[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4616-H4619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ILLNESSES AFFECTING GULF WAR VETERANS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the Chamber, and I,
for the benefit of those who follow, I suspect that I will be about 20
minutes. I will not be using my full hour.
I would like to talk about 2 issues. I would like to talk about the
problem that our Gulf War veterans faced when they returned home, and I
would also like to touch as well on the whole issue of reform, campaign
finance reform, and other reforms that this chamber has sought to deal
with.
Mr. Speaker, I have the incredible opportunity of chairing the
Subcommittee on Human Resources which oversees the Departments of HHS,
Labor, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development,
HUD. In my capacity as chairman, we have looked at the issue of Gulf
War illnesses and have had 13 hearings in the last 3\1/2\ years. We
have called in the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have called in
the Department of Defense, we have called in the CIA, to try to get a
handle on the problems that our Gulf War veterans have faced when they
returned home. Out of the 700,000 that have returned, almost 100,000
have had some types of physical problems to deal with and have sought
to have their illnesses be dealt with by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The bottom line to our investigation is that we want our troops
properly diagnosed, effectively treated, and fairly compensated, and to
this point, we do not feel that this has happened.
Our investigation found that a combination of exposures were most
likely the cause of illnesses, and these exposures are chemical and
biological warfare agents, experimental drugs and vaccines, pesticides,
leaded diesel fuel, depleted uranium, oil well fires, contaminated
water, and parasites as well. Sadly, our Federal Government has not
listened to our veterans. Our Federal Government has had a tin ear, a
very cold heart, and an extremely closed mind.
When we completed the 11 of our 13 hearings, we issued a major report
and had a number of findings, 18 in total. We determined that the VA
and the Pentagon did not properly listen to sick Gulf War veterans in
terms of the possible causes of their illness. We believe exposure to
toxic agents in the Gulf War contributed to veterans' illnesses.
We believe there is no credible evidence that stress or Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder caused the illnesses reported by many Gulf
War veterans. Among the 18 recommendations in our report was that
Congress should enact legislation establishing the presumption that
veterans were exposed to hazardous materials known to have been present
in the Gulf War theater.
{time} 1845
That the FDA should not grant a waiver of informed consent
requirements allowing the Pentagon to use experimental or
investigational drugs unless the President signs off and approves.
These were just a few of our recommendations.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, our troops were ordered to take an
experimental drug referred to as PB. This was a drug that was intended
to ward off the degeneration of the nervous system and our troops were
being required to take this drug as a prophylactic to protect them from
any possible chemical or biological agents. It was used, in other
words, as an experimental drug to do something it was not designed to
do. Our troops did not have the option to decide whether or not to do
this. They were under order. If they did not live by their order, they
would be prosecuted by the military.
We have come forward now with three bills to deal with not just the
use of experimental drugs but also to deal with the potential of
chemical and biological warfare agent exposure, to deal with
pesticides, to deal with leaded diesel fuel, to deal with depleted
uranium.
Depleted uranium is the material that is used to protect our military
equipment, our tanks and our armored vehicles. It is a very hard
substance. It is in fact depleted uranium. It is also used as the
shell, as the projectile to penetrate armored vehicles. When there is
penetration of an armored vehicle, the projectile disintegrates into
powder and this is depleted uranium.
Mr. Speaker, we had our soldiers who were not told about the dangers
of depleted uranium. Some of them went in actual tanks that had been
destroyed to witness the carnage firsthand and to take souvenirs. In
fact, they exposed themselves to depleted uranium.
Their exposure to oil well fires is well documented. Contaminated
water, parasites and pesticides. But they were also exposed to
defensive use of chemicals.
When we had our hearing and had the Department of Defense and the VA
come before us, we were told that our troops were not exposed to any
offensive use of chemicals. The word ``offensive'' is important because
at the time that the DOD and the CIA told us this,
[[Page H4617]]
they knew that our troops were exposed to defensive use of chemicals
and potential biological agents. They knew this because they knew of
Khamisiyah which was a Iraqi depot that our troops blew up not by bombs
from planes and rockets from planes, but by actually coming and
destroying these facilities by setting charges.
We had set a hearing on a Tuesday. The Tuesday hearing was going to
expose the fact that our troops were exposed in Khamisiyah. So our
Department of Defense announced that they would hold a press conference
on Friday at 4 o'clock in which they announced that our troops may have
been exposed to the defensive use of chemicals in Khamisiyah. This was
a press conference called at 12 o'clock for 4 o'clock on a Friday to
frankly disclose this information before it would be disclosed at a
hearing that we had on Tuesday. The reason why it was disclosed is that
we actually had pictures of the chemicals before they were blown up.
At first, the Department of Defense said that possibly 500 of our
soldiers were exposed. They jumped that to 1,000, then they jumped it
to 5,000, and then jumped that to 10,000 and then 20,000 because the
plumes went well beyond the original range that they had discussed when
they originally disclosed that our troops were exposed.
So we had our troops exposed to defensive chemical warfare agents.
They were ordered, all 700,000, to take an experimental drug and
vaccines as well. They were exposed to pesticides, leaded diesel fuel,
depleted uranium, well-oil fires, contaminated water, parasites. And
when our soldiers came to talk about their maladies, they were told it
was all in their mind.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we are beyond that point. We are at the
point now in which I would like to talk about three bills. One bill
introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) reflects
the recommendation of our committee that an agency other than the
Department of Defense or VA should control Gulf War research agenda.
One of our recommendations was the DOD and the VA had been part of
the problem and they should not control the research agenda, because
basically they had put no faith in any of the potential sources of Gulf
War illnesses and had been very reluctant, for instance, to have any
research done on chemical exposure until just recently.
Their premise was that if our troops did not basically drop dead on
the spot, they were not exposed to chemicals. They did not accept the
fact that low-level exposure to chemicals could ultimately lead to
sickness and death. So our committee supports the proposal by the
gentleman from Massachusetts to take the research from the Department
of Defense and the VA.
Last week our subcommittee introduced two other bills to implement
our report. The first is the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998,
H.R. 4036. This would establish in law the presumption of service
connection for illness associated with exposure to toxins present in
the war theater.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA, would be required to accept
the findings of an independent scientific body as to the illnesses
linked with actual and presumed toxic exposures by establishing a
rebuttable presumption of exposure and the presumption of service
connection for exposure effects. The bill places the burden of proof
where it belongs, on the VA, not on the sick veterans.
The bill would also require the VA to commission an independent
scientific panel to conduct ongoing health surveillance among Gulf War
veterans. We basically put the burden of proof on the government to
prove that a veteran who is in fact sick, no one disputes that, was
sick due to their illness in the Gulf War theater. The presumption is
with the veteran. The Department of Veterans Affairs would have to
prove that this veteran was sick for some other reason. If they cannot
prove it, the presumption is with the veteran.
The second bill, the Drugs and Informed Consent Armed Forces
Protection Act of 1998, H.R. 4035, would amend the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to require presidential concurrence in any Department
of Defense, DOD, request for a waiver of informed consent in connection
with the administration of an investigational or experimental drug to
members of the Armed Forces.
The bill would also amend a section of last year's defense
authorization bill to require DOD to provide detailed written
information about investigational or experimental drugs to U.S. forces
before being administered. The current provision allows DOD to require
use of any investigation or experimental drug and only provide basic
information such as the name of the drug, reason for use, side effects,
and drug interactions within 30 days after initial administration,
which by the way the DOD did not do.
The DOD gave 700,000 of our troops, with the consent of the FDA, an
experimental drug that may in fact have caused serious illness with our
soldiers. They were ordered to take this drug. They were not told of
the dangers and the DOD did not keep records as to who took this drug
and did not make any examinations afterwards to determine the effect of
this drug.
So we would require the President of the United States of America to
sign off if our troops were forced to take a particular drug that was,
in fact, experimental.
Mr. Speaker, I just would conclude my comments to say again that what
we support our troops being properly diagnosed, effectively treated,
and fairly compensated for their Gulf War illnesses. We would hope and
pray that this House would take action on the three bills that I
described: The one presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) that would take the research away from the DOD and VA, which
has been part of the problem, and give it to another agency; that we
would require the President to sign off on any experimental drug being
administered to our troops under order; and that we would place the
presumption of illness with the veteran and force the VA to do its job
in proving that it was not an illness caused in the Gulf War theater.
Campaign Finance Reform
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have a very good transition to my next
issue, but I would like to briefly talk about campaign finance reform
and to say that this is an issue that the House of Representatives has
put off dealing with for the 11 years that I have been in this Chamber.
In an effective way, we have not had a fair and open debate.
It was my expectation that this House, this Republican Congress of
the 1994 election, this first Republican Congress elected in 1994,
taking power in 1995, would deal with a number of reform issues.
Praise the Lord, we dealt with congressional accountability. We
require Congress to live under all the laws that we impose on the rest
of the Nation. We did that under our rule, under our leadership, but we
did it on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and Democrats working
together passed congressional accountability.
Now Congress comes under all the laws it exempted itself from for so
many years. The civil rights laws that we were not under. The OSHA
laws, Occupational Safety and Health Act. The various laws that require
us to have a safe working place. The sexual harassment laws that
Members of Congress were not under with its employees. The 40-hour work
week with time-and-a-half over 40 hours.
We exempted ourselves from all of those acts that we imposed on the
rest of the Nation. But now we are under them, and we should be.
Congratulations to Congress and the Republicans and Democrats on both
sides of the aisle for making sure that happened. That was a true
reform.
We also passed a gift ban that basically says Members of Congress
cannot accept gifts. Maybe a hat, maybe a certificate, a book. We can
accept that. But the meals, the wining and dining, the various
expensive gifts that Members were given that could go up to $100 and
$250 cumulative, we banned them. That was done under a Republican
Congress, but on a bipartisan basis. It did not happen years ago. The
ban took place after the 1994 election, but on a bipartisan basis.
For the first time since 1946, we passed lobby disclosure. Now we
know there are far more individuals who lobby Congress who are now
having to register than in the past. We have over 10,000 that have to
register. Before it was literally 1,000 or 2,000.
We have many people who are lobbyists and that is part of the law and
part
[[Page H4618]]
of the process. But now they have to register and disclose information
as to how much they spend and the contacts they make and who they try
to influence and why they are trying to influence it. It is a
disclosure that makes sense and it happened under this Congress, a
Republican Congress, but on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Speaker, the one issue we failed to deal with in the last
Congress was campaign finance reform. We failed to deal with it. We
dealt with three issues: Congressional accountability, the gift ban,
and lobby disclosure on a bipartisan basis, and we did it. But campaign
finance reform remains to be dealt with in a fair and open process.
It was the expectation of many of us that while we would not do it
with the last Congress, that we would do with it the next Congress, the
105th Congress, the Congress that took over in the beginning of last
year in 1997. It was our hope and expectation that Republicans and
Democrats on a bipartisan basis would want to deal with campaign
finance reform.
There was a lot of debate and dialogue on the bipartisan and historic
budget agreement and many of us did not push campaign finance reform
because we felt that was the issue that we first needed to deal with.
But by the fall, it became clear to us that we could in fact deal with
this issue and that leadership did not want to.
There was a petition drive. There was an effort on the part of
Republicans and Democrats to get this Republican Congress to deal with
campaign finance reform and a promise that we would deal with it in
February or at the latest March.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that has not happened. We did not have a
debate in February. And towards the last week in March, it was clear
that leadership did not want to deal with an amendment, a major bill,
the McCain-Feingold legislation that was in the Senate and referred to
in the House as Shays-Meehan or Meehan-Shays.
{time} 1900
This bill bans all soft money. Soft money is the unlimited sums that
individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups can
give to the political parties which was supposed to be used for party
building and registration. But elected officials and party officials
found ways to just bring it right back to individual candidates and
circumvent the campaign law.
A second issue, besides banning soft money, and we would in fact ban
it all, money that goes to the Democratic Party and money that goes to
the Republican Party, because it has been an abused system that has
simply allowed unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, and labor
unions to go to your individual candidates. We would recognize that the
sham issue ads are truly campaign issue ads, are campaign ads and treat
them as campaign ads.
We do not take away anyone's right to speak. We do not do that. We
just say that if they are campaign ads, they be treated as campaign ads
and come under the campaign laws, which means people have a voice, but
they have a voice that requires that there be disclosure; and that,
while they are not limited on what they can spend, they do follow the
limitations of what they can raise, as all campaign law has. We cannot
limit what can be spent. We can limit what can be raised. We, in fact,
do that under the Constitution.
We require that if an individual candidate is referred to by picture
or name 60 days prior to an election in a sham issue ad, it is to be
called a campaign ad and come under the campaign laws.
We also use the 9th Circuit Court, the unambiguous, unmistakable
support or opposition for a clearly identified candidate as a campaign
ad, and that would go through 365 days a year. We codify the Beck
decision, which means this, that if you are not a member of the union
and you pay an agency fee, you do not have to have in your agency fee
to the union money that goes for political purposes. That is what the
Beck decision determined.
They did not determine that union members could be exempt from a
political payment to the union for political activities, rather, they
determined that if you were not a member of the union, you did not have
to have your agency fee go for political activity.
My wife does not like me bringing this up because she does not like
me bringing her up as an example in anything, but I will say,
notwithstanding her objection, that she, in fact, has experienced this
process of the Beck decision; and that is that, as a public
schoolteacher, she did not choose to have her union dues go to support
a gubernatorial candidate she did not support, who happened in this
case to be a Democrat.
When she complained to her union, she was told the only way that her
money could not go would be that she could not be a member of the
union. If she paid an agency fee, they would make sure they subtracted
the amount of the political payment.
So in fact she is not a member of the union anymore. She has taken
advantage of the Beck decision, and she does not have to make any
political payment to a candidate she does not choose to support.
In our bill, we improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. We
require disclosure within 48 hours of a major contribution and that the
FEC put it on the Internet within 24 hours. We strengthen FEC
disclosure and also enforcement.
We allow the FEC to speed up the process to eliminate a frivolous
complaint. We also allow them to speed up the process to take action on
a complaint that is not frivolous. We also say that wealthy candidates
can contribute $50,000 or less. But if they contribute more, then they
cannot expect support from their own political parties to augment the
$50,000 they put into it. So if they contribute $49,000, the parties
can contribute up to $61,000, but not if they contribute more.
We ban franking mail, unsolicited franking mail throughout the
district 6 months to an election. Then we also make clear foreign money
and fund-raising on government property is illegal. Believe it or not,
the Vice President of the United States was right. There was no
controlling authority for raising soft money from a government
building.
It is not illegal to accept money from a foreigner if it is not
campaign money. Soft money is not defined as campaign money. It is not
campaign money. If it were campaign money, it would come under the
campaign laws. It would have limits placed on it. There are no limits.
So we need to correct an abuse that, clearly, the spirit of the law
was broken, but the law was not broken, which allows me to make one
point that I think needs to be made time and again.
The big failing, in my judgment, with Republicans is that we are not
willing to take up campaign finance reform. We are willing to
investigate wrongdoing of the President and the administration, as we
should, but we do not want to take up campaign finance reform.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are willing to take up campaign
finance reform, as they should, but are not willing to hold the
President accountable for the actions that his administration should be
held accountable for.
When Democrats investigated the Nixon administration, they did not
say that the President of the United States has broken the law;
therefore, we do not need to reform the system. They said the President
of the United States has broken the law and should be held accountable,
and we need to reform the system.
I have a gigantic regret that Republicans have not made the same
argument today. I believe the President of the United States, his
administration, has broken the law and should be held accountable. I
also believe we need to reform the system.
The foreign money and fund-raising on government property is a case
in point. We know what the spirit of the law is, but we also know that
soft money is not considered campaign money. It does not come under the
campaign law. It was allowed by the FEC years ago as party-building
money, not meant as campaign money. But over time, it began to be a big
sum of money that both parties have now raised for campaign purposes
even though it is not campaign law.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the other speaker is ready to speak, and I
have gone over my 20 minutes, but I would like to say that I believe it
is absolutely essential that my own party and my own leadership keep
faith with its commitment to deal with campaign finance reform now, not
later.
[[Page H4619]]
The commitment originally that was made was that we would deal with
it in February or March, and we did not do that. We did not keep faith
with our commitment.
The commitment then, after a number of us got off a petition, was to
deal with this issue in May. Since May, we have had a vote on a rule
allowing for debate on campaign finance reform. We have had a general
debate on campaign finance reform. We have had a specific debate on a
constitutional amendment brought forward by an individual who did not
even support the constitutional amendment the individual was bringing
forward, and that is it.
Since the commitment that was made to us in April, we have not had
debate of any consequence during the time in May. We are already in the
middle of June. I was told last week that the second rule on campaign
finance reform would be debated on Friday, in which I concurred and
thought that was some progress. That was not debated. I am told we will
bring it up tomorrow. I am told we will have debate on Wednesday and
Thursday and Friday. Now I have been told we will have no debate next
week on campaign finance reform.
In my own mind, I do not understand why this reform Republican Party
would oppose dealing with campaign finance reform. I do not know why my
reform-minded leadership would object to dealing with this issue now,
since we are going to have an open debate with endless amendments.
But there is a point where, if the leadership refuses to allow for an
open debate to take place, then it forces us to consider going back on
petitions. It forces us to take other action to express our concern
with the process and to force some kind of change.
I realize that I am only one Member of 435, so I cannot force
anything, but 218 Members can. Ultimately, there have to be 218 Members
in this House who believe that the word of our leadership should be
honored and that we should take up debate on the 11 substitutes and the
endless amendments.
Tomorrow we will be taking up a second rule that will make germane
amendments that are not even germane. We have hundreds and hundreds of
amendments. I also have some leadership that have publicly stated that
it is the intention to just drag out this debate ad infinitum.
I cannot understand why Republican leadership would choose to put
this debate off any longer. Is it going to be better to debate this
issue later this month? Is it going to be better to take up this issue
in July and debate it? Do we win more points by putting it off even
further and taking it up in September? How is that living up to the
commitment of my leadership to take up this issue in May?
____________________