
lines as our men and women in uniform. Since they are assuming the same 
risks, it only makes sense that they are allowed the knowledge that the 
Pentagon places the same priority on their recovery as it does for 
military personnel.
  The third provision to be restored by this Amendment states that if a 
body were recovered and could not be identified by visual means, that a 
certification by a credible forensic authority must be made.
  This provisions is simply common sense. There have been too many 
cases where misidentification of remains has caused undue trauma for 
families.
  Finally, this amendment would restore the provision which would 
impose criminal penalties for those Government officials who knowingly 
and willfully withhold information related to the disappearance, 
whereabouts and status of a missing person.
  Prompt and proper notification of any new information is essential to 
the successful investigation of each POW/MIA case. This cannot be 
achieved if individuals deliberately seek to derail the process.
  it should be noted that these penalties would only apply to future 
cases, and then only if the individual in question deliberately and 
willingly withheld such information. It is not our intent to penalize 
someone for any honest mistake or simple oversight. At the same time, 
and clear, deliberate obstruction should be punished.
  This amendment also contains provisions relating to preenactment 
cases, those from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Should any new 
information be found on such a case, and is presented to the Secretary 
of Defense, the MIA family in question must have counsel present at any 
hearing called to decide on the conveying of a review board.
  Furthermore, such counsel must be revealed to the MIA's family, which 
can then provide the counsel with additional information as warranted. 
Finally, the DOD should treat any new information from preenactment 
cases in the same manner as for future cases that may occur.
  More importantly, the law requires that personnel files be 
established for those servicemen last known alive in Korea.
  In recent years, information has been declassified which revealed 
that the U.S. Government knew that over 900 soldiers had been left 
behind in Korea, who were last known to be alive. The United Nations 
has had a similar list available for years, albeit with a much smaller 
number.
  I realize that many of these individual POW's are no longer alive, 
and that it will probably be impossible to ever definitely prove when 
how these men died. The North Koreans were a brutal group of captors 
with an abysmal record of prisoner treatment. Yet there exists the 
possibility that some of these men may still be alive.
  If that is the case, we need to do everything in our power to locate 
and return these individuals. While the establishment of personnel 
files for these cases is a small step in this direction, it does help 
to organize the morass of information that exists.
  More importantly it begins to allow for coordination so that our 
efforts at personnel recovery are as effective as possible.
  The opponents of the Missing Service Personnel Act, including many in 
the Pentagon, believes that these requirements would be overburdensome 
and inhibit America's war fighting abilities. I do not believe that 
this is a credible argument. Rather than create more red tape I believe 
that provisions will help streamline the bureaucracy and improve the 
investigation process.
  Recordingly, I urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting this 
amendment to the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act, 
and thus show your support for the Missing Persons Authorities 
Improvement Act of 1997.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in part 1 of 
House Report 105-137.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Buyer

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Buyer:
       At the end of title VII (page 288, after line 21), insert 
     the following new subtitle:
                    Subtitle F--Persian Gulf Illness

     SEC. 751. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``Gulf War illness'' means any one of the 
     complex of illnesses and symptoms that might have been 
     contracted by members of the Armed Forces as a result of 
     service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during 
     the Persian Gulf War.
       (2) The term ``Persian Gulf War'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
       (3) The term ``Persian Gulf veteran'' means an individual 
     who served on active duty in the Armed Forces in the 
     Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf 
     War.
       (4) The term ``contingency operation'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 101(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, and includes a humanitarian operation, peacekeeping 
     operation, or similar operation.

     SEC. 752. PLAN FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR PERSIAN GULF 
                   VETERANS.

       (a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs, acting jointly, shall prepare 
     a plan to provide appropriate health care to Persian Gulf 
     veterans (and their dependents) who suffer from a Gulf War 
     illness.
       (b) Contents of Plan.--In preparing the plan, the 
     Secretaries shall--
       (1) use the presumptions of service connection and illness 
     specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 721(d) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
     (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note) to determine the 
     Persian Gulf veterans (and the dependents of Persian Gulf 
     veterans) who should be covered by the plan;
       (2) consider the need and methods available to provide 
     health care services to Persian Gulf veterans who are no 
     longer on active duty in the Armed Forces, such as Persian 
     Gulf veterans who are members of the reserve components and 
     Persian Gulf veterans who have been separated from the Armed 
     Forces; and
       (3) estimate the costs to the Government to provide full or 
     partial health care services under the plan to covered 
     Persian Gulf veterans (and their covered dependents).
       (c) Follow-up Treatment.--The plan required by subsection 
     (a) shall specifically address the measures to be used to 
     monitor the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of, 
     and patient satisfaction with, health care services provided 
     to Persian Gulf veterans after their initial medical 
     examination as part of registration in the Persian Gulf War 
     Veterans Health Registry or the Comprehensive Clinical 
     Evaluation Program.
       (d) Submission of Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the 
     Secretaries shall submit to Congress the plan required by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 753. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF REVISED DISABILITY 
                   CRITERIA FOR PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARDS.

       Not later than March 1, 1998, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to Congress a study evaluating the revisions made by 
     the Secretary of Defense to the criteria used by Physical 
     Evaluation Boards to set disability ratings for members of 
     the Armed Forces who are no longer medically qualified for 
     continuation on active duty so as to ensure accurate 
     disability ratings related to a diagnosis of a Persian Gulf 
     illness. Such revisions were required by section 721(e) of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
     (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note).

     SEC. 754. IMPROVED MEDICAL TRACKING SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS 
                   DEPLOYED OVERSEAS IN CONTINGENCY OR COMBAT 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) System Required.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1074d the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1074e. Medical tracking system for members deployed 
       overseas

       ``(a) System Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish a system to assess the medical condition of members 
     of the armed forces (including members of the reserve 
     components) who are deployed outside the United States or its 
     territories or possessions as part of a contingency operation 
     (including a humanitarian operation, peacekeeping operation, 
     or similar operation) or combat operation.
       ``(b) Elements of System.--The system shall include the use 
     of predeployment medical examinations and postdeployment 
     medical examinations (including an assessment of mental 
     health and the drawing of blood samples) to accurately record 
     the medical condition of members before their deployment and 
     any changes in their medical condition during the course of 
     their deployment. The postdeployment examination shall be 
     conducted when the member is redeployed or

[[Page H4161]]

     otherwise leaves an area in which the system is in operation 
     (or as soon as possible thereafter).
       ``(c) Recordkeeping.--The results of all medical 
     examinations conducted under the system, records of all 
     health care services (including immunizations) received by 
     members described in subsection (a) in anticipation of their 
     deployment or during the course of their deployment, and 
     records of events occurring in the deployment area that may 
     affect the health of such members shall be retained and 
     maintained in a centralized location to improve future access 
     to the records.
       ``(d) Quality Assurance.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish a quality assurance program to evaluate the success 
     of the system in ensuring that members described in 
     subsection (a) receive predeployment medical examinations and 
     postdeployment medical examinations and that the 
     recordkeeping requirements are met.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1074d the following new item:

``1074e. Medical tracking system for members deployed overseas.''.

     SEC. 755. REPORT ON PLANS TO TRACK LOCATION OF MEMBERS IN A 
                   THEATER OF OPERATIONS.

       Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing a plan for 
     collecting and maintaining information regarding the daily 
     location of units of the Armed Forces, and to the extent 
     practicable individual members of such units, serving in a 
     theater of operations during a contingency operation or 
     combat operation.

     SEC. 756. REPORT ON PLANS TO IMPROVE DETECTION AND MONITORING 
                   OF CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND SIMILAR HAZARDS IN 
                   A THEATER OF OPERATIONS.

       Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing a plan regarding 
     the deployment, in a theater of operations during a 
     contingency operation or combat operation, of a specialized 
     unit of the Armed Forces with the capability and expertise to 
     detect and monitor the presence of chemical, biological, and 
     similar hazards to which members of the Armed Forces may be 
     exposed.

     SEC. 757. NOTICE OF USE OF INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS.

       (a) Notice Requirements.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 1107. Notice of use of investigational new drugs

       ``(a) Notice Required.--(1) Whenever the Secretary of 
     Defense requests or requires a member of the armed forces to 
     receive an investigational new drug, the Secretary shall 
     provide the member with notice containing the information 
     specified in subsection (d).
       ``(2) The Secretary shall also ensure that medical 
     providers who administer an investigational new drug or who 
     are likely to treat members who receive an investigational 
     new drug receive the information required to be provided 
     under paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (d).
       ``(b) Time for Notice.--The notice required to be provided 
     to a member under subsection (a)(1) shall be provided before 
     the investigational new drug is first administered to the 
     member, if practicable, but in no case later than 30 days 
     after the investigational new drug is first administered to 
     the member.
       ``(c) Form of Notice.--The notice required under subsection 
     (a)(1) shall be provided in writing unless the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that the use of written notice is 
     impractical because of the number of members receiving the 
     investigational new drug, time constraints, or similar 
     reasons. If the Secretary provides notice under subsection 
     (a)(1) in a form other than in writing, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report describing the notification 
     method used and the reasons for the use of the alternative 
     method.
       ``(d) Content of Notice.--The notice required under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:
       ``(1) Clear notice that drug being administered is an 
     investigational new drug.
       ``(2) The reasons why the investigational new drug is being 
     administered.
       ``(3) Information regarding the possible side effects of 
     the investigational new drug, including any known side 
     effects possible as a result of the interaction of the 
     investigational new drug with other drugs or treatments being 
     administered to the members receiving the investigational new 
     drug.
       ``(4) Such other information that, as a condition of 
     authorizing the use of the investigational new drug, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services may require to be 
     disclosed.
       ``(e) Records of Use.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     ensure that the medical records of members accurately 
     document the receipt by members of any investigational new 
     drug and the notice required by subsection (d).
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term 
     `investigational new drug' means a drug covered by section 
     505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(i)).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``1107. Notice of use of investigational new drugs.''.

     SEC. 758. REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF RESEARCH EFFORTS 
                   REGARDING GULF WAR ILLNESSES.

       Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the 
     effectiveness of medical research initiatives regarding Gulf 
     War illnesses. The report shall address the following:
       (1) The type and effectiveness of previous research 
     efforts, including the activities undertaken pursuant to 
     section 743 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note), 
     section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note), 
     and sections 270 and 271 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 
     110 Stat. 1613).
       (2) Recommendations regarding additional research regarding 
     Gulf War illnesses, including research regarding the nature 
     and causes of Gulf War illnesses and appropriate treatments 
     for such illnesses.
       (3) The adequacy of Federal funding and the need for 
     additional funding for medical research initiatives regarding 
     Gulf War illnesses.

     SEC. 759. PERSIAN GULF ILLNESS CLINICAL TRIALS PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) There are many ongoing studies that investigate risk 
     factors which may be associated with the health problems 
     experienced by Persian Gulf veterans; however, there have 
     been no studies which examine health outcomes and the 
     effectiveness of the treatment received by such veterans.
       (2) The medical literature and testimony presented in 
     hearings on Gulf War illnesses indicate there are therapies, 
     such as cognitive behavioral therapy, which have been 
     effective in treating patients with symptoms similar to those 
     seen in many Persian Gulf veterans.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Defense and 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, acting jointly, shall 
     establish a program of cooperative clinical trials at 
     multiple sites to assess the effectiveness of protocols for 
     treating Persian Gulf veterans who suffer from ill-defined or 
     undiagnosed conditions. Such protocols shall include a 
     multidisciplinary treatment model, of which cognitive 
     behavioral therapy is a component.
       (c) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated in 
     section 201(1) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for the Army, the sum of $4,500,000 shall be 
     available for program element 62787A (medical technology) in 
     the budget of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1998 
     to carry out the clinical trials program established pursuant 
     to subsection (b).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Buyer] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as it relates to Persian Gulf 
war illnesses.
  Since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, a number of service 
members who were deployed to the Persian Gulf theater, both active and 
reserve, have experienced a range of illnesses and symptoms, such as 
fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss, severe headaches and many 
other symptoms. Despite the fact that the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs have spent millions of dollars on 
medical research, the nature and causes of these illnesses remain 
unclear, and in fact remain multifaceted.
  In fact, the final report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on 
Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses concluded that many of the health concerns 
of gulf war veterans might never be fully resolved because of a lack of 
data. One of the reasons there is a lack of data is because the Persian 
Gulf war medical records were incomplete and inaccurate with regard to 
documenting all medical events for service members while deployed to 
the Persian Gulf.

                              {time}  1400

  As a result of poor medical recordkeeping during the Persian Gulf, 
the General Accounting Office, GAO, has recommended that the Department 
of Defense, using the lessons learned from the war, promptly complete 
and implement a DOD-wide policy for medical surveillance for all major 
deployments of U.S. forces. A medical surveillance system that 
collects, analyzes and disseminates health information will greatly 
facilitate DOD's ability to intervene in a timely manner to address 
health care problems experienced by military personnel.
  As a result of this poor medical recordkeeping and consistent with 
the

[[Page H4162]]

General Accounting Office's recommendations, this amendment includes 
the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to establish a medical 
tracking system to be used during all overseas contingencies or wartime 
operations, plus humanitarian operations for all deployed military 
members, including reservists. I believe this is critical. If we are 
going to send our service members to foreign lands for combat, 
humanitarian, or contingency operations, we must make sure we know the 
health status of those members, what it is going into and coming out of 
the area of operations.
  Another GAO study on the effectiveness of the clinical treatment of 
ill veterans found that both while DOD and VA have tried to measure or 
insure the quality of veterans' initial examinations, neither agency 
can determine the appropriateness or the effectiveness of the care 
veterans have subsequently received. The Presidential Advisory 
Committee also cited shortcomings in the availability of treatment for 
gulf war veterans experiencing symptoms from gulf war illnesses and 
recommended better followup care for these members. Additionally, 
according to the drafted GAO report, neither agency has any plans to 
establish a mechanism to monitor these veterans' progresses.
  Therefore, this amendment directs the Secretary of Defense and 
Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs to develop measures to be 
used to monitor the effectiveness and the quality of followup health 
care services provided to the Persian Gulf veterans experiencing 
symptoms of gulf war illnesses. Every effort must be made to follow up 
on the care provided to these veterans to make sure the treatment they 
receive is effective in treating the symptoms of these illnesses.
  To address the longstanding concerns of many Members of Congress, 
including myself, about whether the Department of Defense is 
appropriately treating ill Persian Gulf service members, particularly 
with regard to physical disability separation process, this amendment 
directs the GAO to study the physical evaluation board process to 
insure accurate disability ratings for diagnosis of the Persian Gulf 
illnesses. I believe it is very important for us to make sure that the 
services are not separating Persian Gulf veterans for medical reasons 
who have no clear diagnosis of their illnesses and without providing 
them adequate disability ratings and compensation.
  As I mentioned earlier, millions of dollars have been spent on 
medical research that has yet to produce clear evidence of what has 
caused those illnesses. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, to a shotgun 
approach in our medical research, but now we need to analyze and narrow 
the research and do an analysis of the overall medical projects.
  We do not thoroughly understand, despite all of the research, what 
all of the symptoms are. As the GAO has said, since much of the 
research was not begun until well after the war ended, the results are 
not yet available. I think that is an important question for us to 
answer: What is the right research?
  My amendment therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate 
the effectiveness of all the research done to date on the potential 
causes of gulf war illnesses and to identify requirements for 
additional research on possible causation and appropriate treatments. I 
sincerely believe this amendment addresses many of the criticisms and 
recommendations relating to the Government's investigation into and 
responses to gulf war illnesses. It takes a dramatic step toward 
ensuring that our service members and the veterans are treated 
properly. It has strong support not only from the American Legion, but 
also the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
  I want to thank my colleagues and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Evans] and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. I would also 
like to give a special thank you to the chairman of the Committee on 
National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and 
for the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for their support in 
this effort. I strongly encourage adoption of the comprehensive, 
bipartisan amendment, and let us show the support for our veterans in 
this regard.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 30 
minutes that no one rose in opposition on the gentleman's amendment. I 
am not in opposition, but I rise to claim the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will 
control 30 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe there were 30 minutes on this 
amendment to be divided 15 and 15. Therefore, I would have 15 and the 
gentleman from California would have 15, not the entire 30.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the time allocated to the amendment was 
30 minutes on each side for a total of 1 hour.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. I certainly appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from 
California. I want to rise in strong support of this amendment. This 
has been one of the most difficult issues that all of us have faced.
  I serve on the Subcommittee on National Security and on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence as the ranking Democrat, and we have 
asked for an investigation of this: What did we know, and when did we 
know it, and was there an attempt at the Pentagon not to really come 
clean with the American people on this issue? I have worried about the 
veterans that are out there, many of which came from my State, my 
district, who served in the gulf war, who were told that, well, there 
was no exposure to chemical weapons; they are also told that they may 
be suffering from a post war mental syndrome.
  Well, I do not think that is accurate, and I think the studies that 
have been done and the work that has been done by doctors all over the 
country who have treated Gulf War veterans proves conclusively that 
there are some other problems than the ones that have been suggested by 
the Defense Department.
  Out in California, for example, Dr. Garth Nicholson has treated many 
patients who have had infectious microplasmas, and this would mean that 
somehow they were exposed to an infectious agent while they were in the 
gulf and brought it back. In fact, some have given it to their 
children, their wives and even their pets, and again the Pentagon has 
been very slow to acknowledge this possibility.
  Now they are doing a study of this; they are looking into Dr. 
Nicholson's research, and I have talked, in trying to help Dr. 
Nicholson I have talked, to doctors all over the country who are 
treating gulf war veterans at the various veteran's hospitals, and they 
are incredulous by the way that Washington, DC, has treated this.
  Now in recent months, the last several months, the administration I 
think has, and I do not blame the President for this, but people over 
at the Defense Department have finally gotten the message that the 
American people want to see every one of these possible causes for gulf 
war diseases to be investigated, and this Congress has given them the 
money to do that, the Committee on Appropriations has given them the 
resources to do that, and still there has been resistance over there, 
saying we have to study, and we have to do this.
  I am all for professional studies, I am all for peer review, but I do 
not want it to be a way of saying we can only afford to do this much. 
If there is other good, credible, possible answers out there, I want 
the Pentagon to come and ask for the resources necessary to do the 
investigation.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the 
issue. I would ask of him to never refer to this as a gulf war 
syndrome. A syndrome infers a sole source causation. I would ask for 
the gentleman to always

[[Page H4163]]

refer to this as the gulf war illnesses, because in fact it is 
multifaceted.
  Mr. DICKS. That is my point. I agree with that. I think it is 
multifaceted; I completely concur with that.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
appreciate the gentleman's endorsement of many of the ongoing studies. 
The difficulty when we took on this issue in the beginning was that 
there were a lot of stonewalling, not only from private medical 
institutions, but also within the medical institutions of the 
Department of Defense and within the VA. It has taken them awhile, they 
are slowly coming along, and we have had, it seems like every time we 
are plowing new ground, somebody is filling in the furrow right behind 
them, and we have so many what I refer to as a shotgun approach right 
now, and there are as many different areas.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] mentioned one of the 
doctors, one of them who has been highly scrutinized, but, as my 
colleague knows, what may be unusual today in medical research is when 
we are pressing the bounds of science it may become the norm of 
tomorrow.
  So I think we in the face of causation for which we have some 
ambivalence, because we do not know, we do not understand the science, 
we better be as open in our thought as much as we can. So now we have 
done this huge shotgun with all of our medical research, we better try 
to figure out our analysis of so many studies that are going on, and 
that is our attempt.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, the other problem that I found out is 
that we do not have the best technology, I believe, for the detection 
of when an enemy uses chemical or biological weapons. This is not 
something that we are very skilled at. We are pretty good in chemicals, 
but certainly weak in the biological area, so there are some other 
areas that the Congress needs to look at so that when we deploy forces 
we have a better idea of what they may be exposed to, and we also need 
to be careful about the shots that are given. There are some 
indications that there may have been some problems with that.
  And so there are problems in the detection area. There also is 
something that has plagued soldiers from time eternal, and that is when 
we take somebody and put them into a new area, there may be background 
infectious agents or parasites, another problem that could have 
affected our troops.
  And so I concur very strongly with my colleague's point that we 
should look at this as a multifaceted problem and not look at it as 
just one issue, and I think that is where we got off track. We were not 
willing to have a pragmatic, open mind about this and to look at all 
these possibilities, and I think also I worry on the intelligence side 
did we give advanced warning to our commanders in the field about the 
possibilities that when they destroyed at Khamisiyah, when they 
destroyed those weapons, who knew exactly what was there? Was it just 
chemical weapons? Could there have been some low-grade biological 
weapons or other infectious disease?
  As my colleagues know, Saddam made a number of speeches in which he 
said, ``If you come after me, I'm going to do things that will affect 
you, your families, your wives,'' da-da-da-da. So it is a strong 
indication that he may have used something that we still do not have 
full knowledge of.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Being very pragmatic, following the gentleman's thought 
process, why did we give inoculations to over 10,000 soldiers in the 
Persian Gulf actually for botulism and then require all soldiers in the 
gulf to receive two shots of anthrax if, in fact, we are not 
potentially going to face a biological threat?
  Mr. DICKS. I think we knew. We certainly understood that he possessed 
chemical and biological weapons, and this is another problem, by the 
way. As my colleague knows, people say all this was a great victory. I 
have heard people get up and say it showed the great might of the U.S. 
military forces. I would point out we had 500,000 troops out there who 
were, if Saddam had had accurate Scud launchers and missiles, that he 
could have devastated us because we did not possess adequate theater 
missile defense.
  So when we talk about these issues and talk about deployment of 
troops in the future, as my colleagues know, we could be faced by 
someone who would use chemical and biological weapons. That is why I 
also worry about the potential of lockout, of not being able to get our 
reinforcements in in a timely way, because an enemy could use chemical 
or biological weapons on our airfields and therefore stop us from 
bringing troops and tactical aircraft into the region.
  So this is an area where we need a lot of work. We also need to make 
sure we have adequate gear and equipment for our soldiers when we are 
deploying them. We are pretty good on chemical again, and somewhat weak 
again on biological. So there are a lot of things that need to be done 
here, but I have never been as frustrated on any issue except maybe for 
one, in trying to get the Pentagon to listen as I have been on this 
one.
  And recently I want to compliment Dr. Berger out at Walter Reed. He 
is one of the few officials who had an open mind about this who 
convened a panel, brought in experts, and we had him review Dr. 
Nicholson's work, and the funny part of it is the people who were in 
the Government all said, well, we are skeptical, but all the people 
from around the country who had open minds from the top universities 
said, yes, there is enough here, we should investigate it. And so now 
they are doing a protocol, they are looking into it. But that was only 
because as a senior member of the defense appropriations committee I 
personally intervened, went to the meeting 2 days before Christmas, got 
Dr. Berger to come back from New York.
  I mean we had to go to those lengths to try to get them to pay 
attention to this and to realize that we in the Congress were simply 
not going to let them get away with not doing this job and not looking 
at these possibilities in order to take care of these veterans. I still 
worry that these kids are coming into VA hospitals where they still 
think there really is not a problem and it is all psychosomatic and not 
really giving them the kind of treatment that Dr. Nicholson and other 
skilled practitioners out there are giving them, giving these soldiers, 
in order to get them over the various symptoms that they have had from 
the Gulf War.
  So again I rise in strong support of this. We cannot let this happen 
again, and I think that is the intent of the gentleman's amendment, and 
I appreciate the ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] for yielding me this time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, two comments I want to make. One other individual I 
want to give special recognition to is Dr. Ron Blanc, now the Surgeon 
General of the Army. If there was an individual early on that was a 
good listener, it was Dr. Blanc. I extend great compliments to him.
  The other thing I wanted to share with the gentleman is that I went 
to London. I met with the Minister of Defense there. I testified before 
the Select Committee on the Gulf War in the House of Commons. I want 
you to know we are working in a cooperative effort with our allies.
  We would be very naive to think we would not be a future ally of the 
United Kingdom or Canada in a conflict, and if we do not take the time 
now to understand the science and take care of those who bore the risk 
of battle, shame on us. I believe that we are now moving in that 
cooperative effort, not at the speed that I would like, but it is 
there, and I wanted to share that with you and my colleagues so we can 
keep moving on the issue.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I wanted to commend the gentleman for his leadership. He 
will certainly have bipartisan support. My colleague, the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], has been a leader on this issue. We will 
give us as much help from our side of the aisle.

[[Page H4164]]

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Buyer amendment and of our 
veterans and service members afflicted with gulf war illness. The Buyer 
amendment represents a positive step toward finding answers for many 
Americans affected by this tragic disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which will be included en bloc 
later this afternoon regarding the gulf war illness. My amendment shows 
Congress' resolve that the Department of Defense should embrace all 
technologies and treatments in the relentless pursuit of a resolution 
to the dire consequences of the gulf war on our troops and their 
families.
  The most sobering experience I have had since being in Congress has 
been to sit in a room with outstanding young men and women who served 
this Nation honorably and hear about their experiences in the gulf and 
their lives since their return. Here is one example:
  A constituent of mine, Butch, was a seasoned combat medic during 
Vietnam. He served as a surgical operating room technician during the 
gulf war. Six months after his return from the gulf, he began to 
experience problems with his health, and since that time has been 
treated for a long list of serious medical problems.
  Amazingly, he has been prescribed to take over 35 pills a day. 
Fortunately, he has been awarded disability, but his rating is 
primarily for posttraumatic stress disorder. Can you believe it? 
Thirty-five pills a day for posttraumatic stress disorder? That is 
ridiculous.
  He feels ``like an old beaten down man with no future and nothing to 
look forward to but pain.'' He is afraid of being around his 
grandchildren for fear he could pass something on to them. Mr. 
Chairman, this tragedy must be dealt with before it becomes an 
epidemic.
  I have also had extensive conversations with medical experts, and you 
have mentioned several of them here, doctors both in and out of 
Government looking at this issue. These share the opinion that the 
Government at this point is failing to address the central issues 
surrounding the gulf war illness.
  Mr. Chairman, the certainty of chemical and the probability of 
biological agents being interjected into the Persian Gulf theater of 
operations is something that cannot be overlooked and must be 
investigated by our Government. The medical professionals I have been 
in contact with believe that only by investigating these possibilities 
will we move closer to a cure.
  My amendment makes a clear statement that this Congress has as its 
primary interest those Americans afflicted with these illnesses. As I 
have shared with every Member in this body, Mr. Chairman, in a ``Dear 
Colleague'' letter earlier this year, we must consider all treatment 
alternatives and open our minds to search outside the paradigm in 
pursuit of cures.
  The time for Congress to step up and exercise its oversight 
responsibilities is now, and my amendment, in concert with the Buyer 
amendment which I support, accomplishes this.
  I would like to congratulate Chairman Spence and subcommittee 
Chairman Buyer on an excellent bill, and thank them for their support 
both of my amendment and of all military service members and veterans.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend those who 
are sponsoring this amendment on both sides of the aisle for their good 
work, and I rise to support the amendment and urge that this is just 
the first step of some very important efforts that we need to bring 
together in a bipartisan basis on behalf of those who served us in the 
gulf war and have come back and are now suffering as a result of what 
happened to them there.
  According to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, more 
than 70,000 veterans out of the 697,000 who served in the gulf have 
reported persistent illnesses. Seventy-four percent of them were turned 
down for disability coverage because doctors say they either have no 
visible illness or cannot show their ailments are related to the gulf 
war.
  Thousands of veterans are suffering from illness as a result of 
chemical exposure during the Persian Gulf conflict and they cannot get 
the medical care that they need. They cannot even get recognition of 
their problem, recognition of a problem that they did not create, and 
it is incredibly important that this recognition be given to them.
  In my own Eighth District in Michigan, Tom and Nancy Burnett have 
been fighting to save their son Scott, who is a gulf war veteran. The 
Burnetts were proud when Scott decided to enlist in the Army in 1988. 
As a member of the 101st Airborne Division, he served for 6 months in 
Saudi Arabia.
  Since returning from the gulf, Scott has experienced intestinal 
problems, headaches, muscle and joint pains, shortness of breath, eye 
problems, night sweats, reoccurring illnesses, and congestive heart 
failure. And this was a healthy young man when he served our country.
  In October 1995, Scott was diagnosed with double pneumonia. While he 
was in the hospital, the doctors discovered that his heart was 
functioning at only 10 to 20 percent of its normal capacity and the 
doctors thought that a heart transplant was his only chance of 
survival.
  In their desperation to save their son's life, the Burnetts launched 
an intensive fact-finding mission. They contacted everyone they could 
think of to find out what Scott had been exposed to during his time in 
the gulf. They found one doctor at a private hospital who had been 
researching the illness of gulf war veterans, and he was able to 
evaluate Scott's case. This doctor thought that an antibiotic, 
doxycylene, could help heal Scott's heart. After a month of taking this 
drug, Scott Burnett's heart function had increased to 39 percent. He 
had been told that a heart transplant was his only hope, but, in truth, 
a simple antibiotic was the answer.
  As a gulf war veteran in the United States, if you get sick, your 
best and sometimes only hope is that you and your family can contact 
enough people and do enough research on your own to discover the best 
course of treatment.
  In testimony presented to the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf 
War Illness in 1996, Mr. Burnett said, ``If my son Scott had been aware 
of the problems that had been known to exist for several years, he 
would have sought more aggressive treatment prior to his pneumonia and 
he would not have had the problems that he has today.''
  Scott's main health problems are idiopathic cardiomyopathy and 
congestive heart failure and problems with his immune system, which are 
incredibly serious. These problems are rare in the general population, 
and especially rare for someone his age. Scott Burnett went into the 
Army as a healthy young man, and left 4 years later as a seriously and 
chronically ill veteran.
  This amendment is long overdue. It is a first step in recognizing and 
treating the illnesses that our gulf war veterans are suffering. 
However, it is not enough. The National Commander of the American 
Legion says:

     Plans to create a new Gulf War illness czar will not help 
     disabled Gulf War veterans one bit. They need medical care, 
     not a running debate in Washington.

  We need to help these veterans and their families who are suffering. 
This amendment is a good first step, but it is only a first step. They 
need help now.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman on her 
very good statement. This is the same situation we had with Dr. 
Nicholson out in California. When these people came in, he found that 
they possessed an infectious mycoplasma. He then ordered massive doses 
of antibiotics and was able, with many of them, to cure them of the 
symptoms.
  Now, if this was a chemical weapon, obviously, antibiotics would not 
have worked, so there had to be something else that these soldiers were 
exposed to. The thing that is worrisome about infectious disease is it 
is something

[[Page H4165]]

you can give to your family or wife and others.
  So, again, many doctors, all over the country, have found that by 
using antibiotics they were able to cure these veterans of their 
symptoms. But the problem is, when they go in, unless you have a doctor 
who is creative, he has basically been told that this is not a 
possibility. So I think it has really slowed down the treatment of the 
soldiers, which is what I worry about most here.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, and compliment 
her on her very fine statement.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is what is so 
important about this issue. First, we have to acknowledge it happened 
and make sure people are being diagnosed and treated for what is 
actually occurring to them, because we cannot begin to help them get 
the treatment they need unless we own up to the fact it happened.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan, part of the problems that we have here, I first met you at a 
VFW post in Michigan. While I was at that VFW post a gentleman came up 
to me at that post whom I then recognized. He worked for me in the 
gulf, and when I asked him how he was doing, he took my hand and put it 
at the base of the stem of the back of his neck and I felt all these 
knots, and he said, ``I am dying.''
  Now, how do you respond to someone that you know, that you care 
about, and when you say how are you doing, that is not the response you 
typically get?
  What is difficult for us on this issue is what we do not know, and 
what we do not know is, is he dying from a cancer that he would have 
normally received had he never been deployed to the gulf, or was there 
something in the gulf that is somehow some form of a causation? That is 
the science for which we do not understand.
  So when a veteran asks me will we ever know, I do not have the answer 
for that. It pains me. But we have to make decisions here with regard 
to disability, with regard to causation, and with regard to science. 
And when we draw those lines, people will say you are cold, you are 
callous, you do not care, and that is wrong, because we are trying to 
make calculated decisions in an area for which we do not have the 
specific answer.
  I would also share with the gentlewoman this is not a first step. 
This is about the 22d step. We have the gentleman from California, the 
former chairman of the Committee on National Security, Mr. Dellums, 
here; the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, the 
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, directly behind you; the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence; and the gentleman from 
Arizona, Chairman Stump.
  I cannot begin to tell you how many hearings we have had on the 
Committee on Government Oversight with the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays], with a lot of people. It was so wonderful, is there are so 
many people involved in this issue. That is great. Many of their 
initiatives, when you go out and move out on initiative, you better 
stay in touch with it, because there is someone else that may not 
believe in it or they take two steps back or try to knock it down.
  One of the reasons for this amendment right now is an initiative that 
came from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and under the 
leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. The active 
duty were saying this was a problem with reservists and the National 
Guard, as if there is some institutional bias. This is just against 
them.
  No, too many active duty soldiers were grabbing me in the stairwells, 
pulling me aside in private, to tell me about their health care, when 
they were afraid of coming forward because of the downsizing process. 
It was the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] who stepped forward 
and put into his mark a physical disability separation process that 
said, ``You are going to care for the soldiers on active duty, take 
care of them, and not kick them out. It is a veteran problem. Bob 
Stump, you take care of it, or Sonny Montgomery, you take care of it.''

                              {time}  1430

  So I just want to share with the gentlewoman that we are in about our 
23d step and we are nursing this issue with a great deal of effort and 
care.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the thing that bothers me the most about 
this is going back to what we said originally, and that is we should 
have been doing this 6 years ago. The war has been over for 6 years. 
Now, 6 years have gone by, and we were kind of lulled into a sense of 
complacency for the first few years, and so now, when we have to do all 
of this research, it may take us 2 or 3 additional years to really get 
the answers.
  So I hope what we can do is remember these lessons the next time we 
deploy American forces into a situation like this, so that we do not 
have to have this big gap in time before we get down to serious work.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
[Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the 
comments that were just made.
  I understand that things are happening and that hearings have been 
held, but it has been 6 years, and for Tom and his son Scott, that has 
been 6 years of agony. I am concerned about having a sense of urgency 
that when the day is done we will have done something that touched 
their lives and has made it better.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I first want to thank 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] for his leadership on this issue 
and for his hard work to help our Persian Gulf veterans.
  This amendment, and our work together in the past, demonstrates a 
strong, bipartisan effort to come to grips with this issue. I thank the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], and I am proud to join him as a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  I also want to thank the gentleman for including my provision which 
would fund clinical trials to evaluate current health care provided to 
Persian Gulf veterans and examine other potential treatment methods. 
Unfortunately, DOD and VA research efforts have not completely 
addressed the efficacy of treatment or the wide variety of treatments 
used in public and private medicine for undiagnosed illnesses.
  This point was made by the American Legion in testimony before the 
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on February 11, 1997. There is no 
data available on the effectiveness of treatment on Persian Gulf 
veterans. While this lack of data is disturbing, there is one thing 
that is perfectly clear: Gulf veterans do not feel that the care 
currently provided them is making them feel better.
  I appreciate the gentleman's leadership, his amendment, and strongly 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support the Buyer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment. As has been stated earlier, 
there is a wide range of interest in this issue across the panorama of 
Members in this body. Mr. Chairman, I would like to single out for 
special commendation the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Kennedy], who came together in a bipartisan effort to move beyond 
the shortcomings of how the Department of Defense is presently 
addressing this significant and serious issue. I think this is an 
important and strong effort on their part. They ought to be commended, 
and I think that the best way that we can commend them is to 
overwhelmingly support this amendment.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Mr. Buyer 
and Mr. Kennedy's amendment to the Fiscal Year 1998

[[Page H4166]]

Defense Authorization Act, which would require the Departments of 
Defense and Veterans Affairs to improve their research into Persian 
Gulf war illnesses and their treatment of suffering Persian Gulf war 
veterans.
  Our veterans, who have so bravely served our country in the Persian 
Gulf war, have been suffering for far too long. They have been waiting 
patiently for answers and we are letting them down.
  As the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on 
Benefits, I have been holding hearings to look into the often 
frustrating claims process for Persian Gulf war veterans.
  What I have detected is that there are far too many delays in the 
system. By working with the VA, claims processing has now been 
centralized which is expected to improve the chances of our veterans' 
receiving the proper benefits.
  The lack of coordination of the various research programs conducted 
by the Government is presenting another obstacle. As Federal 
Representatives, I believe that it is our responsibility to insure that 
all research programs fit together to solve this issue of undiagnosed 
illnesses.
  The Buyer-Kennedy amendment is a surefire way to bring us one step 
closer to resolving this problem by taking care of our ailing veterans.
  The bottom line is that our veterans are sick and their families are 
suffering--they are due the health care they have earned.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Buyer's 
amendment to provide for a series of initiatives to improve the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs 
investigation of Persian Gulf illnesses, and the treatment of ill gulf 
war veterans.
  This amendment first, authorizes $4.5 million to establish a 
cooperative DOD/VA program of clinical trials to evaluate treatments 
which might relieve the symptoms of gulf war illnesses; second, 
requires the Secretaries of both departments to develop a comprehensive 
plan for providing health care to all veterans, active-duty members and 
reserves who suffer from symptoms of gulf war illnesses.
  This amendment is particularly important because it cuts to the heart 
of the matter regarding the DOD's response to this issue. Along with 
I'm sure many of my colleagues, I have heard numerous stories from my 
constituents about the poor initial response to veteran's concerns from 
both DOD and the VA.
  Yet, when we in Congress raised these issues, time and time again, 
the CIA and DOD assured members of both the House and Senate that there 
was no evidence that any troops were exposed to chemical weapons in the 
gulf. Moreover, the VA was eager to accept these statements, so eager 
in fact, that VA officials did not feel exposure to chemical agents 
even merited consideration when ascertaining the causes behind the 
symptoms experienced by the affected personnel.
  Then, last year, when faced with overwhelming evidence to the 
contrary, officials at the Pentagon reversed themselves and stated that 
400 soldiers at the Khamisiyah ammunition site were exposed to chemical 
agents. This figure later grew to approximately 20,000.
  Since this initial revelation, additional disturbing facts have come 
out as the CIA and DOD have engaged in a contest of finger-pointing and 
blame shifting over what was known at the time, and what was 
communicated.
  To me, the most shocking fact is the revelation to subcommittee staff 
last January that 80 percent of the nuclear-biological-chemical logs 
from the theater of operations, 165 of the 200 total pages, are 
missing.
  For one, I am losing patience with the DOD in this issue. It was 
troubling enough that Pentagon officials were categorically denying 
troop exposure to chemical agents despite overwhelming evidence to the 
contrary.
  Now, however, we find out that most of the record logs, which were 
intended to track these incidents, are missing. The charges of coverup 
no longer seems so farfetched.
  These facts, as they have dribbled out over the past 6 years, point 
to the following conclusion. Simply put, we were not prepared to handle 
the contingency of widespread chemical use by Iraqi forces during the 
gulf war, and that it was only by the grace of God that Saddam Hussein 
did not resort to the use of such devices.
  Mr. Chairman, we in Congress need some straight, honest answers from 
the DOD. For too long, we have been dealing with commanders who were 
more interested in protecting their career and reputations than in 
looking out for the welfare of the men under their command. It was bad 
enough to discount the thousands upon thousands of detections that 
occurred during the war.
  What is worse is the pattern of deceit and misrepresentation they 
have waged with the Congress and the American people. If we had a 
problem in addressing widespread chemical exposures during the gulf, 
fine. Let's admit it and move on.
  The hand-writing, doublespeak, and finger-pointing that has occurred 
over the last 12-months is pointless and counterproductive. More 
importantly, it does nothing to help the veteran who put his life, and 
now it appears both his and his family's future health, on the line for 
his country.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which 
will hopefully provide answers and relief to our veterans suffering 
from gulf war syndrome.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] will 
be postponed.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Buyer] having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Florida, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1119) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________