[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3690-H3694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of the Moran-Thornberry amendment.
I sat on the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and I have a full
appreciation, because I heard the quagmire of technical problems
associated with ensuring medical care for Medicare-eligible veterans.
There are risks associated with being a part of any control group. I do
not for a moment believe that this body is going to leave any veterans
who decide to go into this program in a lurch at the end of the period.
I do think it is unthinkable to let this gap in health care for these
veterans to go on any longer. I do think this is Congress at its best.
We did not know what to do after we heard this testimony. We said let
us do a demonstration project and learn from it; that will allow us to
know whether we spread it or change it or fix it.
Moreover, these are the first people to be allowed into the FEHBP
program other than the traditional clients programs. I think we will
learn something about FEHBP as well, and I think the people to learn it
from are veterans who have been left out of their full right to medical
care.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like everyone to recognize, this has
been one of the consequences of base closures. Many of the retirees,
they located next to these military treatment facilities and now that
the bases have closed, they are unwilling to move, and they do not want
to move. They are stationed where they are. So we are dealing with some
cleanup work to do from base closures, and that is what this is about.
I want to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) on the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel whose letter we received, we made it
a part of the Record; not only the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), so we are well
aware of their objections.
We recognize that the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Ways
and Means were not committees of jurisdiction on this, but what I want
to say to the gentleman is that invitations were sent out, there were
meetings with CBO and the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and the Committee on National Security
on this. The gentleman has raised some very interesting points here
today, and what I would like to do between now and conference is for us
to work together on this as we move toward a demonstration.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry). I appreciate them accepting that one of these sites
should also be one of the Medicare subvention sites so we completely
understand what we are doing, and I am glad we are not moving to the
total phase-in, but only a limited pilot.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment and would like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for
their leadership in this area.
As a Member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a
representative from Florida, I am very concerned
[[Page H3691]]
with the state of military health care, particularly since so many
Floridians are being affected. I have received the letters and the
personal visits by military retirees who are concerned about their
health care options.
The health care industry is in change and we in Congress need to take
some leadership. I support this pilot program 100 percent, and I urge a
``yes'' on this amendment.
As Memorial Day approaches, let us show our military personnel that
we do care and that we as Members of the United States Congress do keep
our promises to the veterans.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time of the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) has expired.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thornberry-Watts-
Cunningham amendment.
Mr. Chairman. Because the need for expanded health care for military
retirees is so important, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Representatives Watts, Thornberry and Moran in their efforts to permit
Medicare-eligible retired members of the Armed Forces and their
Medicare-eligible dependents to enroll in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits program (FEHBP).
This amendment proposes a three-year demonstration project at six to
ten sites in the United States. The cost is offset by the sale of
national defense stockpile materials.
We made a commitment to those who chose to serve in defense of our
country. Military retirees were promised health care for life. However,
there is a Catch-22 situation for Medicare-eligible retired military
because once they either turn age 65 or qualify for disability
treatment, they lose their CHAMPUS benefits. Unfortunately, they are
placed last on the priority for treatment at Military Treatment
Facilities, and they are prevented from participating in the new
TRICARE program.
Of the 1.2 million military beneficiaries 65 or older who are
Medicare eligible, approximately 324,000 receive ``space available''
care in military treatment facilities.
I want to address the FEHBP Program as a complement to military
health care. The FEHBP has been successfully operating over the past
thirty years at about one-third of the cost incurred in other private
health insurance programs.
Under the FEHBP, a consumer could opt to buy coverage that would
include fee-for-service, HMO, PPO, or a union sponsored plan similar to
the postal workers, etc.
In order to ensure that our military have the same choice of plans
now available to U.S. Senators and Representatives, the President and
Vice President, and over ten million federal workers, I urge passage of
this amendment that would offer our nation's military and veterans the
same basic benefits that we here in Congress have available to us.
This amendment has been endorsed by The Retired Enlisted Association
(TREA) and the National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS). I
agree with these groups and believe we must fulfill our commitment to
our nation's military retirees and veterans.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Civil Service who has also been a leader in this effort.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Civil Service, I have worked with the amendment sponsors to make our
military retirees eligible for our Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program.
While this amendment does not cover dependents and active military
and retirees under age 65, which I have advocated, I strongly support
this amendment.
This is a reasonable start with a 3-year demonstration project
limited to 70,000 individuals. With base closures and military
downsizing, our health care system for our military and our retirees
has broken down. TriCare has been described to me as try-to-get-care.
As we approach Memorial Day, as we have heard said on the other side,
we must remember those who have died in service to our country. How sad
it would be if we abandon those who survived and those who have served
us on this occasion. This amendment, my colleagues, only allows
military retirees over 65 and surviving dependents and those who died
in active duty to be eligible for the same benefits as Members of
Congress.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to
commend the sponsors for their efforts to fulfill the promise made to
military personnel. Since the Second World War, recruits were offered
``free health care for life'' at a military hospital if they served a
20-year career in the military. These promises were made when the ratio
of active duty personnel to military retirees was much greater.
However, as we have drawn down the force, base closures, reductions in
medical personnel and budget cuts have diminished this health care for
retirees, forcing them to rely on Medicare. This amendment will test
the FEHBP option for those with the greatest need to improve the
viability of the program.
Many of us are worried about the potential costs of this legislation,
both to the Defense Department and to the beneficiaries. The Department
had predicted that the costs of implementing this program would further
reduce the space of available care. I am pleased to note that this
proposal would not harm Defense health care program's budget, and it is
funded by stockpile sales.
I take this moment to commend the gentleman from Virginia and the
other cosponsors for their dedication to this issue.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to make an inquiry of the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
I would like to ask if the gentlewoman supports this amendment, and
if so, why?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
for his leadership. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for their amendment.
I absolutely do support this amendment. I think just a few days away
from celebrating our veterans and our men and women in the military
that we need to honor our military veterans. This amendment will not
impact military readiness and it will not be offset by cuts in
discretionary defense funds, but this amendment would ensure that every
Medicare-eligible retiree is covered and provided health insurance and
would allow Medicare eligible military retirees the option to join the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program through a 3-year
demonstration project.
I would simply say that what this does is it answers the questions of
all of my veterans, when I go home to my district, asking me about
their medical program and how they cannot be in this retiree program.
So I simply say that this is a good amendment supported by the
National Military and Veterans Alliance and every major military
association. We must also show our support for our military retirees.
It is a good amendment, a strong amendment, and the right thing to do.
I strongly support my colleagues' amendment concerning enrolling
military retirees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.
Currently America's military men and women are denied free accessible
and quality health care after they have retired from their dedicated
service in the U.S. military.
We should honor our military veterans and we should be committed to
ensure that the men and women who fight for and protect our country
receive adequate health care. However, in our country, retirees from
the military do not receive the same benefits as Federal employees.
This amendment would not impact military readiness and will not be
offset by cuts in discretionary defense programs. But, this amendment
would ensure that every Medicare eligible retiree is covered and
provided health insurance, and will allow Medicare eligible military
retirees the option to join the Federal Employees Health Benefits
program through a limited 3 year demonstration project.
This amendment is supported by the national military and veterans
alliance and every major military association. We must also show our
support for our military retirees.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her answer to
my inquiry.
I think it is very important that we do follow through on this
program to see how it works, because we must do our very best in our
committee and in this Congress to fulfill that promise made to military
personnel, not just for those who it will affect directly, but to those
future soldiers and retirees that we wish to keep the faith with.
[[Page H3692]]
{time} 1630
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), a member of the committee.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
It is common knowledge that many military retirees were promised
access to free health care for life. All this amendment does is give
military retirees a chance to participate in the same plan that every
Federal employee has.
By providing more choices, the FEHBP uses market forces to control
costs and ensure high quality. Military retirees should have these
choices. This amendment merely provides for a demonstration project.
Coupled with the subvention demonstration project that we passed in the
Balanced Budget Act, this will provide some insights on how we can
correct the current system.
This amendment does not fulfill the promise of free health care for
life, but it is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this particular
amendment.
I know that some of my colleagues oppose this amendment. However, as
a member of the subcommittee, I have heard the testimony and I have met
with retirees who face a real medical problem. As military
installations are closed and downsized, our military retirees are being
shut out.
This amendment is a small step forward, keeping the promises that we
have made to our military many years ago.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this is simply about
keeping our word. I have no answer when retirees ask me, why when I
reenlisted and they promised me lifetime health care, can I not get it?
There is no excuse for not keeping our word; and this is a beginning,
just a beginning, to do that.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise in strong support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think, as
exactly as the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith) said, it is
about keeping our word. This amendment does not keep our word, but it
is a step in the right direction. It is a step in doing what we ought
to do. We need to look harder for the resources necessary to do exactly
what we told veterans we were going to do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support of this amendment.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, obviously, what is at debate here is whether or not
this program, the way it is currently constructed, is one which has a
maximum chance of retaining viability.
One of our colleagues, I believe, got a little carried away in her
eloquence and indicated that this was going to be available for every
eligible retiree. It is not. It is a very limited program, 70,000. The
gentleman from Virginia said it really exposed the trust fund to $50
million. That is correct. But it is a $327 million CBO estimate cost
over 3 years, 70,000 retirees, $327 million. It also has no permanent
transition.
One of the things we tried to do in the DOD subvention and that
Members will see we are doing in the VA subvention is to say that if it
is, in fact, successful, this is what occurs as a follow-up.
What we have here is an amendment that started out at more than $3
billion. In an attempt to get costs under control, although we were not
able to work, and I would like to make one brief allusion to the May 4
meeting. That was the one meeting that was held. It was a late Friday
night phone call, and my staff was unable to work because they were
working on the VA subvention. They did a follow-up on Monday, and that
was their only opportunity to try to have some input.
All of us want to help our military retirees and our veterans. We
have two solid subvention programs going forward with all kinds of
guarantees for the retirees and, if the program is a success, its
ability to continue forward.
What we have here, I am sorry to say, is kind of a jerry-rigged
program funded out of asset sales for 3 years in which there are a
number of questions in terms of the way in which the program blends for
the retirees, and it almost guarantees its failure.
What I have been trying to do is to get people to understand that, if
we make certain changes in this, if we can sit down and get it to
conform more to the kinds of underlying structures we had in the
subvention bill, what all of us seem to want, which myself, the
gentleman from California wants, is a successful program.
This program as it is currently constructed is doomed to fail. That
is not the way we should go forward in terms of our military retirees.
We should make the kinds of changes that enhance the chance of this
program succeeding. It has fundamental flaws. Obviously, with the
number of people who feel the pressure nearing Memorial Day, this
measure is going to pass. I hope someone sits down and corrects the
flaws. The military retirees deserve better than this amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Watts-
Moran-Thornberry amendment. Our government is not doing an adequate job
of fulfilling the promise of lifetime health care that was made to
those who have made a career in our military.
With budget cuts, reductions in military medical personnel, and base
closures, access to quality care within the military health care system
has become especially difficult for military retirees who are eligible
for Medicare.
While Medicare-eligible retirees and their families remain eligible
for space-available care in military hospitals, they are not eligible
to participate in the Department of Defense Tricare program, and
Tricare is reducing the amount of space-available care accessible to
those beneficiaries.
As a result, many of these retirees are discovering that the health
care benefit they earned through their dedicated service in the
military may not be available when they need it most. We need to find a
cost-effective way to meet the health care needs of these military
retirees, and to fulfill the promise of lifetime health care that was
made to them. This amendment is a step in that right direction.
The amendment would allow up to 70,000 Medicare-eligible military
retirees in several sites across the country to enroll in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program, and to receive the same health care
benefits as Federal employees and Federal retirees. It has been
carefully designed to establish a demonstration program that is large
enough to provide for a valid test of this concept, yet keeps annual
costs to a reasonable level over the course of the 3-year
demonstration. The costs have been offset in full.
I want to commend my colleagues on the Committee on National
Security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran) for their dedicated efforts on behalf of our military retirees,
on behalf of this amendment. They have worked tirelessly to develop a
good demonstration program that will help us to begin to restore faith,
not only with those who served in the military as a career, but those
who will continue to serve to date.
I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his
longstanding support of improving health care for our military
retirees, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his
contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I want to just share with my colleagues here, Mr.
Chairman, when I was in the Army Medical Corps, every month at the end
of the
[[Page H3693]]
month my Secretary would bring me a stack of patients who were unable
to get in to see me for an appointment, because we were too busy. We
did not have enough doctors in the clinic.
I would go through that stack and I would be able to see which ones
were going to end up in the emergency room. I did not like it. I did
not like it at all, but at least I knew the emergency room was there
when they got sick.
Now, today, we have closed the emergency room to them, or we have
closed the whole facility. We have turned our back on these people, Mr.
Chairman. I encourage everybody to vote in support of this amendment.
If this is a flawed amendment, I say vote for it and let us fix it in
conference, and let us move the process along.
When people say, we were not promised medical care when we retired,
do not believe that. Everybody said that. I spent 6 years on active
duty. We heard it all the time, do your 20 and you will get health care
when you retire. We have turned our backs on these people.
I commend all my colleagues for bringing this to the floor, and I
encourage everybody to vote in support of this.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
I rise in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and thank all
those the gentleman has just mentioned for their good work on this.
I believe it is important for us to realize it is not just a matter
of keeping faith with our military retirees, it is also a matter of
military readiness, because what I am hearing all around my State is
that people who are on active duty now are telling their family
members, do not re-up, do not reenlist. The military, the United States
government, will not honor its commitments.
So it becomes not just a matter of keeping faith with those who have
gone before, but rather, with the military readiness of this Nation. So
it is essential, I believe, that we in this Congress rise to the
occasion of backing up our commitments to those retirees, not just so
we can keep faith with them, but so we can keep faith with this Nation
in providing for military readiness.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, as the largest base closure in
the United States, we need this bill.
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
strong support for the Moran-Watts-Thornberry amendment to the Fiscal
Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act, which would create a demonstration
project for military retirees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP).
Guaranteeing health care for our nation's military retirees should be
one of our nation's top priorities. Yet millions of military retirees
are prohibited from receiving Department of Defense health care because
they have passed the age of 65 and are eligible for Medicare. As a
result, Americans who served in our nation's defense are denied the
health care they have more than earned as a result of their sacrifices
to our nation.
In my own district, thousands of these retirees--individuals who
dedicated many years of their lives to the military--are now without
military health care. Denied CHAMPUS or TRICARE, and put last on
priority lists for care at Military Treatment Facilities, these brave
men and women have an increasingly difficult time obtaining the health
care they need. This, Mr. Chairman, is simply unfair.
The amendment before us provides a solution to the problem. It
establishes a three-year demonstration project in which up to 70,000
Medicare-eligible military retirees would be permitted to enroll in
FEHBP at six test sites. The amendment would also allow dependents of
these retirees to be eligible for FEHBP, as well as widows of those who
died while on active duty for more than thirty days.
Passage of this amendment will allow military retirees and their
immediate families to continue to obtain cost-effective health care
from the federal government after the age of 65. It is a fair and
flexible solution that will help ensure that these brave and dedicated
Americans will not have to worry about obtaining the health care they
need and deserve.
Mr. Chairman, next week we celebrate Memorial Day. I cannot think of
a more appropriate time in which to act on behalf of our nation's
military retirees. Let's pass this amendment today.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry)
is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
California (Chairman Thomas) and his willingness to work with us to
make sure that the protections that need to be in this provision are
there as we move toward the conference. I think he is right, and I
think that is important.
I also believe that it is morally wrong, not to mention detrimental
to our country's security, not to treat military retirees at least as
well as we treat civilian Federal retirees.
This amendment starts to fix that, and regardless of the other
difficulties that have to be overcome, it is the right thing to do.
This House ought to pass it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Watts amendment
because I feel it is imperative that Congress do its best to rectify
the injustice done to military retirees who were promised, but have not
received, the guarantee of lifetime medical care.
Uncle Sam misled America's finest when he recruited them to the
military. Therefore, while this amendment does not restore the entire
promise, it does provide military retirees over the age of 65 with
affordable, accessible, high-quality health care by allowing them to
join the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. Congress has access
to FEHBP, Mr. Chairman, so why shouldn't our nation's military
retirees?
The Watts amendment is a step in the right direction--a move toward
partially restoring the quality of healthcare at an affordable price
that these retirees were promised upon entering the military. We owe
them no less!
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for
the Watts, Moran, Thornberry Amendment to the Defense Authorization
Bill. For too long, our nation's military retirees have been denied
access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) even
though they have devoted their entire lives to the defense and security
of our nation. Most of these individuals entered the military on the
premise that they would be entitled to comprehensive, quality health
care for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, our nation has not
lived up to this important commitment.
This amendment would create a demonstration program that would enroll
70,000 Medicare eligible members or former members of the armed forces
into the FEHBP. The program would be available in six sites around the
country. At the end of the project, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management will analyze whether or
not the demonstration yielded its intended results.
Throughout my tenure is Congress, I have often spoken out in behalf
of using the FEHBP to cover the underinsured and the uninsured. The
FEHBP is financially sound and in most states, the program provides at
least three quality benefit plans for its members. This the least we
can do for our armed forces who have stood up to protect the rights and
freedoms that we all cherish today. After a long fight, we have taken
the first step toward providing comprehensive coverage for such brave
and selfless individuals. It is my hope that this provision will remain
in the conference report and will be signed into law by the President
in the most timely manner possible. Our armed forces deserve nothing
less.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Congressmen Watts, Moran and Thornberry to allow military
retirees who are eligible to join Medicare to enroll in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
Mr. Chairman, under this amendment, the Department of Defense would
be allowed, on a trial basis, to give 70,000 military retirees, their
eligible dependents, and certain ``Gold Star Widows'' the option of
enrolling in the FEHBP program.
For too long, the men and women who have served our nation in the
armed forces have not been afforded access to the same health care
programs that other federal retirees are eligible to join. For the
first time, under the provisions of this amendment, they will be
offered the choice of enrolling in the FEHBP program for their health
care services. These are individuals who are not eligible for TRICARE,
which serves active duty and under-65 military retirees.
Our military retirees should have the same quality of health care
coverage as other federal retirees, and should pay equitable premiums
for that coverage.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by numerous veterans
organizations, including
[[Page H3694]]
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I want to add my support for the
Watts/Moran/Thornberry Amendment. It is a first step toward providing
our military retirees with needed, affordable health care coverage.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment offered by my colleagues, Representatives J.C. Watts (R-OK),
Jim Moran (D-VA), and William ``Mac'' Thornberry (R-TX) that will help
provide a portion of the military retiree community with affordable,
accessible, high-quality health care by allowing them to join the
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This amendment
authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD) to conduct a demonstration
program to enroll Medicare-eligible military retirees in the (FEHBP).
The cost of the demonstration program is offset by the sale of the
National Defense Stockpile materials. Furthermore, this demonstration
project features a three-year program located at 6-10 sites around the
nation. It will provide coverage for Medicare eligible military
retirees (age 65 and above). This amendment will also cap costs at $100
million per year.
Mr. Chairman, although adoption of this amendment falls far short of
our original commitments to our veterans. I believe that the passage of
this amendment will bring a step closer the promise of lifetime health
care made to career military and retirees is kept and I urge all of my
colleagues to support the passage of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420,
noes 1, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 178]
AYES--420
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--1
Thomas
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Ganske
NOT VOTING--11
Bateman
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Parker
Pickett
Skaggs
Torres
Wicker
{time} 1702
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the chair.
____________________