[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?

                          ____________________