[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3346-H3397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House
Resolution 504 and rule XVIII, 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. 4205.
{time} 1322
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. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman
pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 503 had been
completed.
Pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except
amendments printed in House Report 106-624 and pro forma amendments
offered by the chairman and ranking minority member.
Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment
printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed,
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
Each amendment shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent
of the amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except as
specified in the report and except that the chairman and ranking
minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose
of further debate on any pending amendment.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
[[Page H3347]]
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in
which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sanchez
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Sanchez:
At the end of title VII (page 247, after line 9), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 7____. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MEDICAL FACILITIES.
Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--'';
and
(2) by striking out subsection (b).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, I join the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to offer this amendment. This
amendment repeals a provision of the fiscal year 1996 defense bill
which bars women serving overseas in the U.S. military from using their
own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals.
Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many
freedoms and they risk their lives to defend our country. They should
not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic
constitutional rights because of a policy that has no valid military
purpose.
This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations
are often not equipped to handle procedures, and medical standards may
be far lower than those in the United States. In other words, we are
putting our soldiers at risk.
This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents
stationed abroad do not expect special treatment. They only expect the
right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under
Roe v. Wade at their own expense.
My amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military
hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortions on
principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. My
amendment reinstates the same policy that we had as a Nation from 1973
until 1988, and again from 1993 until 1996.
This has received bipartisan support from the House and from the
House Committee on Armed Services. It also has strong support from the
health care community; namely, the American Public Health Association,
the American Medical Women's Association and the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And my amendment is supported by the
Department of Defense.
If the professionals who are responsible for our Nation's armed
services support this policy change, then why would Congress not? I
urge my fellow colleagues to vote for the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years, the availability of abortion
services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous
changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton
signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit
privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The
changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the
access to abortion services as may be claimed here on the House floor.
Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas
for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the
prevailing laws and rules of host nations regarding abortions. Second,
the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals
in uniform willing to perform such procedures, even though we then
enacted a conscience clause.
The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas
military hospitals. This language was defeated previously. It almost
feels as though it is political theater year in and year out as we go
through these abortion amendments.
I would note that in overseas locations where safe, legal abortions
are not available, the beneficiaries have options of using space
available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to
another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. But
if we are going to subject our military facilities by military doctors
who have taken a pledge and focus all of their energies toward military
medical readiness, which means the saving of life, that is what our
military doctors do. Military medical readiness is that they focus the
performance of their duties to take care of soldiers who are wounded in
accidents and, more particular, in battlefield injuries. Now to say,
``Well, we're going to take that same doctor and, oh, by the way, now
we're going to say it's okay to let him perform abortions,'' I think
not. The House has been heard on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez-
Morella-Lowey amendment, which would allow military women and
dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their
own money. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez) for her fine work on this important issue.
Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These
women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful
Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country, and
yet these women, for the past 4 years, have been denied the very
constitutional rights they fight to protect.
Mr. Chairman, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and
would be unconstitutional on United States soil. How can this body deny
constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them?
Mr. Chairman, especially as we work to promote and ensure democracy
worldwide, we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are
free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model
of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed.
This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions,
because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This
amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures
they are opposed to, because they are protected by a conscience clause.
This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the
ability to exercise their constitutional right to privacy and access to
safe and legal abortion services.
In the past, I have expressed my exhaustion with the anti-choice
majority's continued attempts to strip women of their right to choose.
Well, yes, I am tired of revisiting these now familiar battles, and so,
too, are the American people.
Their message is clear: Do not make abortion more difficult and
dangerous. Instead, they have asked this body to find ways to prevent
unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion by encouraging
responsibility and making contraception affordable and accessible to
all women. That is why in the 105th Congress I worked tirelessly to
secure passage of my provision.
Mr. Chairman, not one of these restrictions does anything to make
abortion less necessary. I urge Members to support the Sanchez
amendment and join me in my effort to make abortion less necessary.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman by saying
if she is fatigued in these types of battles, then join in the cause of
the celebration for life.
[[Page H3348]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Sanchez amendment is to facilitate
the destruction of unborn babies by dismemberment and chemical
poisoning. Of course, my friend and colleague from California does not
present her case to us in this way, my friend instead sanitizes a
terrible reality. The difficult unavoidable consequence of enactment of
her amendment is to facilitate the violent death of babies.
Mr. Chairman, with each passing day, more Americans in their heart of
hearts know that abortion is violence against children. The stark,
horrific reality of partial-birth abortion has shattered forever the
unsustainable myth that abortion procedures are somehow benign and
benevolent acts. The scrutiny that partial-birth abortion has received
has helped peel away the layers upon layers of euphemisms,
disinformation and lies to show abortion for what it is, child abuse
and violence against children.
Mr. Chairman, the most commonly procured method of abortion in
America today and most likely to be facilitated by this amendment is
the dismemberment of babies. The Sanchez amendment will prevent razor
blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the
average household vacuum cleaner to be used in military health
facilities to pulverize the child's arms, legs, torso and head. The
baby who gets killed in the hideous fashion is turned into a bloody
pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about and a
vote in favor of Sanchez will result in more kids being murdered in
this way.
Abortion methods also include injecting deadly poisons, including
high concentrated salt solutions, into the child's amniotic fluid or
into the baby. That too would be facilitated by Sanchez. This barbaric
type of child abuse usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and
anybody who has ever seen a picture of a child killed by a saline
abortion quickly takes note of the red/black badly burned skin of the
victim child. The whole baby's body is badly burned from the corrosive
action of the high dose of salt, but the palms of the child's hands are
white, because the baby grips and clenches his or her fist because of
the pain. That's not child abuse? That's not violence against children?
I strongly urge Members to vote no on the Sanchez amendment. Don't
turn our medical facilities overseas into abortion mills. Make them
places of healing and nurture.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time, and I am certainly pleased to be a cosponsor of the Sanchez-
Morella-Lowey amendment.
Actually, I did not recognize the amendment when I heard my good
friend from New Jersey speak about it, because actually what the
amendment would do would be to restore a provision, a regulation that
had been there earlier, to allow U.S. servicewomen stationed overseas
access to the Department of Defense health facilities and allowing them
to use their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military
hospitals.
Women serving in the military overseas depend on their base hospitals
for medical care. They may be stationed in areas where local health
care facilities are inadequate, and this ban that we currently have
might cause a woman who needs an abortion to delay the procedure while
she looks for a safe provider or may force a woman to seek an illegal
unsafe procedure locally.
I want to point out that women who volunteer to serve in our Armed
Forces already give up many of their freedoms and risk their lives to
defend our country, and they should not have to sacrifice their
privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights to a policy
with no valid military purpose.
The amendment is about women's health, it is about fairness, and it
is also about economic fairness. An officer may be able to fly home or
fly one's wife or daughter home to seek abortion services, if
necessary, but for an enlisted personnel, the burden of the ban may not
be possible to overcome.
The amendment does not allow taxpayer funded abortions at military
hospitals, I emphasize that, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes
abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an
abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect
from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring servicewomen's
constitutional rights by supporting the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey
amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on February 10, 1996, the National Defense
Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton with the
provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used
to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother was in danger
or in the case of rape or incest. The provision reversed a Clinton
Administration policy that was instituted on January 22, 1993,
permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. The
Sanchez amendment, which would repeal the pro-life provision, reopens
this issue and attempts to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into
abortion clinics.
The House rejected this same amendment last year. We rejected it in
committee this year. We should reject it again today.
When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was
first promulgated, all military physicians refused to perform or assist
in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire
civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Sanchez amendment were
adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support
abortion on demand, resources would be used to search for, hire and
transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed.
Military treatment facilities, which are dedicated to healing and
nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the
most innocent of human life, the child in the womb. I urge Members to
maintain current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Sanchez-
Morella-Lowey amendment. This amendment, strongly supported by the
Department of Defense, would provide fairness to female service members
of the military assigned to duty overseas.
Mr. Chairman, the facts of this amendment are simple. First, no
Federal funds would be used to perform these service. Individuals who
decide to have these procedures would use their own money. Second,
health care professionals who object to performing abortions as a
matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so.
Finally, the amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on
abortions in overseas military hospitals.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the well-respected
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it always is a mystery to me why so many good
people, and the advocates of this amendment are as good as they get,
can support such a hollow cause as killing an unborn child. That is the
what an abortion is.
Do you ever hear the saying, get real? Well, they talk about
euphemisms, about choice. We are all for choice, but there is only one
choice, whether it is in a military hospital or in an abortion clinic;
it is a live baby, or a dead baby. That is the choice they are opting
for.
Mr. Chairman, military facilities are paid for by taxpayers, and they
do not want the facilities used to kill unborn children.
The phrase ``terminate a pregnancy,'' that is fraudulent. You
exterminate a
[[Page H3349]]
pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months.
No, our military is to defend life, not to exterminate defenseless,
powerless, unborn life. I know lots of tough situations occur where a
pregnancy is terribly awkward. It can even threaten your health. Those
are serious and we cannot minimize them. But I will tell you what is
serious; taking a little life that has a future and exterminating it
for any reason other than to save another life.
So if abortion is just another procedure, and getting rid of the
child is no big deal because it is really not a member of the human
family, it is a thing, it is expendable, then, fine, this is probably a
good idea. But if you think human life is something that is special,
something that is sacred, if you think that all people are possessed of
inalienable rights, the first of which is life, then it would seem to
me, do not use taxpayer facilities.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez-Morella-
Lowey amendment, and I want to thank them for their leadership.
Together they consistently fight for equal treatment for women in the
military.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is
all about, equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This
amendment is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their
country abroad the same constitutional protections that women have here
at home.
In 1995 the Republicans told servicewomen stationed overseas that
they could not spend their own money on abortion services in military
hospitals. This message is loud and clear to each American
servicewoman, that a political agenda here in the House of
Representatives is more important than a woman's health and safety.
Mr. Chairman, these brave military women serve overseas to safeguard
our freedom. They deserve the right to choose how to safeguard their
own health. These women stand up for our freedom every day. Let us not
take away their freedom. Vote for the Sanchez amendment.
{time} 1345
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement of the House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in this debate by the proponents
that somehow there is a different standard in the military than there
is in the rest of society. I think that is true. I think, in fact, it
is a higher standard, and interestingly, when polls are taken among the
American people about which institutions they respect the most, the
American military is number one, because the American military does
have higher standards in a number of areas and this is one of those
areas.
It is absolutely true, if one listened to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Weldon), a former military physician, that military physicians
come in with a sense of honor to serve their country, to save lives,
and it is an enormous imposition on them to ask them to carry out the
social dictates of a few folks who would devalue, in my estimation,
devalue human life. So let us keep that high standard, duty, honor,
country, for the American military. Let us not drag them down into the
abortion mess.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment and I urge my colleagues to think about the double standard
that we are imposing on these women. How can we expect women to serve
their country if their country strips them of their rights of
healthcare.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is an issue of fairness. We have more than
100,000 women serving our country overseas and these women are entitled
to the same freedom as all other American women.
The Department of Defense supports this amendment and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Let me just make one point. I serve on the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and the same problems that the women in the military
are having are the same ones that the veterans' women have. This is why
we cannot have comprehensive healthcare because of the same
controlling, narrow-minded, one-sided philosophy of we are going to
control what happens to women, and the healthcare of women, and the
veterans' women, that is the problem that the military women are having
and the veteran women are having.
Let me say I am hoping that women take control of what happens in
this Congress.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair
would notify Members that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez)
has one-half minute remaining and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has the
right to close.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), do not question our reverence for
life, including the lives of women and including the lives of the
100,000 women active service members, spouses and dependents of
military personnel who live on military bases overseas and rely on
military hospitals for their healthcare.
The current ban on privately-funded abortions discriminates against
these women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting
them from exercising their legally protected right to choose, simply
because they are stationed overseas. The bottom line is, prohibiting
women from using their own funds to obtain services at overseas
military services endangers women's health and lives. Vote yes on
Sanchez-Morella-Lowey.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, since the name of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was brought up in the well of the House, I yield 1
minute to him to respond.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), no one attacks anyone's reverence for life.
I attack killing unborn children, however, and I will defend them.
Secondly, no one is stopping a woman from exercising her constitutional
right to have an abortion because of Roe versus Wade. Under the law,
women have that right but they do not have the right to have the
government pay for any part of it.
We have a right of free speech. That does not mean the government has
to buy someone a megaphone or a typewriter. People can exercise it.
Taxpayers' funds are expended when military facilities are used and
there is no constitutional right to that, and so that is the
difference.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard the words fairness, double standard,
discrimination, narrow-minded. I mean, we could go down the list.
I suppose to articulate debates one can choose these types of words.
One thing that is real that one cannot get away from is the Supreme
Court over there permits Congress to set the rules for the military,
and we discriminate all the time: How tall one can be; how short; how
heavy; how light; one cannot even be color blind.
We discriminate all the time, so that argument is rather foolish.
Narrow-minded? Guilty. So narrow that the interests for which we seek
to protect are twofold. Number one, life. If we in this country cannot
be the defenders of life, then what are we as a society? If that is
narrow-minded, guilty.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez
amendment and thank the gentlewoman for her hard work in support of the
women who serve our Nation overseas.
This amendment would extend to the more than 100,000 women who live
on American military bases abroad the right to make health decisions
and access available care as they would be able to do here at home.
This amendment would not commit public funds, not one taxpayer
dollar, for abortion. It would simply allow
[[Page H3350]]
servicewomen--or the spouses or dependents of servicemen--to use their
own funds to pay for an abortion which would be legal if they were
stationed in the United States.
We all have our own views on the issue of abortion. But the fact
remains that it remains a legal option for American women. Unarguably,
women serving in our armed forces are entitled to all the
constitutional rights they work each day to defend and protect.
To deny them the right to use their own money to obtain health care
on their base if it is available is unfair to those committed service
women. Many times these women are stationed in hostile nations where
they may not know the language and have few or no civil rights. Denying
our female soldiers or the wives of make soldiers the safe and quality
health care they could have on base could in fact be putting them in
danger.
This amendment is about preserving the rights of American soldiers
and their families serving abroad. It is not about promoting or
considering the legality of abortion. A vote for the Sanchez amendment
is a vote to support these servicewomen stationed far from home.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez
amendment, but with deep disappointment that this issue must be subject
to debate.
Today, we must debate whether or not the women serving this country
overseas will fall into the same category as female prisoners as a
class of women who cannot exercise the same right as free women in this
country to access a safe and legal abortion. This amendment simply
restores access to privately funded abortion services for U.S.
servicewomen and military dependents abroad. We are not even debating
funding this medical service with taxpayer dollars, and still this is
subject to debate.
As much as the other side would like to make this debate about the
practice of abortion, this debate is about equal treatment for women
who put their lives on the line for this country all across the globe.
I support the Sanchez amendment because current law jeopardizes the
health of the 100,000 U.S. servicewomen and military dependents who
live on military bases overseas. It denies a woman her constitutional
right to choose and punishes her for her military service. This
amendment ensures that our servicewomen are not forced into dangerous
back alley abortions in unsafe, unsanitary, inhospitable locales.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, and it should be
legal for an American woman serving her country overseas.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
the Sanchez amendment to the Fiscal 2001 Department of Defense
authorization which would restore equal access to health services for
servicewomen stationed overseas by reversing the ban on privately
funded abortion services at U.S. military bases.
More than 100,000 women--some active service members, some the wives
of military personnel--live on American military bases overseas. These
brave women risk their lives to protect our freedom, often in lands
with laws and customs very different from those we know and cherish in
the United States. The availability of abortion services in their host
countries varies widely according to many factors--location, individual
physician practices, command interpretations and practices, and that
nation's rules and laws. Our soldiers and their families deserve equal
access to the same spectrum and quality of health care procedures that
we enjoy in the United States. Under current law, however, these women
are denied this access, effectively putting their lives and health in
harm's way.
The Sanchez amendment would rectify this grievous inequity by
allowing women stationed overseas and their dependents to use their own
funds to pay for abortion services at U.S. military bases, thereby
providing them with access to constitutionally protected health care.
The facts of this amendment are clear--Roe v. Wade guarantees the
right to choose, and if abortion is legal for women on the American
mainland, it should be legal for women living on American bases abroad.
No federal funds would be used, and health care professionals who are
opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral
principle are not required to do so.
This is a health issue, and we should be making sure that this
procedure is safe, legal and available for our military women and
dependents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Sanchez amendment.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is the 145th vote on choice
since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have documented each of
these votes in my choice scorecard, which is available on my website:
www.house.gov/maloney.
This common-sense amendment offered by Ms. Sanchez, lifts the ban on
privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas.
It is bad enough that current law prohibits a woman from using her
own funds at all military facilities overseas to get an abortion. But I
want to point out although there is an exception when a woman's life is
in danger, abortion is not even covered for cases of rape and incest.
How can anyone interfere with a woman's right to choose under these
extreme circumstances? Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a
woman who is raped is not entitled to sue in Federal court for civil
damages.
Too often in our society, women who are raped are victimized a second
time by the judicial system. Failure to pass this amendment doubly
victimizes a women who is raped.
Why doesn't this Republican majority take rape seriously? I believe
that the underlying law is discriminatory. While a woman may serve
overseas defending our Constitutional rights, and defending our
freedom, this Republican-led Congress is busily working to undermine
hers. I cannot think of a men's medical procedure that is not covered.
I cannot imagine a situation where a man would be told that a certain
medical procedure was prohibited at overseas military hospitals.
In fact, when the drug Viagra came on the market, DoD quickly decided
to cover it. This amendment is simple. This amendment will not cost the
Federal Government one dime.
This amendment is about fairness. This amendment simply allows
privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. This
amendment protects women's rights.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired on this amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Sanchez) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moakley.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Moakley:
Strike section 908 (page 285, line 6 through page 289, line
8) and insert the following:
SEC. 908. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY SCHOOL
OF THE AMERICAS.
(a) Closure of School of the Americas.--The Secretary of
the Army shall close the United States Army School of the
Americas.
(b) Repeal.--(1) Section 4415 of title 10, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 407
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 4415.
(c) Limitation on Establishment of New Education and
Training Facility.--No training or education facility may be
established in the Department of Defense for Latin American
military personnel (as a successor to the United States Army
School of the Americas or otherwise) until the end of the
ten-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(d) Task Force.--(1) There is established a task force to
conduct an assessment of the kind of education and training
that is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide
to military personnel of Latin American nations.
(2) The task force shall be composed of eight Members of
Congress, of whom two each shall be designated by the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate,
and the minority leader of the Senate.
(3) Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to
Congress a report on its assessment as specified in paragraph
(1). The report shall include--
(A) a critical assessment of courses, curriculum and
procedures appropriate for such education and training; and
(B) an evaluation of the effect of such education and
training on the performance of Latin American military
personnel in the areas of human rights and adherence to
democratic principles and the rule of law.
[[Page H3351]]
(4) In this subsection, the term ``Member'' includes a
Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner, in the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and a Member opposed each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, both
Democrat and Republican, for their tremendous support of this bill last
year. Last year, 230 Members of this body joined me in voting against
the School of the Americas and today, Mr. Chairman, I am asking them to
do the same again. A lot of people are surprised to see a Boston
Congressman working to close a school, a military school, in Fort
Benning, Georgia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have my reasons.
Ten years ago, Speaker Foley asked me to head up a congressional
investigation of the Jesuit murders in El Salvador and what I learned
during the course of that investigation I will never forget. On
November 6, 1989, at the University of Central America in San Salvador,
six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her 15-year-old daughter were
pulled from their beds in the middle of the night, armed only with
Bibles and their rosary beads, forced to lie on the ground and they
were executed in cold blood by a military cabal.
These murders shocked the entire country, the entire world, and at
that point the United States Government had sent the Salvador military
a total of $6 billion, with a ``B,'' and Congress wanted to get to the
bottom of this killing.
So my top staffer at the time, who is now the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I traveled to El Salvador dozens of
times over the next 2 years to get to the bottom of those very, very
heinous murders. After these 2 years, we learned an awful lot. We
learned that 26 Salvadoran soldiers committed the massacre and 19 of
the 26 were graduates of the School of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, up until that point I had never heard of the School of
the Americas, but what I learned quickly convinced me that the school
had no place as part of the United States Army.
The School of the Americas is an Army-run school at Fort Benning,
Georgia, that every year trains about 1,000 Latin American soldiers in
commando tactics, military intelligence, combat arms, and all this, Mr.
Chairman, to the tune of about $20 million of the United States
taxpayers' dollars.
I am not saying that everyone who graduates from the School of the
Americas has gone on to murder civilians and I do not want to let
anybody in this place believe that for one moment, but, Mr. Chairman,
after investigation, many of them have. It is those who bring disgrace
to the school. Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega
went to the School of the Americas, along with one-third of General
Pinochet's officials.
The architect of the genocide campaign in Guatemala, General Hector
Gramaho, went to the School of the Americas. As so did the murderers of
900 unarmed Salvadorans who were killed in El Mozote and then buried in
a big, huge ditch, and also the perpetrators of the chainsaw massacre
at El Trujillo.
The rapists and murderers of the four American church women killed in
El Salvador also went to the School of the Americas.
The crimes are not just in the past, Mr. Chairman. As recently as
March of 1999, Colombian School of the America graduates Major Rojas
and Captain Rodriguez were cited for murdering a peace activist and two
others as they tried to deliver ransom money for a kidnapping victim.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas has been
associated with some of the most heinous crimes that this hemisphere
has ever endured. These crimes are so awful, Mr. Chairman, that
approximately 10,000 people every year march on the school in protest.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for the United States to remove this blemish
on our human rights record. It is time once again, Mr. Chairman, for
the House to pass the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell-McGovern amendment.
Our amendment will close the School of the Americas as it exists today,
and create a Congressional task force to determine what sort of
training we should provide to our Latin American neighbors.
My colleagues who support the School of the Americas may say that the
school got the message last year and made some changes. Unfortunately,
Mr. Chairman, those changes do not amount to much more than a new coat
of paint. It will still be at Fort Benning, Georgia. It will still
inadequately screen soldiers who attend. It will still not monitor
graduates for human rights abuses and it will still train Latin
American soldiers in commando tactics and combat arms.
These changes that they made, Mr. Chairman, are like putting a
perfume factory on top of a toxic waste dump. We believe that any
school with such an infamous list of graduates needs more than a few
cosmetic changes.
Mr. Chairman, Latin America needs us. They need us to help shore up
their judicial systems. They need us to strengthen their electoral
system. They need us to work with their police. They do not need the
School of the Americas teaching their militaries how to wage war more
effectively, especially when the vast majority of Latin America wars
are conflicts with their own peoples.
It is time to move in a new direction. It is time to close the School
of the Americas and start over. So I urge my colleagues to continue
what we began last year and support the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell-
McGovern amendment to close the School of the Americas and create a
Congressional task force to determine what should take its place.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) is recognized for 20 minutes in opposition.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, times have not changed in so much of this
debate. Our Nation cannot walk away from its obligation to lead our
hemisphere in preserving regional stability, conducting
counternarcotics operations, providing disaster relief and promoting
democratic values and respect for human rights. Our military and the
School of the Americas, in particular, have been a forefront of these
efforts.
{time} 1400
Ironically, the amendment before us would actually strike a provision
of H.R. 4205 that would reform the School of the Americas and address
key concerns that have been raised over the years by the school's
critics.
Specifically, transitioning the school into the Defense Institute for
Hemispheric Security Cooperation, it requires a minimum of 8 hours of
instruction per student in human rights, the rule of law, due process,
civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a
democratic society, and creating a board of visitors with a broad
mandate to oversee the activities and curriculum of the Institute, and
requires the board to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and
to Congress.
These are fundamental changes to the program that are intended to
ensure continued education and training of the military, law
enforcement, and civilian personnel from Latin America while enhancing
transparency.
Passage of this amendment would undo the important reforms contained
in this bill, and would eliminate the School of the Americas
altogether. This would be a regrettable step backwards and would
disregard the significant contributions of our military in fostering
democracy throughout America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H3352]]
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley amendment.
Today, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is in focus. History
teaches us that graduates from the School of the Americas have returned
to their home countries and committed some of the worst atrocities this
hemisphere has ever seen.
Finally Congress responded accordingly and reasonably in cutting
funds for the School of the Americas during the debate of the defense
authorization bill last summer. Unfortunately, the will of the House
was disregarded in conference.
No doubt the U.S. military has good intentions and regrets the
behavior of those trained at the School of the Americas. But we have
many higher education institutions that do not have such a bad track
record. Let us utilize them, and let us eliminate the School of the
Americas.
Now, in the face of pressure, of course, the Army has attempted to
add new language that would simply rename the School of the Americas
the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. It has a
nice ring to it. That idea provides no substantive reform or
constructive policy path that would address the real problems of this
institution's troubled history.
This would be really a victory of symbolism over substance. Last year
when they talked about course work, they offered all these courses, but
unfortunately, nobody was taking them, the human rights courses
specifically. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this would be a victory of
symbolism over substance. The reality is that the day after the name is
changed, the school would continue to operate and it would be business
as usual.
Most would agree we need to engage in a comprehensive approach to
military training and aid for Latin America, but the U.S. military
training for Latin America must go far beyond the School of the
Americas, and certainly in a different direction. It is time that we
fully reassess our military engagement policies and take a closer look
at results.
The Moakley amendment would address the question, first, of closing
the School of the Americas and placing any new training institute on
hold until a bipartisan task force reviews and make recommendations for
U.S. military training and relations in Latin America.
This is a reasonable approach, a policy path that our constituents
could understand and support.
The Army's attempts at reform are too little, too late. This existing
initiative in the bill at best reflects cosmetic changes. Real reform
in my judgment would encompass alternatives to military aid, such as
economic assistance, microcredit loans, and the other alternatives that
my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, outlined.
I would urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and
implement this new approach, real reform. Let us not let the Army buy
off on an unworkable, easy route. Vote for the Moakley amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I commend the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of our
Committee on Armed Services, for his good work on this important
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this bill includes an important bipartisan proposal
that squarely addresses the concerns of critics of the United States
Army School of the Americas. This bill will create the Defense
Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation to replace the United
States Army School of the Americas. This modern institution will have a
new charter and a mission that is fully consistent with the U.S.
military training efforts worldwide.
Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned by a number of the
allegations that were leveled at the School of the Americas. I believe,
however, based on repeated staff visits to Fort Benning, that the
school now has bent over backwards to resolve those issues.
I cannot support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my good friend. However, we should note
that the language in the bill before the House today addresses a major
concern behind the Moakley amendment. A new board of visitors,
including Members of Congress, will be established to conduct the
oversight and pragmatic review that the gentleman from Massachusetts
has advocated in his amendment.
H.R. 4205 differs, however, in one fundamental respect, from the
Moakley amendment. It reaffirms that the U.S. Army is a force for good
in the world, and it recognizes that our men and women in uniform can
make a difference by helping other militaries undertake an important
professional reform.
The Moakley amendment would force an unwelcome hiatus in our U.S.
Army's efforts to help Latin American armies become more professional
and to respect human rights and civilian control of the military. The
creation of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation
addresses the criticisms leveled at the School of the Americas. The
Moakley amendment would unnecessarily be disruptive of our Armed Forces
training programs.
I have met with a number of good people from my own congressional
district who have urged that the School of the Americas should be
closed. As I understood their views, they believe that Latin American
countries do not need and should not have armies. For better or worse,
most Latin American countries do have armies, and we are not in a
position to dictate that they should abolish those institutions.
As long as those nations choose to keep their military, their people
and our Nation will be far better served if our decent, honorable
soldiers are able to exercise a positive influence on their soldiers.
It is abundantly clear that there are nefarious forces, including
narcotics trafficking syndicates, that are waiting in the wings to fill
the void if we decide here today to end our efforts to influence these
armies for the good.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget to take this opportunity
to thank the men and women who have loyally served our Nation with
honor and distinction in the U.S. Army School of the Americas. I invite
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4205 and to
oppose the Moakley amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If the School of the Americas closed tomorrow, there would still be
9,000 Latin American soldiers getting some kind of training in this
country from the U.S. Army, so it is not the only school.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who was my chief investigator
into the killings in El Salvador.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley
amendment to close the School of the Americas and initiate a bipartisan
review of U.S. military education and training for our Latin American
partners.
This amendment is a reasonable solution to the longstanding questions
regarding the School of the Americas. This is a sensible solution to
identifying our priorities in education and training and determining
how best we can achieve these goals, and whether that requires a school
or an institute.
I am sure that my colleagues are aware that the School of the
Americas has provided less than 10 percent of the education and
training the U.S. provides Latin American military personnel; let me
repeat that, less than 10 percent. But the school has certainly
provided most of the scandal, most of the debate, most of the horror
stories, most of the controversy.
That history will not go away by hanging a sign with a new name over
the same entry gate to the School of the Americas. The stains of blood
will not fade away when we train Latin American military officers on
the very same ground where we trained the people who murdered
Archbishop Romero, Bishop Gerardi, the six Jesuit priests
[[Page H3353]]
of El Salvador, and massacred literally thousands of Salvadorans,
Guatemalans, Colombians, and other Latin Americans.
Those scandals will not disappear with a few minor changes in the
curriculum. The controversy will continue. There has to be a clean
break with the past, not cosmetic changes, although some of the changes
are interesting in what they reveal. The U.S. Army has now finally and
openly admitted that human rights, rule of law, civilian control of the
military, and the role of the military were not part of the school's
curriculum.
But do we need a newly-named school, the so-called Defense Institute
for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, to teach those courses? I do not
think so. That training is covered under our extended IMET program. We
do not need to subsidize junkets to Georgia for this training. Well-
established, well-funded programs at scores of U.S. institutions are
already available to our Latin American partners on these subjects. We
do not need to send them to a scandal-ridden school with no history or
expertise in teaching these courses.
The new School of the Americas will continue to emphasize counterdrug
operations, military education, and leadership development, all areas
of the curriculum that helped develop some of the worst human rights
violators of the hemisphere in the past. Why should we believe it will
be any different now?
Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon already has a huge budget for training
Latin American military in counterdrug operations. I was looking at a
list of over 100 counterdrug programs we did last year for 1,200
Mexican military personnel. We do not need redundant counterdrug
programs at the old or new School of the Americas.
Not even the Pentagon knows fully what military education and
training programs it is engaged in. What information the Pentagon does
have comes from policy groups that took the time to go through the
programs and add up the numbers. What information the Pentagon does
have also comes from a congressionally mandated report on foreign
military training. Support the Moakley amendment. It is the right thing
to do.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Moakley
amendment. I have visited El Salvador 40 or 50 times. The School of the
Americas is something we need.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moakley amendment.
As you should know, the School of the Americas has trained over
54,000 graduates, including ten presidents, 38 ministers of defense and
state, 71 commanders of armed forces, and 25 service chiefs of staff in
Latin America. Since the school began training national leaders of
South and Central American countries, military or totalitarian regimes
in that region have declined and have been replaced with democracies.
Right now, Cuba remains as the sole dictatorship in the Western
Hemisphere. Not so ironically, Cuba does not participate in the School
of the Americas program.
This amendment attempts to close the school based on 10-20-year-old
assumptions about the school. Although there may have been questionable
practices taught at the school in the past, these have all been
corrected years ago.
Without the training from the School of the Americas, there never
would have been peace in El Salvador. The FMLN rebels demanded that the
military leadership resign before they would negotiate for a peace
settlement. Armed with the lessons taught at the school, these leaders
decided to resign. This was not because they were losing, but because
President Christiani had urged them to do it. And with that
resignation, the peace process began. You see, yielding to civilian
leadership is a principle taught at the School of the Americas, as has
occurred just lately in the county of Columbia.
Students from our southern neighbors are learning about democracy and
becoming our friends of the future. I urge my colleagues to support the
democratic education of these officers provided by the school by
defeating this amendment.
By the way, the former commanding general of the Salvadoran Army is
now running a filling station in San Salvador.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), whose district includes the School of the
Americas.
(Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, for many years we have been engaged in a
debate over whether or not the School of the Americas has faithfully
carried out its mission of teaching human rights and principles of
democracy to visiting students from Latin America in addition to their
military training.
Opponents have accused the school of all kinds of misdeeds, and those
of us supporting the school and its mission have presented documented
evidence which we believe thoroughly refutes these allegations.
Nevertheless, the same old charges and countercharges are revived year
after year, time and again.
I am not interested in rehashing the same old debate. What I am
interested in is focusing on the substantive changes that are proposed
today, changes that opponents have called for and which the supporters
of the school also believe can be helpful.
Opponents wanted to change the name, claiming the existing one has
been tainted. The plan before us would do that.
Opponents want stronger oversight, and the plan proposed shifts the
oversight responsibility to the Cabinet level by placing it in the
hands of the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretary of the
Army, and by establishing the Independent Board of Visitors, which
includes prominent human rights activists as part of this law.
Opponents wanted more emphasis on human rights, and the plan makes
instruction in human rights and democratic principles mandatory by law
for every student.
Anyone who supports the long-standing U.S. policy of both Democratic
and Republican administrations, the policy of helping Latin American
democracies develop professional military forces that are committed to
serving under civilian authority, should be for these changes.
The leaders of the School of the Americas Watch oppose this policy,
so it is not surprising that this movement does not support the
proposed reorganization of the school. The opponents of the School of
the Americas have publicly stated that they want weak military forces
in Latin America, even for democracies.
The real issue we are debating today is whether the U.S. should
promote weaker military forces for emerging democracies which the
Moakley Amendment does, or whether we should help these democracies
become more secure--and whether we should sustain an instrument like
the school at Fort Benning to actively carry out this policy.
A vote for this program is a vote for sound policy--and a vote for
truth.
{time} 1415
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year, the House voted overwhelmingly
230 to 197 to stop funding the Army School of the Americas. We voted
that way because this House finally decided that the record of
atrocities of murders and mayhem committed by graduates of that school
can no longer be ignored or condoned. Does the Pentagon believe that
renaming the school will fool those of us who voted against funding it
last year?
Mr. Chairman, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it
probably is a duck. This new school proposed by the Pentagon would have
the same mission, the same grounds, the same commanders, the same
purpose but a different name.
The Army claims it would teach human rights, but there is no
credibility to that school teaching human rights. If the Army thinks
that the Latin American officers being trained by the United States
should be trained in human rights, they should require all students to
take courses sponsored by nongovernmental organizations that are
qualified to do that.
The gross violations of human rights and the murders perpetrated by
graduates of this school argue convincingly that we must not be fooled,
we should again vote to remove funds for this school from the budget,
to close it down once and for all, so that the
[[Page H3354]]
American role of Latin America can once again be an honorable role and
the shameful record of some of the graduates of this school can no
longer besmirch the honor of the United States.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because I think we need to
refute some of the slander that is being perpetuated by some of the
opponents of the School of the Americas, and that is that the United
States Army systematically teaches its foreign students how to violate
human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our Army and this school has never taught torture techniques. Yes,
some graduates of the School of America have subsequently been guilty
of human rights abuses. So have some graduates from schools like
Harvard. In those cases, the training did not take. But only 100 or 200
out of 58,000 graduates have documented human rights abuses.
Let us not forget the other 57,800 plus graduates. Over 100 School of
Americas graduates serve or served their Nation and its people from the
highest levels of civilian and military office, from chief executive to
commander of major military units.
Furthermore, hundreds of School of America graduates currently occupy
positions of leadership and command at all levels in their military and
support democratically elected national leaders all over Latin America.
The fact of the matter is that in the last 20 years, democracy,
respect for the rule of law, sensitivity to human rights have greatly
increased in Latin America. This progress would have been impossible
had these countries' military not received training in how a military
operates in a democratic society at the School of the Americas.
Every year, soldiers from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and the United
States attend the School of the Americas. No other school with such a
small operational budget brings together future civilian and military
leaders of 16 countries in the purposeful effort to prepare for the
future, to strengthen alliances within a hemispheric region and
increase mutual understanding, cooperation and reinforcement of the
principles of democracy among neighboring countries.
We need to keep this school because it keeps us active in the human
rights affairs of Latin America. We should support the School of
America, and I urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just to correct the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe),
who was at the microphone, we have a manual from the 1990s of the
School of Americas that did teach torture, and the Pentagon admitted
that those manuals did teach torture. They said they were unauthorized.
So the gentleman was not correct in his statement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley
amendment. Even School of the Americas supporter Senator Paul Coverdell
characterized the Department of Defense's proposal as cosmetic changes
that would ensure that the old SOA would continue its mission and
operation.
Just like the SOA, the new school will still be located in Fort
Benning; still train Latin American soldiers in commando tactics,
military intelligence, psychological operations and combat arms; still
have no independent outside oversight; still not monitor graduates for
human rights abuses; still have inadequate screening of soldiers who
attend; still tout fancy human rights courses that nobody takes or take
for just a few hours. And this is not just rehashing of old news.
Since last year when 230 Members of this body voted against the SOA,
new revelations have come to light about the SOA's connection with
human rights abuses.
In January of this year, SOA graduate Colonel Lima Estrada was
arrested in Guatemala for the brutal assassination of human rights
champion Bishop Juan Gerardi just 2 years ago, and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Chicago Tribune that says it is time
for lights out at the SOA.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) is one of the most respected men in this House, especially by
me. No one can doubt that he is a champion of human rights wherever
they may be violated any place in the world. We just happen to think
that the solution to this problem will take two different routes. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) thinks we ought to go
totally to the left, and totally abolish the good that the school is
delivering. I think we ought to go to the right.
The irony of this, I say to the gentleman, is that we are both trying
to get to the same corner of the room. The Commander-in-Chief of our
Armed Forces, President Clinton, brought this message to us and asked
for this authority and for the money to perform this. I am sorry that
the gentleman has so little confidence in the Commander-in-Chief.
I am sorry he does not trust the President to do what is right, but I
would assure him that any time anyone can bring to me, not only from
this body but any place in the world, some evidence of proof that this
school is doing harm and contributing to the violation of human rights,
they will not receive one penny of appropriation to continue that.
While I respect the theory of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), while I certainly regret the atrocities that took place
decades ago, I cannot accept your philosophy that a graduate of this
school is automatically going to do something that some former
graduates did. The Unabomber went to Harvard and we are not talking
about closing down Harvard because he created these atrocities.
Mr. Chairman, I plead with my colleagues to listen to the Commander-
in-Chief, to listen to the Secretary of Defense that your Commander-in-
Chief, your President named to this position, who says this is vital
towards the peace process and future human rights activities in these
areas.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before my dear friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) leaves the room, the gentleman is my dear friend, too, I just
wanted to inform him that these atrocities, some have occurred decades
ago, but most recent ones have just occurred last March in Colombia by
two graduates, the general and the major. So the atrocities are still
going on, and we did not teach the Unabomber how to make bombs at
Harvard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment that has been put forth by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and I commend him for the effort that he
has made in this area.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to visit the School of
Americas and, frankly, I was impressed by many of the people that I met
there. I felt that they were good people, that they were trying to do
what they thought was best for this country. But I also, Mr. Chairman,
cannot ignore the history of this school.
While I was impressed by those people at the school and their
integrity, I have to also look at the track record of the graduates of
this school, and whether it has occurred in the last 2 years, the last
5 years or the last 15 years, what we have seen is we have seen,
unfortunately, and frankly too many graduates who have been involved in
violence in ways that are not acceptable to the American people and not
acceptable to the people in Central America.
[[Page H3355]]
Mr. Chairman, to put it quite bluntly, this school has lost its
credibility with the American people. The American people do not accept
the function that this school performs. They do not accept the function
that we should be training military leaders in Central America because
our track record has been so poor, and we have had so many failures of
people who have graduated from this school and have been involved in
atrocities that no longer do the American people believe that this is a
function that should be performed by the United States Government.
Mr. Chairman, I have been struck in my own district by the number of
people from wide ranges, the faith community, the peace community,
people who stopped me at schools and simply say this school must be
closed down. And they go a step further, because they are aware of what
is going on in this legislation. They are aware that there are cosmetic
changes that are being taken to try to make this school more
presentable, but at the end of the day, when the analysis is finished,
those changes are simply cosmetic and the functions that have been
performed by the schools historically are continuing to be performed
now.
Unfortunately, I think that the time has come where we must simply
conclude as a Congress that the school must be closed.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Moakley amendment and support the provisions of the Defense
Authorization bill to transition the School of Americas to the Defense
Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation.
Military-to-military exchanges are an integral component of American
foreign policy and provide valuable education and training to both
military and civilian leaders alike. These exchanges increase
cooperation, help professionalize militaries and teach them the role of
military in democratic, civilian societies.
While the School of the Americas has played a vital role in our
foreign policy over the last several decades, it is time that we
modernize and update the approach of the school for the 21st century.
The House Committee on Armed Services has taken a bold step in
replacing the School of the Americas. This bill would provide
professional education and training to military, law enforcement and
civilian leaders in Latin America.
Our bill requires that each student get a minimum of 8 hours
instruction in human rights, the rule of law, due process, and civilian
control of the military.
Finally, our bill creates an independent board of visitors with broad
mandates to oversee the activities and curriculum of the institute. The
board may include Members of Congress, as well as representatives from
human rights and religious organizations.
These changes are important steps toward improving our military
education and training programs and enriching relations between the
United States of America and our Latin America neighbors.
The U.S. military has been and remains a strong force for positive
change in Latin America, transmitting our Nation's military values
there. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Moakley amendment that would
strike these important initiatives and withdraw the United States from
constructive engagement in Latin America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his
leadership on this important amendment. He has been a leader in trying
to educate the Congress on what has been happening in Latin America
over the past decade, indeed, generation.
We are all deeply in his debt for making certain events there known
to us so we could change and improve our policy. The issue before us
today is one that we have visited over and over again. The chairman of
my subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), which I am
ranking member, has spoken in opposition to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and I want to speak in favor of him,
because on our bill, the subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs bill, an amendment by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) passed this House overwhelmingly by 230 to
197 to cut the funding for the School of the Americas.
This amendment is an improvement on that because what it says is
there should be a bipartisan Congressional task force which will
address military training of Latin American soldiers by the U.S.
Department of Defense. This task force will critically assess course
curriculum and procedures for training in order to ensure that we do
not repeat the mistakes of the past.
{time} 1430
Mr. Chairman, there is a tremendous need by this Congress to oversee
the military training being done by the Department of Defense. With the
highest regard for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the
Army, I have to rise and say that I strenuously object to the cavalier
approach taken by the military to continue training violators of human
rights not only in Latin America, but throughout the world.
We trained the Kopassus, the most vicious human rights violators;
part of the Indonesian military. Indonesia is going to bring some of
those people to justice, and we trained them. We trained them, and it
is current and recent. This is not about a long time ago. That is not
about the School of the Americas, it is about the U.S. military
training people overseas with the idea that we were going to teach them
to have a military in a civilian population.
We all share the goal of sharing the expertise and the idealism of
the U.S. military in training foreign militaries on how to exist in a
civilian society without military dictatorships, and some of them have
to get used to that. We all share the view that there should be human
rights training at these schools. Let us really deal with this School
of the Americas once and for all instead of every single year by
addressing it completely; by having a study, a congressional task force
to study it, to say what kind of school and what kind of curriculum
should be there and to rid ourselves of the past, of the dreaded
history of the School of the Americas and some of the people that it
has trained.
So while we have a difference of opinion of approach here, I am sure
all my colleagues would want to be very proud of whatever training we
have done of foreign militaries, be they in Latin America or Indonesia.
Unfortunately, the message of 230 to 197 on the appropriations bill was
not a clear enough message to the military. We must send a clearer one.
We can do it today under the leadership of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Scarborough), the gentleman from California, (Mr. Campbell) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez).
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, but
I believe his amendment in this matter is based on old concepts and old
ideas. Certainly, we must change as times change and as situations
change.
Mr. Chairman, it is being ignored that this defense authorization
includes a provision closing the U.S. Army School of the Americas,
which is what they want to do, and establishes in its place a new
school for international military education and training. The bill puts
the new school under the direct responsibility of the Secretary of
Defense.
I do not think we could ask for anymore than that. It requires every
student of the school to undergo at least 8 hours of curricula related
to human rights, democratic sustainment, and civilian patrol.
Mr. Chairman, it is clearly in our national interest to ensure that
if our
[[Page H3356]]
neighbors in the Western Hemisphere are going to maintain military
forces, which they are, that we help to install a degree of
professionalism and respect for human rights and civilian authority,
values that guide our own military.
In closing, let us stop fighting the old battles of Cold War and let
us move forward by supporting the bill and opposing the amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Some of my colleagues are alluding to things that happened many years
ago. We are talking about some atrocities that happened as recently as
March of 1999 by two major generals; other atrocities in 1998 in
Colombia. So some of the graduates are still doing these things.
This is a bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is authored by both
Democrats and Republicans. And I think if we close the school once and
for all, we are not stopping all military training for Latin America,
we are only stopping 10 percent of it. There are 10,000 people from
Latin America trained by the United States Army, only 1,000 in the
School of the Americas.
But I think where the School of the Americas has been so symbolic in
Central America to some of the people down there, and it attracts
thousands of people every year to picket it, I think that we should
close it and start anew. So I hope my amendment is adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
It has been said that the vote last year in the Congress, in the
House, was not heard. I assure my colleagues it was heard. It was heard
by the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.
That is the reason they sent up these new legislative procedures so
that we could make some changes at the School of the Americas.
But it also has been said that no good deed goes unpunished, and the
gentleman's amendment seems to bear that out. In response to concerns
raised by the gentleman and other Members of this body and their
constituents, and I respect their constituents, the United States Army
School of the Americas has undergone extensive changes, extensive
reform in the interest of meeting the changes needed by U.S. foreign
policy in the post-Cold War era.
This Defense Authorization Act includes major reform provisions,
ensuring that course work at the new training facility will fully
comply with U.S. law, doctrine and policy. Unfortunately, Members are
still seeking to close the School of the Americas. I ask all to oppose
the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is the passionate and sincere
leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that has
forced the Pentagon and the Army to seriously rethink their approach to
military and Democratic education for Latin America. However, I would
hope that this House would respect the bipartisan plan that has been
written into this bill to close the School of the Americas and to open
a new institute, a Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security
Cooperation. This is why I must oppose the Moakley amendment.
The Institute's management would be significantly different from the
management of the School of the Americas in several ways.
First, it would be under the direct control of the Secretary of
Defense, not the Secretary of the Army.
Second, Congress would have a direct oversight role at the Institute.
Surely, even the cynics among us can trust the Congress not to endorse,
year by year, terrorist training in Latin America.
Thirdly, a statutory board of visitors would be created with
recommendations of House and Senate leaders from both parties, and with
leaders from academic, human rights and religious organizations.
Fourth, the law would require the institute to teach human rights,
due process, rule of law, and civilian control of the military. That is
good for Latin America and for the United States.
And, fifth, the bill requires an annual report to Congress on the
institute's education and training program.
I have to believe that with oversight from the United States
Congress, with us here in this House, that more American engagement
with Latin American military and civilian leaders is good. Less
engagement is not wise.
Let us thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for his
leadership for change. He has truly made a significant difference. But
now is a time for us to move forward in a new day, with new
relationships with our allies and friends in Latin America.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
One thing that has not been pointed out enough is this training
center is the only one where it teaches in Spanish. Our other courses
around the country reach the other echelons of leadership. This has
tried to take our message of training, as well as human rights
training, down to the lower levels of the military, to spread it
through newly-democratic countries in Spanish, with instructors from
those countries to build that credibility.
We also lost some message here as to why we have this school. In
Colombia, yesterday's Los Angeles Times: Elvia Cortes had a bomb put
around her neck and was told that it would explode the next day. It
did. She is dead. The person who attempted to remove this bomb had his
hands blown off and he bled to death in a helicopter.
Because of our drug crisis and the amount of drugs we are purchasing
in this country, we have threatened democracies throughout the world.
We need to teach human rights, but we also need to work with those
militaries and those democratic governments to do what they did in
Guatemala, which is, graduates of the School of the Americas went after
another graduate because the behavior he exhibited was intolerable to
us.
So I praise this school for the advances they have allowed throughout
the world.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think many of us over the years have paid a lot of attention to
South America, our friends and neighbors down there, but not as much as
we should have. I remember the time when South America had many
countries controlled by the military, had military dictatorships, and
they did not do things according to the way we do business. With the
training a lot of these people have gotten from our School of the
Americas, we now have a different situation in South America.
I just got back from a trip. The climate is entirely different. Most
of these countries now are democracies. We do not have military
dictatorships now. We have people there who go by the rule of law;
people who want to be friendlier to us, and they keep wondering why we
are not friendlier to them in trying to help them enter into the new
millennium.
We have tried to teach them these important lessons at the School of
the Americas and it has made a significant differences in fostering
stronger bilateral relations and observance of the rule of law.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley
amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will
officially close down the School of the Americas until a report to
Congress is submitted assessing the training procedures and their
effect in Latin America.
Without this amendment, this bill would merely change the name of the
School of the Americas to the Defense Institute for Hemispheric
Security Cooperation and make other cosmetic changes.
The School of the Americas needs more than superficial changes.
I would like to take a moment to provide a roster of human rights
violators who graduated from the School of Americas.
Nineteen of 26 Salvadoran officers accused of the 1989 massacre of
the Jesuits were graduates of the School of the Americas.
Ten of twelve cited for the El Mozote massacre graduated from the
school of the Americas.
Two of the three officers cited in Archbishop Romero's assassination
were School of the Americas graduates.
[[Page H3357]]
And four churchwomen--including Dorthy Kazel, a nun from Cleveland
and a friend of mine--were raped and brutally murdered in El Salvador.
The UN Truth Commission investigating the murders verified that the
School of the Americas trained three of the five officers responsible
for the churchwomen's deaths.
Dorthy Kazel was more than a friend to me. She was a friend to
humanity. She went to El Salvador to bring about peace and justice for
those who most desperately needed it. And she was brutally murdered for
her efforts.
The bill fails to make necessary changes to the School of the
Americas. It does not address the crimes committed in the past, it does
not provide any comfort to the families who were impacted by these
human rights violators which I listed. The New School will not
establish adequate screening of incoming soldiers and it will not
monitor graduates of this school.
I urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment, and if this
amendment does not pass, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would strike section 908
which changes the School of the Americas to the Defense Institute for
Hemispheric Security.
It is certainly correct to point out that several of the School of
the America's graduates have been implicated in crimes, corruption, and
human rights violations. Press reports have accurately noted that
former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was a former student, as was
one of the Salvadoran officers responsible for the 1989 assassination
of six Jesuit priests.
However, more than 60,000 young Latin American Officers have
graduated from the SOA since its creation in 1946, the vast majority of
whom have served their nations honorably and responsibly. Graduates of
the SOA are personally responsible for the return of democracy in Latin
American nations such as Bolivia and Argentina. Many of the school's
graduates have lost their lives while combating the narco-guerillas and
drug lords in Colombia and Peru. These counterdrug operations are of
vital interest to the safety and security of our Nation as the efforts
of these brave Latin American soldiers are aimed at reducing the flow
of drugs into the United States of America. It would be a disservice to
brand all the school's graduates as criminals because of the misdeeds
of a very few.
There have been many false allegations in the past regarding the
School of the Americas, such as the alleged existence of SOA torture
manuals. There are no such manuals. The SOA does not in any way engage
in or endorse such heinous activities. Nor does the SOA trains death
squads and assassins. The SOA is run by officers of the United States
Army who must operate the school in accordance with governing
regulations of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and U.S.
Public Law. This type of an amendment is resulting in a smear of the
reputation of the fine men and women of the U.S. Army and specifically
the officers and non-commitioned officers who have led the SOA. The
repeated, unfounded and destorted allegations about the school are
outrageous.
One very positive result of the recent focus of attention on the
School has been a much greater emphasis on human rights. Every student
at the school is now exposed to a rigorous formal and informal training
program on basic human rights. Specific classes and case studies are
used to enhance the training and to make U.S. concerns unambiguously
clear. The roles and rights of civilians, clergy, human rights
observers, and UN personnel are integrated into the training program.
H.R. 4205 as reported provides even greater assurances that training
for our Latin American allies will continue to stress democracy, human
rights, etc.
Mr. Chairman, the Moakley amendment provides for a Congressional
Commission to review and recommend whether to reopen a successor to the
School of the Americas. This just isn't necessary. We have reviewed,
studied and debated the School of the Americas repeatedly. H.R. 4205 is
the right course, right now. This member strongly urges opposition to
the Moakley amendment.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by Mr. Moakley to truly close the School of the
Americas.
The School of the Americas was designed to educate and train Latin
American military personnel in order to foster and bring about
democracy and freedom in typically totalitarian governments. However,
far from achieving these noble goals, SOA graduates have instead been
linked repeatedly to massacres, assassinations and other atrocities in
Latin America.
The United States should not be providing training in how to limit or
abuse human rights. We need instead to be leaders in ensuring human
rights and fair treatment for all people worldwide.
I have long been a supporter of legislation to close the SOA. It is
both a waste of taxpayer money and an affront to our common principles
of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights at home and around
the world.
H.R. 4205 purports to close the School of the Americas. It does not.
Instead, it simply makes a few cosmetic changes in the School's
operation, gives it a fancy new name and then turns a blind eye to the
repeated human rights violations committed by SOA graduates.
Cosmetic changes are not enough. We must truly close the School of
the Americas. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Moakley
amendment to prohibit opening of a follow-on school for at least 10
months and to authorize a congressional task force to critically assess
training of Latin American soldiers by the United States and report its
findings to Congress within six months. This action is long overdue.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the Moakley Amendment.
This body has already had this fight and we have won. Last August,
the House voted to finally stop funding School of the Americas, and I
quote, ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be used for programs at the United States Army School of
the Americas located at Fort Benning, Georgia.''
The effort to rename the school without changing its essential role
is nothing more than a public relations scheme. Remember, this is an
organization whose roster of graduates reads like a Who's Who of human
rights violators: 19 of 26 Salvadoran officers accused of the 1989
massacre of the Jesuits, 10 of 12 cited for the El Mozote massacre, 2
of 3 officers cited in the assassination of Archbishop Romero, and the
list goes on and on.
More importantly, we have heard from the people. Their voices are
smaller and their speeches are not as polished, but these are the
people who have suffered from this scandalous school and they deserve
to be heard. A name change will do nothing to improve the human rights
record of this misguided institution.
I urge my colleagues resist this obvious scheme and support the
Moakley amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cox
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Cox:
At the end of title XII (page 338, after line 13), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 1205. PROHIBITION ON ASSUMPTION BY UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OF LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS
IN NORTH KOREA.
Neither the President nor any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may use the
authority of Public Law 85-804 (50 U.S.C. 1431) or any other
provision of law to enter into any contract or other
arrangement, or into any amendment or modification of a
contract or other arrangement, the purpose or effect of which
would be to impose liability on the United States Government,
or otherwise require an indemnity by the United States
Government, for nuclear accidents occurring in North Korea.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) claims the time in opposition.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times published
an article with the lead, ``Warning to American Taxpayers: Without
knowing it, you may soon take on responsibility
[[Page H3358]]
for what could be billions of dollars in liability stemming from
nuclear accidents in, of all places, North Korea.''
The article continued: ``The Clinton administration is quietly
weighing a policy change that would make the United States Government
the insurer of last resort for any disasters at the civilian nuclear
plants being built for the North Korean regime. But the Clinton
administration is reluctant to seek a new law from the Republican
Congress. That roadblock has sent administration lawyers scurrying
through the United States Code, and they have found an obscure law that
might be used in a new way.''
The article concludes: ``Presto, one little legal reinterpretation by
the administration, and one huge new legal liability for American
taxpayers.'' That according to the Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2000.
Perhaps not all of our colleagues are yet aware of how the
administration has embarked upon a policy of subsidies to the Stalinist
regime of Kim Jong Il in North Korea. From the founding of the
Communist State in North Korea until the very last day of the Bush
administration, North Korea received not a penny of U.S. foreign aid or
U.S. taxpayer support. But that has all changed under the Clinton
administration.
Today, the Stalinist government of North Korea is the number one
recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia Pacific region. Our aid is
now totaling some two-thirds of a billion dollars. That aid is being
used by Kim Jong Il's repressive government, to feed his million-man
army, to use fuel oil for military industries, and, most improbably of
all, to construct nuclear power plants; which, when they are completed,
will produce enough plutonium for Kim Jong Il's army to build 65
nuclear weapons a year.
{time} 1445
Now, this is the same government that has recently launched a three-
stage ballistic missile over Japan. The proliferation risks of this
venture are, obviously, the most frightening. But there are additional
risks to the proposal to build nuclear plants for Kim Jong-Il as well,
enormous risks to taxpayers from a nuclear accident at one of these
plants if it were ever the case that the United States taxpayer would
be on the line.
According to these published accounts not only in the Los Angeles
Times but in industry publications as well, that is just what the
administration is setting out to do.
I want to remind every Member that when the Clinton administration
has advocated its North Korea policy before the Congress, they have
always emphasized how limited our financial involvement would be and
how limited our involvement in the nuclear reactor component of the
KEDO program would be.
The administration's plans to put U.S. taxpayers on the line for the
cost of nuclear accidents in North Korea and the administration's
stated opposition to this amendment makes a mockery of those plans.
This amendment which I am offering, together with my Democratic
colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), prohibits the
United States Government from making American taxpayers liable if the
nuclear reactors that the Clinton administration is giving to North
Korea are involved in a catastrophic nuclear accident.
If U.S. taxpayers are ever to be made liable in this unprecedented
way for the costs of nuclear catastrophes in a foreign country, least
of all North Korea, then it should be by the act of this Congress. That
is the purpose of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, 50 years ago when the Korean War started, few of us
could have foreseen the kind of regime that would control North Korea
for half a century.
This June, after half a century of almost complete isolation, the
leaders of North and South Korea will meet directly for the first time.
The agreements that have been worked out by the United States that have
stopped the two attempts at a nuclear fissionable plant in North Korea
and their missile program have been the first major gains in diplomatic
efforts in that 50-year period as well.
We come here to the floor today basically arguing that 435 Members of
Congress ought to negotiate the liability issues surrounding the
building of the two plants that we have guaranteed would be built in
North Korea in order for them to stop their own nuclear program and
their own missile program.
Now, some on this floor are ready to spend $60 billion to stop the
possibility of a North Korean missile aimed at the United States coming
here and doing damage to our citizenry, something we ought to be
worried about. They are ready to spend $60 billion. Maybe it might
violate ABM, could cause all kinds of other problems, still has
technical feasibility problems, but that they are ready to rush off to
do.
But when we have a chance, and we have a successful program at this
point that is led by Dr. Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, which
has led to the cessation of their missile program and their nuclear
problem at the two facilities that had an active program to create
fissionable material, we are going to rush to this floor and we are
going to say, wait a minute, the administration has not yet decided how
they are going to be able to keep the contractors in this business. GE
and others will leave if they end up with a liability.
The United States is working with the Japanese and the other
coalition partners trying to work out a solution to the liability
issue. But we are going to come to the floor today because we do not
think there is a danger that North Korea will go back to building
nuclear weapons, we do not think there is a danger they will go back to
building their own missiles, because we want to rush to the floor and
say, oh, no, no liability under any conditions.
Fifty years of the most isolated regime, for the first time, because
of the work of Dr. Perry, we have the two sides sitting down and having
a conversation. We have monitors and ways to check the North Korean
missile and nuclear program, but now we have got to come to the floor
and tell our contractors to go home because, yes, there might be some
cost here.
There is some cost if North Korea spins out of control. Aside from
the tens of thousands of people that starve to death, what about the
North Koreans going back to trying to build nuclear weapons and nuclear
missile programs? Is that not some danger for Americans?
I think we are imprudent by acting today. I ask my colleagues to
reject this amendment, as well-intentioned as it is.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, North Korea, lest we forget, is one of the most anti-
American and potentially dangerous countries in the world. The
administration's efforts to contain North Korea's nuclear weapons
ambitions by providing modern nuclear reactors for its energy needs
have done little to dissuade North Korea from pursuing a nuclear
weapons program.
In fact, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the reactors being
provided would not eliminate North Korea's ability to produce
sufficient quantities of fissile material that could be used to build
nuclear weapons.
Incredibly, it now appears that the administration may indemnify
companies involved in the construction of these reactors and actually
they would leave American taxpayers footing the bill for nuclear
accidents in North Korea.
I cannot believe it. This would, essentially, hold the United States
taxpayer hostage to the operation of nuclear reactors over which we
have no control in a Stalinist country hostile to the United States and
which is developing ballistic missiles capable of striking our country
with weapons of mass destruction.
The Cox-Markey amendment would prevent this from happening. The costs
[[Page H3359]]
of a future nuclear reactor accident in North Korea could be
astronomical and ought not to be paid for by our taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment makes good common sense. I support it. I
urge my colleagues to do the same thing.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition
to the Cox-Markey amendment.
I think this bill sounds good on its face, and it might make us feel
like we are striking a blow against North Korea, but I believe its
passage today is certainly a mistake.
My friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and others
have made the argument very well, and I agree with them on that and on
their concerns, that this is an end-run on the committee. On subjects
as tricky as nuclear energy and North Korea, Members of this House need
the committee process to vet the complex issues this amendment raises.
But I want to make a different point, though, and that is our timing
is terrible. This debate comes at the worst possible time at what might
be a turning point in history.
For the first time since the Korean nation was split in two, a summit
has been scheduled between the leaders of the North and South. Hopes
are high that they will make progress towards peace or, at least, a
more permanent end to the tense standoff that has blighted Korea's
history for 50 years and kept tens of thousands of American troops
stationed in a dangerous place far from home.
In less than a month, South Korea's elected president, a national
hero known for his courage and pressing for human rights, will meet
with North Korea's new leader.
This North-South summit is an historic initiative that our country
should support. Instead, by this vote, we risk sending a signal to
Koreans in both nations that they cannot trust the United States to
keep our solemn commitments.
The agreed framework is controversial, but it is also working. Now is
not the time to chip away at it, and this amendment would do just that.
With 37,000 Americans stationed along one of the world's most
dangerous borders, ending the Korean War or even lessening the hostile
situation should be our country's highest priority.
This amendment needlessly antagonizes South Korea, our long-time
ally, and North Korea, the well-armed neighbor that it is trying to
bring into the international community.
Every time I go to that region, every time I visit with our military
officers and people, they always say, ``what are you guys in Congress
doing?'' They cannot believe that here in Washington we are rattling
sabers while they are posted on one of the world's most dangerous front
lines.
Few of us expect this amendment to win Senate passage. If it does, I
doubt the President will sign it.
I urge my colleagues to restrain themselves, to resist the temptation
to lash out at an administration and a country they disagree with. I
urge them to put peace and American troops ahead of other
considerations. Vote no on the Cox-Markey amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), I
would simply point out that there is no provision in the KEDO agreement
for U.S. taxpayer liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea, nor
is there any existing Federal statute that permits the administration
to do this by fiat.
If taxpayers are to assume this liability in a remarkable expansion
of the U.S. financial commitment to KEDO, then it should be by decision
of this Congress. That is the only purpose of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment that has been
offered jointly by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment before us today is derived from the legislation I
introduced on April 13 of this year entitled the ``Prohibition on
United States Government Liability for Nuclear Accidents in North Korea
Act of 2000.''
This legislation, H.R. 4266, was cosponsored by the two authors of
today's amendment, as well as by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished chairman of our
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and others.
Our bill and today's amendment are a response to recent disclosure of
efforts within the Clinton administration to offer what amounts to U.S.
Government insurance against whatever liability claims might be made if
nuclear reactors that the administration is trying to give to North
Korea are involved in a catastrophic nuclear accident.
Apparently, the administration is considering doing this, in effect
exposing the U.S. taxpayer to potentially tens or even hundreds of
billions of dollars in liability claims without the approval of
Congress. They propose instead to reinterpret a law enacted in 1958 in
a transparent effort to avoid Congressional participation in the
decision that may have profound consequences for our Nation's financial
solvency.
This effort within the administration was disclosed not in briefings
to the Congress, nor in testimony before Congress by administration
officials, but, rather, in an article in the Los Angeles Times dated
April 12 of this year.
Among those who fear a possible nuclear catastrophe are the very
contractors who the administration thought would be eager to
participate in the $5 billion construction project in North Korea.
Those contractors apparently are concerned that if there is a
catastrophe they might be sued and the potential liability could bring
down their companies.
I was surprised and alarmed to learn that the administration is
considering offering an indemnity to contractors participating in the
North Korean nuclear projects without the approval of Congress. Our
staff had to ferret out that information through the conduct of
Congressional oversight, and most Members of Congress first learned
about it when they read about it in the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Chairman, if the administration wants the U.S. Government to
provide such insurance, then they should come to the Congress and make
their case for it. Then, in accordance with the Constitution, we could
consider that request and decide whether or not to approve it.
Mr. Chairman, the Cox-Markey amendment does nothing more than force
the administration to respect the prerogatives of the Congress.
Accordingly, I commend the sponsors of the amendment. I request our
colleagues to fully support this measure.
{time} 1500
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the
committee.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the scare is unlimited indemnification by
the United States in the case of a North Korean light-water nuclear
reactor. But the amendment does not address the scare. The amendment
sweepingly prohibits any and all indemnification or liability
agreements without regard to how limited, how widespread, who is
participating and what is happening.
Some people in this House do not like to see nuclear energy. Probably
everyone in this House looks at North Korea as an adversary who has
undertaken and engaged in irresponsible conduct domestically and in
foreign policy. But everyone who votes for the amendment should think
first about the fact that they could be torpedoing the agreed framework
and the ability to get meaningful inspections about what the North
Koreans have done with the plutonium that is not even reached yet by
the present freeze in the North Korean
[[Page H3360]]
nuclear program. That is a very high price to pay for the pleasure of
voting for an amendment which, on its surface, seems very attractive.
I think for purposes of making sure that we rid North Korea of any
nuclear program whatsoever, of getting it in compliance with the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty, of making it certified by the IAEA and
of finally getting an account and disposing of the plutonium that we
all know they have, it is a terrible mistake to vote for this
amendment, and I urge the body to reject it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman that the KEDO program has never
contemplated U.S. taxpayer liability for nuclear accidents in North
Korea. Second, if the purpose is to rid North Korea of a nuclear
program, it seems an odd way to do it, to build them nuclear reactors.
If our object is to give them electricity, certainly a coal-fired plant
or a hydro plant would make a great deal of sense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we have so many red herrings floating
around in the well down here today, we are going to have to build an
aquarium. This has nothing to do with American nonproliferation policy.
It has nothing to do with the agreed framework which everyone is
talking about here. It has nothing to do with Star Wars, which I
oppose, I think it is the stupidest idea of all time, but this is not
what this debate is all about. It has nothing to do with Korean
reunification, as much as we all sincerely hope that they will reunify.
It has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with a single
company, General Electric, coming to this Congress and saying, we would
like to be indemnified against wanton, reckless misconduct in the
construction of our product if an accident occurs in North Korea. And
if an accident occurs, we want the American taxpayer to shoulder the
burden.
All we are saying is that General Electric should go into the private
marketplace and get some insurance. Now, they are boasting in their
puffing of this plant that they are going to make $30 million. Now, if
with their $30 million worth of profit they cannot afford an insurance
policy on this plant, then this is a pretty dangerous product. Now, my
feeling is that out of the $30 million, they could probably spend a
half a million or a million and get a good insurance policy, and then
that insurance company should bear the risk. But it should not be the
American taxpayer.
Generally speaking, what is going on here is that Adam Smith is
spinning in his grave. General Electric wants us to socialize the risk
but privatize the profit for them. But all of the American taxpayers
are going to shoulder the burden. No other company, by the way, that is
part of this project, it is not just General Electric, there are many
other companies who are part of this project, none of them are asking
for indemnification, only one company who does not want to go into the
private insurance marketplace. It has nothing to do with Star Wars,
nothing to do with the agreed framework, nothing to do with
nonproliferation, nothing to do with anything.
Now, I believe that the American government, our negotiators, should
have pushed them toward LNG, should have pushed them toward natural
gas, should have pushed them toward clean coal. China would have been
glad to sell it to them. By the way, Frank von Hippel at Princeton is
quite convinced that a light-water reactor is not proliferation immune,
that is, you can still build nuclear weapons out of a light-water
reactor. We should have pushed them totally away from the nuclear
technology. All of that is a separate issue. We do not have to debate
that right now, only whether or not we should be giving one company
American-taxpayer insurance protection when they should go out into the
private marketplace, and everything else that we are debating here
right now has no business being insinuated into this debate.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I am sure we would have had a better
deal from the North Koreans if the gentleman from Massachusetts had
done the negotiation. But since we are lucky to have the gentleman
staying in Congress and not going off to work for any administration
and to negotiate, we are stuck with the deals that administrations, as
incapable as they are, work out.
Would the gentleman not agree that if this framework falls apart and
the North Koreans go back to trying to build their own reactors, we are
less safe than under this program?
Mr. MARKEY. I would agree with the gentleman on that. I do not agree
with the gentleman that it is going to fall apart over whether or not
an insurance company is picking up the risk or the American taxpayer.
All we are arguing right here is if General Electric cannot get a
private insurance company to assume the risk for this nuclear power
plant, then we are going to encourage them to engage in reckless,
wanton behavior in the construction of the materials, and as a result,
have the American taxpayer pick up the cost of the accident which will
invariably occur.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would say the red herrings might be that if we do not allow our
administration to negotiate an insurance policy that might have America
financing that insurance policy, that that will make General Electric
be wantonly irresponsible. That might just be a red herring.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Ackerman).
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. There are a lot of things fishy going on on the floor
today, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman from Connecticut I think might know that I personally
did go to North Korea, and I did begin the negotiation with the then
dictator of North Korea, Kim Il Song, and it was a very difficult
conversation, believe me. It was at a time when they were fully active
with their heavy water nuclear reactor, when they were refusing to let
the IAEA in to do the inspections and we had those constant standoffs
at the airport and they did not want to budge.
To get them finally to agree that they would build down and take away
and do away with their heavy-water reactor and switch to a light-water
reactor, which we wanted them to do which would reduce the possibility
of nuclear risk was a very difficult thing. The only thing that they
wanted from us in return is to have the face, to be able to save face
and not be able to say, well, the South Koreans and the Japanese of who
they are not enamored with were bailing them out.
They wanted it to look like an international effort. So our
contribution is basically funding the oil to heat their country while
one reactor is turned off and the other one is turned on.
This is really about trying to embarrass the Clinton administration.
This is really about establishing a strawman, a bogeyman to have an
enemy to rally around and the North Koreans are very, very easy
suspects to fill that role. What is going on here is basically to tear
down the framework agreement. If we did not have the framework
agreement, Mr. Chairman, this would be a much more dangerous world in
which we live. This is critical that we go through with this. If this
fails and they go back to their heavy-water reactor, where will we be?
We will really need every bit of that $60 billion for Star Wars and all
of those other things that we are talking about. This is the ounce of
prevention that will save us megatons of cure.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and would assert in direct refutation to my friend from
Massachusetts that this has everything, everything to do about the
larger issues of peace on the Korean peninsula. I am rather astounded
that this amendment would be before us. We have come, since 1994, from
the brink of military conflict to now the eve of a historic summit
between leaders in that area. Lasting peace is a long ways away, but
this summit is a historic opportunity
[[Page H3361]]
for an advance, and here we are acting as though there has been nothing
successful achieved under the nuclear framework.
This framework was negotiated because of the concern that the nuclear
facility at Yongbyon could produce weapons grade material, and in fact,
that they were moving plans to do that very kind of processing. The
agreement to move to a light-water nuclear electricity capacity for
North Korea deprives them of this material which is so very dangerous
in light of its potential application for weapons grade plutonium.
We asked Secretary Perry, who negotiated this initial agreement, to
go back and take a look at whether the framework was working. He
reported to the Committee on International Relations, and I quote,
``The nuclear facilities remain frozen, a result that is critical for
security on the peninsula since during the last 5 years those
facilities could have produced enough plutonium to make a substantial
number of nuclear weapons.''
Now, earlier this week, just days earlier, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was part of another legislative initiative
along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Gilman-Markey
amendment which would require House prior approval before the United
States would enter nuclear cooperative agreements or provide key
components, restricted components on the A-10 list as part of a nuclear
agreement.
This prior House approval resolution passed 374-6. We have
established the oversight opportunity to carefully watch this. Let us
not pass this resolution which reflects the worst kind of armchair
quarterbacking, coming in without being a party to the discussions at
all despite their successful 5-year record so far and try to pick apart
and undermine their future prospects for success even while the leaders
prepare for the historic summit in Korea.
Reject this amendment. It is well intended but wrongheaded. Stick
with the Gilman-Markey approval we earlier passed. We have all the
oversight we need.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) who has done such fine work in this
area.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Maine is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cox-Markey
amendment. All of us agree that North Korea is a dangerous rogue state,
but this amendment is about whether or not we can promote policies to
make North Korea less of a threat or we just sit by and let the threat
develop. We all agree we want to make North Korea less dangerous, and
that is why we should reject this amendment. In 1994, the closed North
Korean government opened up just enough to sign an agreement with us to
eliminate its nuclear weapons program. The agreed framework has given
us a great opportunity to reduce the threat from that country. The Cox-
Markey amendment could jeopardize that opportunity by causing the
United States to renege on its end of the bargain, which was to work
with South Korea and Japan to build civilian nuclear reactors in North
Korea. The amendment would, in effect, construct an insurmountable
barrier to our cooperation in the framework.
Now any businessperson knows the importance of dealing with liability
issues before the deal goes forward.
{time} 1515
If we block the possibility of the U.S. Government assuming some, and
certainly not all, of the liability for the reactors, we likely sink
this deal.
The proponents are claiming to speak for the American taxpayer, but
the rush to deploy a national missile defense is premised on defending
against the North Korean missile threat, and that system's price tag is
$60 billion. Those are real dollars to the American taxpayer. But the
proponents of this amendment are rejecting a sensible effort to reduce
the North Korean threat before it becomes a problem. The agreed
framework is far from perfect, but it gives us the opportunity to
eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to make their
missile program less threatening, and it is far, far cheaper than $60
billion. Our national security policy is not served by a policy that
says let us sit idle while they build it, and hope that some untested,
unproven antimissile shield will work after the missiles are launched.
I urge my colleagues to think of the consequences of this vote, to
think of the long-term security interests in Korea, and vote against
the Cox-Markey amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a senior Member of the Committee on
Appropriations, who has done a substantial amount of work on KEDO over
the years.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Michigan
is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his
cosponsorship.
As the chairman has just stated, I have been a Member of the
Committee on Appropriations, and I believe I am very familiar with this
framework, with KEDO and the substance of this amendment and why we
have this amendment.
Under KEDO and the administration's current policy with North Korea,
as everybody knows, the U.S. is leading an effort to finance and build
these two nuclear reactors. For whom? For North Korea, perhaps the most
regressive regime in the world. It is not only illogical, but it is
dangerous to the national security of this country.
But let us talk about the thing that I think may have been overlooked
here, experience. The North Koreans clearly do not have the expertise
to safely operate two nuclear reactors. Who are the operators going to
be? Who will handle the plant management? One cannot create a nuclear
industry infrastructure by administrative fiat. It requires the time to
educate, to train all the necessary people and to develop the required
supply chain.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
The North Koreans simply do not have the equipment, they do not have
the capability to handle this method of producing electricity. Now, the
companies that are involved here realize this. They know what the
dilemma is, and, therefore, do not want to accept the billions of
dollars of risk associated with building nuclear reactors in such a
dangerous rogue nation. There is nothing that the U.S. can do to assure
companies that the inexperienced North Koreans will not improperly
operate these plants, and, thus create radioactive mishaps or
accidents.
If there is anything that we have learned from our experience with
North Korea, it is that there is no way that you can predict what they
are going to do.
Now, faced with this dilemma, the administration is now looking for a
way to put the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for this enormous liability.
I think that is simply unacceptable, and this amendment is necessary to
prevent it from happening.
Once again, I thank the sponsors, and strongly urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one thing in this respect. I
said something earlier, but if my friends on the other side who oppose
this amendment think, as I have heard them say, that North Korea has
changed for the better and they are less hostile to our country, I want
to let them know they are living in a fantasy world. The real world is
that North Korea takes all we have to offer and give them to buy them
off, and at the same time, they continue to develop weapons destructive
toward us, aimed at us, and they also export to other rogue nations
technologies to help them oppose us in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we must keep our focus on the narrow purpose
of this amendment, which is to keep
[[Page H3362]]
Congress in control over any decision whether the U.S. taxpayer should
be put on the hook for a multi-billion dollar liability for nuclear
accidents in North Korea.
It is, to say the least, a surprising policy that this
administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, with the author of
Earth in the Balance complicit in the decision, has decided to use
taxpayer resources to build nuclear power plants, nuclear power plants
not for U.S. consumers, but for a repressive regime that has armed
itself to the teeth. They are maintaining a 1 million-man army while
the people of North Korea are so impoverished they are eating the bark
off of trees.
But leaving aside our warranted astonishment with this policy of
building nuclear power plants for Kim Jong Il, which will produce
plutonium which could be used to make nuclear weapons and be fitted on
the missiles that he will continue to develop while we are giving them
this aid, the new question that is put before us now is whether or not
the agreed framework between the United States and Japan and South
Korea and North Korea is going to be distorted in a way not
contemplated by this Congress or by the administration, that the
liability of the U.S. taxpayers will be enormously increased without
any consultation with Congress, and, most importantly, without any
legal authorization for doing so.
Earlier today I discussed this with Ambassador Sherman from the
Department of State. She told me that the Republic of Korea National
Assembly may soon be considering legislation to accept some part of the
liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea. That would be a good
policy for the U.S. Congress to follow.
Just as the ROK, we are also parties to this agreement. Let us not
change the agreement and the financial commitment of the United States
by fiat of the State Department. Let us not stretch a statute beyond
all recognition in an unprecedented way to impose billions of dollars
of liability on U.S. taxpayers.
It is precisely because the potential damages here are so great that
the Clinton administration is considering an unprecedented use of a
defense contracting provision in Title 50 of the United States Code,
Section 1431, to impose unlimited nuclear liability on U.S. taxpayers.
The Congressional Research Service has been unable to find any
precedent for this. They have been unable to find any precedent for
such use of this provision or for the assumption of unlimited foreign
nuclear liability by U.S. taxpayers under any provision of U.S. law.
If we are to do this, then we should do it after debate on the merits
in this Congress. That is the way that multibillion dollar commitments
of U.S. taxpayer resources should be made in our government, with legal
authority, not by fiat.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support for
the Cox-Markey amendment to prohibit U.S. Government agencies from
assuming liability for nuclear accidents that might occur in North
Korea.
The amendment of the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr.
Cox, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is
made necessary by the willingness of the Executive branch to become the
insurer of last resort for the two light-water nuclear reactors being
constructed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
American companies are understandably reluctant to shoulder the
liability themselves, for they understand the risk of accident
associated with this project is unacceptably high.
In the event of a Chernobyl-type catastrophe in North Korea, the
United States could be held liable for legal claims. Such claims could
be massive--reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars! And,
because North Korea is to operate and administer the light-water
reactors, we are essentially trusting that North Korean technicians
will keep the reactors operating in a safe manner. This Member would
warn his colleagues that North Korea is not a nation that historically
pays close attention to safety. Quite the reverse, what little contact
we have had with the DPRK suggests that safety is the last thing on
their mind. This body must assume that North Korea will willingly cut
safety corners to extract as much profit as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the Korean light-water nuclear reactor project (KEDO)
is a highly controversial initiative, and opinions differ on its
wisdom. However, this amendment is not an attempt to undermine U.S.
participation in North Korea's light-water nuclear reactor project
(KEDO). Rather, the Executive Branch is artificially, and
inappropriately, attempting to ``prop up'' the KEDO agreement that may
be collapsing under its own weight. The problem before this body is
that this nuclear development project could result in countless
billions of dollars in liability claims.
Mr. Chairman, if the marketplace is not willing to assume the risks
associated with possible North Korean nuclear disaster, perhaps the
body should pause before allowing the Federal Government to assume the
liability. The amendment of the distinguished gentleman from California
and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts is a common-sense
response to a very real problem. This Member would note his intention
to offer a companion amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill,
prohibit U.S. funds from being spent for the assumption of nuclear
liability related to North Korea.
This Member commends his colleagues for offering the amendment, and
urges approval of the Cox/Markey amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against the Cox-
Markey amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. This amendment
would undermine the framework agreed to by the United States and North
Korea in 1994, and would have the effect of preventing continued
progress in the critical area of nuclear non-proliferation.
The Cox-Markey legislation would forbid the United States from
indemnifying the technology provided by an American contractor for
civilian nuclear reactors in North Korea. The United States agreed to
help build these reactors in exchange for North Korea's freezing of its
nuclear-related activities at two sites. In the interim, these reactors
are necessary to provide sufficient energy for parts of North Korea. If
this amendment were to pass, the contractor will be forced to pull out
of the project, leaving the U.S. unable to fulfill its part of the
agreement. North Korea would then lack any reason for not resuming work
at its nuclear sites.
We have a good agreement with North Korea. It effectively limits the
nuclear threat posed by that country, and it does so in an intelligent
way. The agreement is good for the U.S., and it commits us to building
several reactors, which we will finance in concert with two of our
Pacific allies, Japan and South Korea. This is a small price to pay for
the dangers we can reduce in North Korea. If the Cox-Markey amendment
passes, we will undermine the agreement, which will have two
consequences. First, it will provoke North Korea to continue its
production of nuclear warheads. Second, it will cause the U.S. to
renege on its share of the duty, making us look unreliable to our
allies.
For these two reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 4 printed in House
Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Skelton
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Skelton:
Strike title XV (page 354, line 6, through page 359, line
16) and insert the following:
TITLE XV--LAND CONVEYANCE REGARDING VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO RICO
SEC. 1501. CONVEYANCE OF NAVAL AMMUNITION SUPPORT DETACHMENT,
VIEQUES ISLAND.
(a) Conveyance Required.--
(1) Property to be conveyed.--(1) Subject to subsection
(b), the Secretary of the Navy shall convey, without
consideration, to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the land
constituting the Naval Ammunition Support detachment located
on the western end of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico.
(2) Time for conveyance.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
complete the conveyance required by paragraph (1) not later
than December 31, 2000.
(3) Purpose of conveyance.--The conveyance under paragraph
(1) is being made for the benefit of the Municipality of
Vieques, Puerto Rico, as determined by the Planning Board of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(b) Reserved Property Not Subject to Conveyance.--
(1) Radar and communications facilities.--The conveyance
required by subsection (a) shall not include that portion of
[[Page H3363]]
the Naval Ammunition Support detachment consisting of the
following:
(A) Approximately 100 acres on which is located the
Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar and the Mount Pirata
telecommunications facilities.
(B) Such easements, rights-of-way, and other interests
retained by the Secretary of the Navy as the Secretary
considers necessary--
(i) to provide access to the property retained under
subparagraph (A);
(ii) for the provision of utilities and security for the
retained property; and
(iii) for the effective maintenance and operation of the
retained property.
(2) Other sites.--The United States may retain such other
interests in the property conveyed under subsection (a) as--
(A) the Secretary of the Navy considers necessary, in the
discharge of responsibilities under subsection (d), to
protect human health and the environment; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior considers necessary to
discharge responsibilities under subsection (f), as provided
in the co-management agreement referred to in such
subsection.
(c) Description of Property.--The Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior on issues
relating to natural resource protection under subsection (f),
shall determine the exact acreage and legal description of
the property required to be conveyed pursuant to subsection
(a), including the legal description of any easements, rights
of way, and other interests that are retained pursuant to
subsection (b).
(d) Environmental Restoration.--
(1) Objective of conveyance.--An important objective of the
conveyance required by this section is to promote timely
redevelopment of the conveyed property in a manner that
enhances employment opportunities and economic redevelopment,
consistent with all applicable environmental requirements and
in full consultation with the Governor of Puerto Rico, for
the benefit of the residents of Vieques Island.
(2) Conveyance despite response need.--If the Secretary of
the Navy, by December 31, 2000, is unable to provide the
covenant required by section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I)) with
respect to the property to be conveyed, the Secretary shall
still complete the conveyance by that date, as required by
subsection (a)(2). The Secretary shall remain responsible for
completing all response actions required under such Act. The
completion of the response actions shall not be delayed on
account of the conveyance.
(3) Continued navy responsibility.--The Secretary of the
Navy shall remain responsible for the environmental condition
of the property, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall
not be responsible for any condition existing at the time of
the conveyance.
(4) Savings clause.--All response actions with respect to
the property to be conveyed shall take place in compliance
with current law.
(e) Indemnification.--
(1) Entities and persons covered; extent.--(A) Except as
provided in subparagraph (C), and subject to paragraph (2),
the Secretary of Defense shall hold harmless, defend, and
indemnify in full the persons and entities described in
subparagraph (B) from and against any suit, claim, demand or
action, liability, judgment, cost or other fee arising out of
any claim for personal injury or property damage (including
death, illness, or loss of or damage to property or economic
loss) that results from, or is in any manner predicated upon,
the release or threatened release of any hazardous substance
or pollutant or contaminant as a result of Department of
Defense activities at those parts of the Naval Ammunition
Support detachment conveyed pursuant to subsection (a).
(B) The persons and entities described in this paragraph
are the following:
(i) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (including any officer,
agent, or employee of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), once
Puerto Rico acquires ownership or control of the Naval
Ammunition Support Detachment by the conveyance under
subsection (a).
(ii) Any political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico (including any officer, agent, or employee of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) that acquires such ownership or
control.
(iii) Any other person or entity that acquires such
ownership or control.
(iv) Any successor, assignee, transferee, lender, or lessee
of a person or entity described in clauses (i) through (iii).
(C) To the extent the persons and entities described in
subparagraph (B) contributed to any such release or
threatened release, subparagraph (A) shall not apply.
(2) Conditions on indemnification.--No indemnification may
be afforded under this subsection unless the person or entity
making a claim for indemnification--
(A) notifies the Secretary of Defense in writing within two
years after such claim accrues or begins action within six
months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered
mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the Secretary
of Defense;
(B) furnishes to the Secretary of Defense copies of
pertinent papers the entity receives;
(C) furnishes evidence of proof of any claim, loss, or
damage covered by this subsection; and
(D) provides, upon request by the Secretary of Defense,
access to the records and personnel of the entity for
purposes of defending or settling the claim or action.
(3) Responsibilities of secretary of defense.--(A) In any
case in which the Secretary of Defense determines that the
Department of Defense may be required to make indemnification
payments to a person under this subsection for any suit,
claim, demand or action, liability, judgment, cost or other
fee arising our of any claim for personal injury or property
damage referred to in paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary may
settle or defend, on behalf of that person, the claim for
personal injury or property damage.
(B) In any case described in subparagraph (A), if the
person to whom the Department of Defense may be required to
make indemnification payments does not allow the Secretary of
Defense to settle or defend the claim, the person may not be
afforded indemnification with respect to that claim under
this subsection.
(4) Accrual of action.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(A),
the date on which a claim accrues is the date on which the
plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known) that the
personal injury or property damage referred to in paragraph
(1) was caused or contributed to by the release or threatened
release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant
as a result of Department of Defense activities at any part
of the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment conveyed pursuant
to subsection (a).
(5) Relationship to other laws.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as affecting or modifying in any way
subsection 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9620(h)).
(6) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms ``hazardous
substance'', ``release'', and ``pollutant or contaminant''
have the meanings given such terms under paragraphs (9),
(14), (22), and (33) of section 101 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).
(f) Management.--
(1) Co-management of conservation zones.--Those areas on
the western end of the Vieques Island designated as
Conservation Zones in section IV of the 1983 Memorandum of
Understanding between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the
Secretary of the Navy shall be subject to a co-management
agreement among the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto
Rico Conservation Trust and the Secretary of the Interior.
Areas adjacent to these Conservation Zones shall also be
considered for inclusion under the co-management agreement.
Adjacent areas to be included under the co-management
agreement shall be mutually agreed to by the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and the Secretary of the Interior. This
determination of inclusion of lands shall be incorporated
into the co-management agreement process as set forth in
paragraph (2). In addition, the Sea Grass Area west of
Mosquito Pier, as identified in the 1983 Memorandum of
Understanding, shall be included in the co-management plan to
be protected under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
(2) Co-management purposes.--All lands covered by the co-
management agreement shall be managed to protect and preserve
the natural resources of these lands in perpetuity. The
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Conservation
Trust, and the Secretary of the Interior shall follow all
applicable Federal environmental laws during the creation and
any subsequent amendment of the co-management agreement,
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the National Historic
Preservation Act. The co-management agreement shall be
completed prior to any conveyance of the property under
subsection (a), but not later than December 31, 2000. The
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall implement the terms and
conditions of the co-management agreement, which can only be
amended by agreement of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Puerto Rico Conservation Trust, and the Secretary of the
Interior.
(3) Role of national fish and wildlife foundation.--
Contingent on funds being available specifically for the
preservation and protection of natural resources on Vieques
Island, amounts necessary to carry out the co-management
agreement may be made available to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation to establish and manage an endowment for
the management of lands transferred to the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and subject to the co-management agreement. The
proceeds from investment of the endowment shall be available
on an annual basis. The Foundation shall strive to leverage
annual proceeds with non-Federal funds to the fullest extent
possible.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes. Does the gentleman from South Carolina wish to
claim the time in opposition?
Mr. SPENCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H3364]]
Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of a strong national security. This
amendment is for just that. My amendment is the only way we can get
back the range at Vieques permanently. My amendment would strike
language that is in the bill that guts the negotiated agreement between
the administration and the Navy on the one hand, and the Governor of
Puerto Rico on the other.
My amendment would put in place the first piece of the conveyance,
the conveyance of the excess land on the western end of the island, to
the people of Vieques. During the debates we have heard much of the
island of Vieques, a lot about what the Navy needs and why it is
important to the Navy. Well, that is an excellent point.
If we really want to know what the Navy needs, let us listen and find
out from the Navy itself, the Secretary of Defense and the President.
The Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense and the President
all vigorously opposed the language in the bill regarding Vieques. The
Secretary of the Navy states that the committee bill ``would establish
conditions on disposal of the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment that
are contrary to presidential directives on that subject.''
The Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, says that ``any legislative
proposal that unilaterally undermines that agreement will reverse the
positive momentum that has been accomplished to date.''
The administration policy is ``the title of the bill regarding the
Navy's facilities in Vieques, Puerto Rico, is unacceptable. If enacted,
key provisions would make it likely that our Navy and Marine Corps
personnel would not be able to get the training they need on the
island.''
Departments of the Navy and Defense and the administration as a whole
strongly support this language. It strikes this title and replaces it
with language regarding the first part of the agreement, and that is
the transfer of excess land to the people of Vieques.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to this amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position my good friend
from Missouri is in in having to offer this amendment. He is one of the
strongest supporters we have of our troops and the training they must
get. He is always talking about this being the year of the troops, and
he is called upon by his administration to offer an amendment that
would do harm to the training that our troops receive.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would strike the provisions
contained in our bill. I support our bill, the Committee on Armed
Services bill, the provisions that deal with Vieques. This amendment
seeks to replace them with the administration's flawed approach, as
established by the agreement between the President and the Governor of
Puerto Rico on January 31, 2000.
Since the Navy ceased training on Vieques in April of 1999, East
Coast-based Naval forces have experienced a decline in combat
readiness. The ranges on Vieques island are the only place where our
forces can conduct joint combined live fire training in conjunction
with the actual amphibious landings by our troops ashore. When I was on
active duty with the Navy, I remember back in those days being involved
in training in Vieques myself. I know how valuable it is.
Vieques is, in the words of Vice Admiral William Fallon, the
Commander of the Second Fleet, ``an irreplaceable national asset.'' And
it is a national asset. People do not realize we own that island. We
bought it. It belongs to the United States Government. Where else in
this country and overseas do we have referendums to allow us to use our
own bases for live firing?
{time} 1530
Without live-fire training at Vieques, carrier battle groups and
amphibious ready groups will continue to deploy overseas without the
necessary training for combat. Therefore, access to Vieques for live-
fire training must be retained. Anything less endangers the lives of
American sailors and Marines and others who train there. We are putting
our own people in jeopardy by what we are doing. We are not looking out
for their welfare, and we are not looking out for the welfare of this
country.
By endorsing the agreement between the President and the Governor,
the amendment undermines the provisions in the bill that would ensure
proper access to Vieques. Further, the amendment endorses the
troublesome precedent of allowing the future of military training on
Vieques to be determined by a referendum.
By allowing local communities to decide where the military can train,
this amendment places in jeopardy current access to other critical
military installations, as I have said before, both in this country and
overseas.
The Vieques provision in this bill is fair and equitable. They allow
for the conveyance of the land on the west end of Vieques to the Puerto
Ricans and authorize $40 million in economic assistance for local
citizens once live-fire training has resumed.
At the same time, they restrict live-fire training to 90 days a year
and direct the Navy to take measures to ensure the safety of the local
populace.
The bill protects the readiness of our military forces by ensuring
that they have access to the best training facilities available, a
facility that will allow them to train to protect their lives and the
lives of other Americans the next time they are called up to take up
arms in defense of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out the
actual facts that are before us. There is nothing in my amendment that
talks about remuneration. There is nothing in my amendment that talks
about a referendum. What it does, it strikes the killing language and
transfers the excess western part of the island. That is all it does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the Resident Commissioner, the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to express
my solid support for the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) on Vieques. I speak as the only elected representative of the
4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and Vieques and on behalf of the
Governor of Puerto Rico and the Mayor of Vieques, to reinforce the
importance of approving the Vieques land conveyance component of the
presidential directives.
Both the presidential candidates also support this amendment. They
support the presidential directives. First of all, I want to clarify
that this land conveyance is limited to the western lands of Vieques
and will have no impact on the eastern end of the island where the
Navy's bombing range is located.
Looking at a map of Vieques, the eastern part of the island is where
the range is located, in the easternmost part, and the western part,
which are the lands that we are considering here, have nothing to do
with the maneuvers and the training in Vieques now and they have been
declared, the Navy itself does not need the western lands that make up
the Naval ammunition depot.
In fact, the Secretary of the Navy indicated by letter to Speaker
Hastert that there has been little use of the property in recent years
and that it is no longer needed for Federal purposes.
Parts of the agreement reached by the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of Defense, the President and the Governor of Puerto Rico are
already implemented. After the Navy peacefully removed the protestors
from the live impact range on the eastern end of Vieques, with the help
of the police department in Puerto Rico, they immediately renewed
military exercises with inert ordnance on May 10th. The people in
Vieques did not even realize that inert ordnance was being used and
that the bombing was going on. So everyone is peaceful now and
satisfied.
We in Puerto Rico have done our part with the agreement. We have
carried out our part of the agreement. Now it is the Navy's and the
administration's turn to do their part of the agreement.
What is the issue here? Is it to prove that the Navy can beat the
little Island
[[Page H3365]]
of Vieques, a 20 square mile Island of Vieques with 9,300 people; the
Navy is more powerful than Vieques? We concede that argument.
The Navy is much more powerful than Vieques. Of course it is, and it
could carry out the bombing if it wanted to. But is that the Navy of
the 21st century that wants to represent the Nation? Is that what we
want?
This Nation was born out of a cry that no taxation without
representation. Actually, in Vieques what the people are saying is no
more bombing without some representation, or at least a referendum.
That is what we are saying. This is a very, very valid statement,
because they have no representation.
I represent them here but I cannot vote. We have no representation in
the Senate. So they feel that they are by themselves, and they are
asking for justice. They are asking that after all these years, after
the land was taken over by the Navy in 1941, during the Second World
War, where everyone in Puerto Rico, U.S. citizens in a patriotic sense
of duty, they never contested the condemnation. This was going to be
used for the Second World War, but the war never ended for Vieques and
now they are asking let us put the presidential directives in place.
They are reinforced by the President, by the presidential candidates,
by the Secretary of the Navy, by the Secretary of Defense, by the Naval
Operations officers and we have those letters to confirm that.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence) said it right. What we are talking about is the troops.
Who is going to take care of the troops in this thing or who cares
about political things? That is what we are talking about here if we
want to be gut honest about this.
What is the history on this thing, anyway? This thing was turned over
to the United States Navy in the 1940s. They put $3 billion into that
area. What is it? It is a test and training range, and that is what it
is used for.
Now we talk about all of these letters from the President and the
Secretary and that, and they are all political people. Let us talk
about the people who have stars on their shoulders. Here are two
letters that just came to me just yesterday, and what do they say?
General Jones, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, talks about the
idea that the curtailment of Vieques would, in effect, curtail the work
we are doing there and people would perish.
Let us talk about the CNO of the Navy, the chief Naval officer, what
does he say? The same thing. The people will perish if they have the
right to do that.
Are there other test and training ranges? Of course there are. They
are all over America, and there are people bombed right next to them. I
have one right in my district called the Utah Test and Training Range.
And guess what? Every month or so somebody goes onto that range, and it
is called trespass. If they do it and will not leave, they are
prosecuted, and that is what should have happened here. But, no, they
did not prosecute these people. Janet Reno elected not to do it.
I ask my colleagues to ask themselves this question: Why, oh, why,
does the President of the United States get involved in a trespass on a
thing that is Navy property? He gets involved and strikes a deal that
does absolutely nothing for us. If that is the case, we have them every
day. I was checking with the one at China Lake, with Eglin, with the
Utah Test and Training Range, with Nellis, with Mountain Home.
Trespasses every day.
Well, why do we not get involved in them also? There must be
something here besides the training of our troops.
The George Washington is going out. The George Washington is a
carrier battle group, and on that carrier battle group, do we know what
the CNO of the Navy had just said yesterday? He has made the statement
that this is not prepared for battle and we are turning these guys into
harm's way because of that.
Now does that bother anybody besides me here? I am really kind of
concerned about this. It was pointed out that this does not make any
difference. It does make a difference because it strikes the language
that we have.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, quoting from General James Jones, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, his letter goes on to say additional information. It
says, ``Positive resolution of the Vieques referendum regarding live-
fire training will restore Vieques training to its fullest potential.''
We should read the entire letter to this body.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie), the ranking member from our committee, the Committee on
Armed Services, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to reiterate
my support for the agreement reached by the President, the Secretary of
Defense, the Navy, the Governor of Puerto Rico, to resolve the impasse
over the Navy's training at Vieques.
As a witness to the experience of Kaho'olawe, a small island in
Hawaii which was bombed for many years and on which significant
progress has been made, I feel I am uniquely qualified to speak on the
issue of Vieques.
The agreement between the Department of Defense and the Governor of
Puerto Rico was thoughtfully crafted and the product of tireless
effort. The agreement addresses the concerns of American citizens of
Vieques and assures that our training needs are met. This agreement was
reached not with the protestors but with the lawful authorities in
Puerto Rico.
Because of the agreement, the Federal and local government
enforcement officers removed the demonstrators blocking access to the
training facility and the Navy is conducting training on Vieques as we
speak.
Now last week, the Committee on Armed Services approved language that
disrupts this carefully-crafted agreement and I want to discourage my
colleagues from further jeopardizing the outcome they wish to obtain
regarding the Navy's presence in Vieques.
Disruption would require the Vieques issue to go back to the drawing
board. We should respect the hard work that has been done, and the
national security interests representing the people of Vieques will be
served.
Further, this effort by the Congress could very well end up
backfiring. Disruption of the process will inevitably bring negative
consequences for the Navy, and in that ill-fated effort it kills the
possibility of building a relationship between the Navy and the people
of Vieques.
The resolution is best accomplished by moving forward with the
agreement. The Skelton amendment takes the first step towards living up
to the negotiated agreement. I urge all my colleagues, particularly
those on the Committee on Armed Services, to support the agreement
reached by the Department of Defense and the Governor and support the
Skelton amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Personnel.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I also would agree it is important to keep the record
clean. When the former Governor of Puerto Rico stands in the well and
says that this land was taken by condemnation, that is completely false
and I believe he knows that. The land was purchased at fair value
between 1941 and 1950 for the use as a live-firing range. So I want the
record clean.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered
by Mr. Skelton. The agreement on Vieques range that the administration
has reached with the Government of Puerto Rico, I believe, is
fundamentally flawed in several respects, including the terrible
precedent that the President's provision for a referendum sets.
Allowing the local communities to vote on the type of training that
can be conducted at a military range endangers our military's access to
other critical facilities both in the United States and overseas.
[[Page H3366]]
Even more importantly, the agreement permits the Navy and the Marine
Corps to return to Vieques but only using inert munitions, which do not
provide the type of combat arms training that our Navy and Marine Corps
teams require.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, James Jones, whose name is being
thrown around a lot here today, and I would say to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) I will also read from part of his quotes, he
said, ``Inert training cannot replace the experience gained from
training with live-fire ordnance. Employing live ordnance will allow us
to train as we intend to fight.''
He goes on to say that the curtailment of training operations would
have, quote, a significant detrimental effect on Navy and Marine Corps
readiness.
When asked what the impact on Navy readiness would be if the Vieques
range is restricted to inert ordnance only, the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Jay Johnson stated, ``The proficiency obtained by
the personnel involved would be less than optimum.''
Significant detrimental effect on readiness and less than optimum?
What these statements mean are longer, more costly wars and pictures on
CNN of flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base.
{time} 1545
Is that what America really expects of us, those of us here in
Congress that have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the men
and women who serve in the Nation's military are adequately trained? I
think not. Vote down the Skelton amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skelton
amendment, which eliminates the offensive and onerous language in this
bill regarding Puerto Rico and Vieques.
The current language of the bill allows the U.S. military to resume
bombing of the island of Vieques with live ammunition. This is an
abomination to the people of Vieques and all of Puerto Rico. Instead of
returning the island to a state of siege, the Skelton amendment would
return the land to the people of Vieques, who have generously and
patiently allowed live ammunition to strike closer to their homes, and
for a longer period of time, than any other group of United States
citizens.
This land transfer is one small step towards justice for the people
of Vieques, but an important one. My support for the Skelton amendment
in no way suggests my support for President Clinton's directive
regarding Vieques, to which I am vigorously opposed.
President Clinton as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces should
listen to the Puerto Rican people and end the bombing of Vieques. I
remind my colleagues that President Bush showed this courage when he
stopped the bombing of a Hawaiian island. How sad that President
Clinton refuses to show the same vision on behalf of the people of
Puerto Rico.
In the absence of President Clinton's commitment to do the right
thing, to immediately and permanently end the bombing in Vieques, I
strongly support the Skelton amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), a
friend that I usually find myself in agreement with, but not today, not
on this amendment.
If adopted, the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) would codify the President's fundamentally flawed agreement
with the Governor of Puerto Rico concerning an irreplaceable training
area.
Under the President's agreement, the Navy and Marine Corps are only
allowed to use inert ammunition, ammunition that does not provide the
type of combined arms training required to ensure combat readiness.
In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jay Johnson, has
stated that due to the moratorium of training with live ordnance, the
Battle Group and Amphibious Ready Group will not be assessed by the
Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet as fully combat ready, as
previous Battle Groups that have had the use of Vieques for integrated
training.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, voting in favor of the Skelton amendment
is an endorsement of a referendum on Vieques, as outlined in the
President's agreement. This referendum sets a bad precedent. Allowing a
local community to vote on the type of training that can be conducted
on our military ranges endangers our military's access to other
critical facilities, both in the United States and overseas.
What are we going to do? Are we going to have a referendum at Fort
Carson, Colorado, and say we cannot use live fire anymore; a referendum
at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, or any innumerable sites across the United
States and say we cannot do it anymore? Where are we going to train?
H.R. 4205 protects U.S. national security by ensuring our military's
access to this vital facility, while at the same time taking into
account the concerns of the citizens of Vieques. It allows the transfer
of the western ammunition area and the $40 million in economic
assistance, once uninterrupted live fire training resumes. It denies
the transfer of any portion of the eastern maneuver area, where the
critical ranges are located, and places restrictions on the amount and
type of training that the Navy can conduct on Vieques.
I oppose the Skelton amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose the
Skelton amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton
amendment. Some in this Chamber are claiming that Vieques is vital to
our national security, and that those who oppose this are somehow less
American than others. That is why I am so pleased that the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is the lead on this important amendment. I
cannot think of a better messenger for such an important message.
No one in this Chamber questions the dedication of the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to our armed forces and our national defense. I
am pleased to stand behind him and support his amendment.
With the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Blagojevich), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), I sponsored the original House
legislation to return the Navy-owned lands on the island of Vieques
back to the people of Puerto Rico.
This past January an agreement was reached between the Navy and the
government of Puerto Rico to handle this delicate situation. The
compromise allows for the resumption of training on the island
temporarily, while the U.S. Navy can find another training location.
The Navy supports this agreement, the government of Puerto Rico
supports this agreement. Unfortunately, the Committee on Armed Services
is ready to overturn the hard won compromises in the Clinton-Barcelo
agreement.
The committee produced a good bill to strengthen our national
security, but there are some problems in this bill. The Skelton
amendment will correct one of the biggest flaws in this overall good
bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kuykendall).
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have trained on these kinds of
ranges. I have taken that same training. I have employed it in war. I
currently represent one of these ranges that is the West Coast version
of Vieques. That training is invaluable. We could not be effective in
that kind of action without it.
Our obligation to the young men and women that we employ in our armed
forces is to give them the best possible training before they go in
harm's way, and today we routinely deploy, routinely deploy our carrier
battle groups and amphibious ready groups where they immediately are
put in harm's way in many cases, whether it is bombing Iraq, flying
over the Balkans, or some embassy-saving they have to do.
This range must remain available for our forces' live fire combat
training,
[[Page H3367]]
period. I will say it again, it must remain available. We have adequate
safeguards to protect the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered
by my distinguished colleague. In accordance with the presidential
directives concerning Vieques, Puerto Rico, Federal and local law
enforcement officers have now removed the peaceful civil demonstrators
who had been blocking the Navy's access to that bombing range.
As a result of this removal, the Navy has regained control and has
access to the range. In fact, the U.S. Navy warplanes recently resumed
training on the Atlantic fleet bombing range in Vieques using air-to-
ground inert ordnance. Now it is up to Congress to guarantee further
fulfillment of the presidential directives.
The Skelton amendment will facilitate a key component of the
directives. In addition, the directives have the support of Hispanic-
American leaders and Puerto Rico's top elected officials. As the
Secretary of Defense told the Committee on Armed Services in a letter
dated May 10, 2000, this is in the best interests of our national
security. Any action by this Congress to amend the directives or to
short-circuit the processes already underway would further polarize all
the parties involved. These directives ensure the safety of the
disenfranchised U.S. citizens of Vieques, and provide a sensible
framework that allows the Navy to continue its training operations.
The President, the Navy, and the Governor of Puerto Rico have all
stood by the presidential directives. It is now in the hands of
Congress to protect our national security and to protect the 9,300
people, Hispanic-Americans, in Puerto Rico.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Skelton amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my outrage at
the arrogance displayed by the language in this bill that deals with
the island of Vieques.
Let me paint a picture of what it is like to live on the island of
Vieques. They are sandwiched in a small area in the middle of the
island. Ammunition is stored on the western portion of the island. Live
ammunition fire takes place on the eastern part. The cancer rate on
Vieques is 26 percent above the rate for the rest of the people of
Puerto Rico.
The people on Vieques live in horror. They never know when a pilot
may miss his target and kill another citizen. It seems that the lives
of the people of the island of Vieques are dispensable.
It is ironic that in 1990, when an uninhabited island in the Pacific
was being used for military maneuvers, it was deemed unacceptable
because it was close in proximity to Hawaii. It is interesting to note
that the patriotism of those opposed to the bombing was never
questioned.
Let me remind Members that more people from Puerto Rico died in the
Korean and Vietnam War than most of the 50 States. If this were to take
place anywhere else in this Nation, do Members think people would not
protest?
The voices of the people of Vieques deserve to be heard just as
loudly as those of every American. The language contained in this bill
is shameful, mean-spirited. It is a slap in the face of our own people.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong and an unapologetic supporter of the
mission of our Department of Defense, and even more, of the United
States Navy. I have two of the Navy's most outstanding facilities in my
district, the Naval Air Facility and the Naval Ordnance Facility at
Indian Head. I support the United States Navy.
But Mr. Chairman, I also support the Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces of America. I support giving him the ability to resolve crises
with the confidence that the Congress of the United States will support
that resolution. If we do not do so, Mr. Chairman, he will lose that
ability, whoever that President might be, if the other side in a crisis
situation, in a conflict situation, in a situation difficult to
resolve, believes that the President of the United States, the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, cannot be
counted on to make a resolution which will stick.
Mr. Chairman, it showed a great deal of courage, I will say, for
Governor Rossello to stand and say, this we will agree to, not because
it is what we would choose, but because it is a way out of a difficult
situation. It was a difficult and courageous task when the gentleman
who represents Puerto Rico, the former Governor of Puerto Rico, stood
and said, we need to resolve this issue.
Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez), who was born in Puerto Rico, who worked in Puerto Rico, who
was handcuffed in Puerto Rico, for her to stand up for her principles,
it was a courageous thing she did as well, and for the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. Chairman, let us adopt the Skelton amendment and support the
Commander in Chief under our Constitution of the Armed Forces of the
United States. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skelton
amendment. Let me make five critical points.
First, our sailors and Marines have no substitute for live fire
training on Vieques. There is no substitute on the East Coast, as there
was on the West Coast, where now our sailors and Marines do their
training on San Clemente. We need to resume this training today.
When the George Washington Battle Group and the Saipan Amphibious
Ready Group deploy next month, over 10,000 of our young sailors' and
Marines' lives will now be more at risk because they will not be fully
combat ready.
Second, the people of Vieques do not bear a unique burden. There are
33 major United States live fire ranges in 14 States and two
territories. On Vieques, the civilian population is 9 miles from the
live impact area. At Fort Sill, Oklahoma, an incorporated area of
90,000 people, they are only 1.9 miles away from the live impact area.
{time} 1600
Third, American taxpayers have already invested over $3 billion for
the training infrastructure in the Puerto Rico Operating Area.
Fourth, the bill's provisions differ considerably from the Fowler-
Hansen amendment we voted on in March. And I want my colleagues to
listen carefully, the bill places limits on the resumption of live-fire
training on Vieques, including restricting live fire to 90 days per
year, requiring notification prior to exercises and restricting ship
placements to minimize noise impacts. It would also establish a
permanent civilian military committee to review Vieques training plans.
In addition, the bill would convey the western third of the island
from the Navy to the people of Puerto Rico for use as a conservation
area. And finally the proponents of the Skelton amendment would tell us
that the referendum prescribed by the President is the best way to
resume live-fire training.
They are waiving all manner of letters from the administration
officials to that effect. I would respond that, notwithstanding the
broader question of whether America should determine its military
requirements by public referenda, that a survey of Vieques residents
conducted by the Puerto Rican newspaper just this past February
indicated that only 4 percent of those on Vieques support resuming
live-fire training.
It is evident that under the Skelton amendment, we will never resume
live-
[[Page H3368]]
fire training on Vieques. I urge defeat of the Skelton amendment, our
young sailors and Marines' lives depend on it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). All time has expired.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of this body who understands our
military more than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). His
expertise and commitment to our national security is unquestioned. So I
urge Members to listen to and support him on this issue.
I have been to Vieques, and I have seen the devastating impact of the
Navy's live bombing activities on the island. I was appalled by the
Navy's indifference to the impact it has had on the island and its
residents. The Navy's bombing has destroyed the island's once vibrant
fishing economy, prohibited development of tourism.
The higher incidence of cancer and infant mortality rates suggest
that the large quantities of explosives, including radioactivity of
depleted uranium shells, have harmed the health of the island's
residents.
After years of deplorable conduct by the Navy, including violating
all agreements with the government of Puerto Rico, the majority would
now seek to violate the latest agreement between our respective
governments. If what was done in Vieques was done anywhere else in the
country, the Navy's operations would have been shut down a long time
ago.
Requiring the resumption of live bombing ignores the devastating
impact of the Navy's activities on this group of Americans, and it is
an indication of the second-class citizenship that some apparently
assign to the residents of Vieques. Puerto Ricans have for a century
donned the uniform of the United States, they have given their lives
and their limbs in defense of this country in disproportionate numbers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support of the Skelton amendment and
to support the American citizens who live on Vieques.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of our committee.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my good
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I do not want to
stand here today and rehash all of the problems that have occurred over
this issue, the Island of Vieques. I would rather focus, and I ask this
body to focus, on moving forward in a democratic and fair manner to
implement the agreement which was reached between the President, the
Secretary of Defense and the Governor of Puerto Rico.
The language in the bill undermines the agreement and guarantees that
we will continue to fight over Vieques instead of using it to train.
The agreement that was reached strikes the necessary balance between
our military readiness, national security needs and the needs of the
people of Vieques.
As Secretary of State Bill Cohen has said, the continued cooperation
of the government of Puerto Rico is critical to achieving the
resumption of the full range of training exercises at Vieques. If
legislation which abrogates the agreement is adopted, the opportunity
to achieve that goal will be set back, if not lost altogether.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to stand behind this
agreement and to support the amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). The language that
was put in this bill really is just more punishment for the people of
Vieques and a lot of disregard for the people of Puerto Rico.
Let me answer the question of my colleague from Colorado why we do
not have a referendum in there in Fort Sill or Fort Carson, simply we
have Senators, we have Members of Congress to debate those issues.
Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. They have no
representation here, so it is proper to question the people after 60
years of harassment and pain.
The people in Vieques have paid a price for 60 years, and now the
Navy and some folks on the other side tell us that we cannot find
another place in the world, another place to hold these maneuvers. Then
how come on many occasions during the past 60 years we rented out
Vieques to foreign governments to come and do their practice there?
If Vieques was so essential to us, why did we have free time for
other nations to come and harm the population, harm the economy, harm
the coral reef and harm the people? It is time to do the right thing.
While many of us are not even speaking about the agreement, we might
not agree with, to think that we would come now and add more harsh
language is just unfair.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton
amendment in fairness for Puerto Rico in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of the amendment offered by my
good friend, the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Skelton.
This amendment will strike the underlying language in Title 15 and
H.R. 4205 that prohibits the Navy from transferring land on Vieques,
Puerto Rico, until live-fire training has resumed on the island's
bombing range facility.
This amendment, instead, authorizes the conveyance of land at the
western end of the island, with certain exceptions and in accordance
with the President's negotiated agreement with the government of Puerto
Rico.
The Vieques Agreement was accepted by all parties--including the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Government of Puerto Rico,
the people of Vieques, and the White House. The underlying bill
language is nothing short of Congressional meddling within the context
of a long overdue solution to a local grievance.
Assuaging the fears of the naysayers, currently, the range is open to
inert ordinance training on the eastern end of the island. The western
end of the island is in excess to the needs of the Navy, as indicated
by the Agreement. The Clinton administration reached this agreement to
provide $40 million in immediate economic assistance to the island and
requires a referendum on the island to decide whether the facility
should remain. If the residents vote against the facility, the navy
would have to leave the island by May 2003. If the referendum results
in continued Navy use, the United States would provide the island with
an additional $50 million and would have to limit live-fire training to
90 days a year.
I would like my colleagues to consider this important point: The
initial agreement, in concert with the Navy's renewed commitment of
improving military-civilian relations in Puerto Rico, is necessary
because it will redress past wrongs and open the way toward a renewed
mutual political relationship.
The Puerto Rican people are patriots in the highest order, having
some of the highest enlistment rates of any location in the U.S. Yet
despite this, because of their disenfranchised status, they have been
at a distinct disadvantaged within the American political family. They
are 3.6 million U.S. citizens who are represented ably by a single non-
voting Resident Commissioner. This Constitutional injustice makes it
extremely difficult to negotiate on par with the federal government. As
a fellow citizen of another U.S. territory, I know this constitutional
limitation only too well.
I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment and restore the
sanctity of the initial Presidential agreement with the people of
Puerto Rico. It is the right and noble thing to do.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson), a member of our committee.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton
amendment. This fervent patriot has been an ardent supporter of our
military and the men and women who wear the uniform. I understand the
strategic value and the importance of training. But I also understand
that we train our military to preserve the democratic values that the
Skelton amendment will allow for the citizens of Vieques. That is why
this amendment is so important. That is why I associate myself with the
remarks of my colleagues that have stood here.
[[Page H3369]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate again the words of Marine Corps
General James L. Jones, when he wrote ``Positive resolution of the
Vieques referendum regarding live-fire training will restore Vieques
training to its fullest potential.''
Mr. Chairman, this wording in the bill is contrary to what is desired
by the Secretary of the Navy. It is contrary to what is desired by the
Secretary of Defense. It is contrary to what is desired by the
administration. It is contrary to what is desired by the Governor of
Puerto Rico. It is contrary to what is supported by the Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico.
We should adopt this amendment and do what is right. It does not deal
with remuneration. It does not deal with the referendum. It merely
voids the gutting language and attaches the land transfer only.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said today, and it needs saying again,
people are talking about different things, the most important point
that is being missed in all of this debate is the flaw contained in
this agreement that does not permit live firing. I emphasize that word
live firing. I wonder if my colleagues understand what that means.
I remember during World War II, just the other night there was a
movie about it, up into the war, our submarines were firing torpedoes
at the enemy, and they were not detonating. They were going out and
firing torpedoes that were not detonating. Why? Because they were not
allowed to have live firing of those weapons before for whatever
reason. We not only lost lives, but it prevented us from taking
advantage of the enemy because of this flaw.
Now, I want people to get on the right side of this thing. Are they
for protecting our own troops, men and women, who are fighting for this
country and by extension protecting this country or in pursuit of
different goals?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would first, by the way of opening, say
that we need a little truth in advocacy. It is very easy to create a
strawman in advocacy that we then get to knock down. So the allegations
of those of us who oppose the Skelton amendment that making some form
of allegation that those of whom only support inert and support the
President are less patriotic was one of the allegations, that is false.
As a matter of fact, I have great pride and I believe every Member of
Congress has great pride in the contribution of the citizens of Puerto
Rico to freedom, and some of the Puerto Ricans that I served with in
the United States Army, they were the sharpest dressed. They had the
best looking shoes, the best looking brass, and I would stand side by
side with them at any time, because I know they would be with me, or if
they told me go left, I know that they would cover me. So stop creating
this false advocacy that we have in here, let us have a little truth in
advocacy.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman
of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence),
when he said they have lost sight of what we are talking about.
Now, where else on the East Coast can we do this? Is there any other
place that this can be done? And when you talk to these people that
have been in the military, and I am past Navy myself, you get down to
the idea there comes a time when you have to learn a few things, and
one of those is the final test is live fire.
This is where the Marines hit the beach and people are shooting over
the top of them. This is where ships are shooting. This is where bombs
are dropped, and this is when they are saying we are ready to go in
harm's way.
Now, why would we want to gamble with the lives of our young women
and our young men and send them out without this opportunity? I cannot
understand why anyone would want to gamble. I keep hearing this thing
no one else would put up with this. Sure, a lot of us have been to
Vieques. I have been there twice myself. Well, come on, do Members want
to come out and see some other ranges? I will show them some that are
beat up more than that one is by a long shut. One is called Dougway
Proving Ground since back in the 1930s. It is bigger than three States
back here. You do not dare walk across it, because something will go
off and you will kill yourself.
The people of Utah feel okay about that, the people of Nevada feel
okay about that, the people of California, Colorado, and those areas,
they are able to put up with it. Why can we not here?
Mr. Chairman, the thing that keeps bothering me is why, oh, why did
the President of the United States get involved in this action? Why is
this one important? All we are asking is we continue what we were doing
since 1940, that we continue to train our guys and gals when they go
out to fight that they will be prepared. What is wrong with that? That
makes a lot of sense to me.
Knowing that a lot of these people, especially those who were the
trespassers, believe in total independence, maybe that is what they
should have is total independence. When it comes down to it, they have
to carry their share just like everybody else.
And I would just like to thank the chairman for his leadership on
this and the great comments that he has made. Please vote no on the
Skelton amendment and let us train our troops and let us keep them
safe.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, would replace Title XV which restores full
integrated training on Vieques with the agreement between the Clinton
administration and the Governor of Puerto Rico.
The United States Navy has been using the range on Vieques since
prior to World War II. Our Forces are much more capable because we
conduct live fire training in as nearly real world environment as
possible. Our Navy used to be able to train at Bloodsworth Island in
the Chesapeake Bay and Culebra (very near Vieques) in Puerto Rico.
These ranges have been lost to the Navy's use, leaving Vieques the only
remaining live fire training range on the East Coast. Live fire
training is the only way we can ensure our forces are capable of
meeting the challenges to our freedoms they face every day. During
February of this year this Member visited with Navy and Air Force units
in the Mediterranean area and they explained the loss of what they
considered to be coordinated live fire exercises at Vieques before they
are deployed in rotations to the Mediterranean.
The Clinton Administration agreement allows the United States Navy to
continue to use the range, on a reduced basis of 90 days per year, and
then only with inert ordnance. The agreement also calls for a
referendum of the citizens of Vieques to express their views on the
future use of Vieques. The options will be to continue the limited use
of Vieques, or cease all such training on the island. With the decision
by the Clinton Administration, the outcome has already effectively been
determined, and that as a result, the United States forces will not
deploy with 100 percent of the combat qualifications needed to meet
national security requirements. We will be asking our forces to defend
us without a vital element of the necessary training to do so.
The amendment would allow certain parts of Western Vieques, namely
the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment, to be transferred to the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, without consideration, to benefit the
Municipality of Vieques. The amendment would also promote timely
redevelopment of the conveyed property in a manner that enhances
employment opportunities and economic redevelopment. The return of
Culebra to the people of Puerto Rico in a similar fashion has been an
abject failure. It was supposed to be returned to the local fishermen
and island people, instead, it has been gobbled up by big developers
who have built homes most Puerto Ricans can not afford. It is more than
likely that the same will happen at Vieques if the amendment is
accepted. Passage of this amendment would be a loss not only for our
Navy but also for the people of Puerto Rico and Vieques in particular
who would no longer be able to afford to live there. H.R. 4205 as
reported would convey the property only to a conservation zone.
Mr. Chairman, this Member strongly urges opposition to the Skelton
amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I support the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, the
Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. This amendment,
would
[[Page H3370]]
authorize the conveyance of over 8,000 acres of the land at the western
end of the island of Vieques for conservation and economic development
to improve the lives of Vieques residents.
Vieques is a small island of Puerto Rico comprising approximately 52
square miles, two thirds of which is controlled by the US Navy. The
Naval Ammunition Facility covers the western end of the island and the
Inner Range of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility controls
the eastern side. Sandwiched between the two facilities, over 9,300
American citizens have resided for twenty five years in extremely close
proximity to frequent military live-fire weapons testing.
From the beginning, relationships between the US Navy and the
residents of Vieques and Puerto Rico have been strained. Numerous times
the Navy has made promises to assist with local economic development,
work to improve the welfare of the people of Vieques, assure the
protection of the environment, and utilize the absolute minimum
necessary of explosive ordnance. By all accounts the Navy has not lived
up to its commitment.
The Navy has made it clear that they do not need the western side of
Vieques and support transferring it to the people of Puerto Rico who in
turn can use it to protect the environment and benefit the expansion of
their economy. As is the case with all US insular areas, isolation and
limited resources are stumbling blocks to economic development. Freeing
up land, which is key to economic development, is one of the best
gestures we can offer to Vieques.
It is hard to fathom that if Puerto Rico had full voting
representation in Congress we would be debating this issue today. The
current language in this legislation is a bribe and a slap in the face
to the residents of Vieques. It forces them to continue putting their
families at risk in order to receive a small portion of land from which
they might be able to better their lives. It is an offering that we
would not demand of any other community in the US.
Mr. Chairman, clearly we all understand the need for a strong
military. Communities which give up so much to ensure readiness should
be commended and not threatened or bullied into submission. I encourage
all my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, after months of negotiations, an
agreement was finally reached between the President of the United
States and the Governor of Puerto Rico, with the full endorsement of
the Department of Defense and Department of the Navy, which provides
the best opportunity to resume essential live-fire training in Vieques.
I, too, had concerns about the provisions expressed in the agreement
and the precedent it could set. Yet, the unfortunate situation in
Vieques is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with a territory
that is neither a state nor an independent country, and that, as such,
lacks the congressional representation that every State in the Union
currently enjoys.
I support Congressman Skelton's amendment to the FY 2001 National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205) after being assured by the
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense, in a memorandum
sent by the Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs, that the Navy
``strongly supports Representative Skelton's proposed amendment as a
substitute for the Vieques provisions of the bill.'' The Navy has
already resumed inert bombing in Vieques; a vote for this amendment is
a vote in support of the agreement between the U.S. Navy and the
Administration.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skelton amendment,
reinstating a critical element of the Directives issued by President
Clinton regarding the Navy's presence in Vieques, Puerto Rico.
We are harming our national security by modifying the carefully
crafted agreement between President Clinton and Puerto Rico's Governor
to resolve the impasse over United States armed forces training in
Vieques.
The President made a promise to millions of Puerto Ricans--both here
on the mainland and in Puerto Rico--which calls for a referendum by the
voters of Vieques to determine the future of Navy training on the
island.
The people of Vieques will have a referendum regardless of the
actions taken in Congress.
But this is a commitment of the President of the United States of
America, our commander in chief, to a group of U.S. citizens.
The House Armed Services Committee included language disrupting
President Clinton's and Governor Rossello's agreement.
By interfering and not honoring the Presidential directives as
issued, this Congress is not helping the Navy to build a relationship
with the people of Vieques, nor are they helping to keep Navy
operations in Vieques beyond 2003.
We are simply not helping the Navy at all.
Let us stand in support of the agreement reached by the President,
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy and the Governor of
Puerto Rico--which illustrates the most effective way to protect our
national security--and at the same time responds to the legitimate
concerns of the American citizens in Vieques, Puerto Rico.
{time} 1615
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair announces that proceedings will
now resume on the three amendments postponed from earlier today
immediately following this vote, and that the Chair will reduce to 5
minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this
series.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 201, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 202]
AYES--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--201
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
[[Page H3371]]
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Pickett
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
{time} 1637
Messrs. HORN, BRADY of Texas, ARMEY, SCARBOROUGH, CRANE, ROHRABACHER,
and GARY MILLER of California changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. HALL of Ohio, DOGGETT, RYAN of Wisconsin, and YOUNG of Alaska
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Sanchez
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on Amendment No. 1 offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 221, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 203]
AYES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--221
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
Jefferson
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Ney
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Vento
{time} 1644
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moakley
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 214, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 204]
AYES--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
[[Page H3372]]
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Talent
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--214
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Sessions
Shaw
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
Wilson
{time} 1653
Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MATSUI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained at
the White House and I missed rollcall votes numbered 202, 203 and 204.
Had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote number 202,
I would have voted yes on rollcall vote number 203, and I would have
voted no on rollcall vote number 204.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cox
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 334,
noes 85, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 205]
AYES--334
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
[[Page H3373]]
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--85
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Bateman
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Clay
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Tauscher
Thurman
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
NOT VOTING--15
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Morella
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
Wilson
{time} 1703
Messrs. DOOLEY of California, MEEHAN, HASTINGS of Florida and OLVER
and Mrs. TAUSCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, BAIRD and ROTHMAN and Mrs. CLAYTON
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider
Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Whitfield
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Whitfield:
At the end of title XXXI (page 467, after line 11), insert
the following new section:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPENSATION AND
HEALTH CARE FOR PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY AND ITS CONTRACTORS AND VENDORS WHO HAVE
SUSTAINED BERYLLIUM, SILICA, AND RADIATION-
RELATED INJURY.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Since World War II Federal nuclear activities have been
explicitly recognized by the United States Government as an a
ultra-hazardous activity under Federal law. Nuclear weapons
production and testing involved unique dangers, including
potential catastrophic nuclear accidents that private
insurance carriers would not cover, as well as chronic
exposures to radioactive and hazardous substances, such as
beryllium and silica, that even in small amounts could cause
medical harm.
(2) Since the inception of the nuclear weapons program and
for several decades afterwards, large numbers of nuclear
weapons workers at Department of Energy and at vendor sites
who supplied the Cold War effort were put at risk without
their knowledge and consent for reasons that, documents
reveal, were driven by fears of adverse publicity, liability,
and employee demands for hazardous duty pay.
(3) Numerous previous secret records documented unmonitored
radiation, beryllium, silica, heavy metals, and toxic
substances' exposures and continuing problems at the
Department of Energy and vendor sites across the country,
where since World War II the Department of Energy and its
predecessors have been self-regulating with respect to
nuclear safety and occupational safety and health. No other
hazardous Federal activity has been permitted to have such
sweeping self-regulatory powers.
(4) The Department of Energy policy to litigate
occupational illness claims has deterred workers from filing
workers compensation claims and imposed major financial
burdens for workers who sought compensation. Department of
Energy contractors have been held harmless and the Department
of Energy workers were denied workers compensation coverage
for occupational disease.
(5) Over the past 20 years more than two dozen scientific
findings have emerged that indicate that certain Department
of Energy workers are experiencing increased risks of dying
from cancer and non-malignant diseases at numerous facilities
that provided for the nation's nuclear deterrent. Several of
these studies also establish a correlation between excess
diseases and exposure to radiation, beryllium, and silica.
(6) While linking exposure to occupational hazards with the
development of occupational disease is sometimes difficult,
scientific evidence supports the conclusion that occupational
exposure to dust particles or vapor of beryllium, even where
there was compliance with the standards in place at the time,
can cause beryllium sensitivity and chronic beryllium
disease. Furthermore, studies indicate than 98 percent of
radiation induced cancers within the Department of Energy
complex occur at dose levels below existing maximum safe
thresholds. Further, that workers at Department of Energy
sites were exposed to silica, heavy metals, and toxic
substances at levels that will lead or contribute to illness
and diseases.
(7) Existing information indicates that State workers'
compensation programs are not a uniform means to provide
adequate compensation for the types of occupational illnesses
and diseases related to the prosecution of the Cold War
effort.
(8) The civilian men and women who performed duties
uniquely related to the Department of Energy's nuclear
weapons production and testing programs over the last 50
years should have efficient, uniform, and adequate
compensation for beryllium-related health conditions,
radiation-related health conditions, and silica-related
health conditions in order to assure fairness and equity.
(9) This situation is sufficiently unique to the Department
of Energy's nuclear weapons production and testing programs
that it is appropriate for Congressional review this year.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Whitfield
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment just offered. This modification has been approved by the
minority.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment, as
modified.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Whitfield:
The amendment as modified is as follows:
At the end of title XXXI (page 467, after line 11), insert
the following new section:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPENSATION AND
HEALTH CARE FOR PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY AND ITS CONTRACTORS AND VENDORS WHO HAVE
SUSTAINED BERYLLIUM, SILICA, AND RADIATION-
RELATED INJURY.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Since World War II Federal nuclear activities have been
explicitly recognized by the United States Government as an a
ultra-hazardous activity under Federal law. Nuclear weapons
production and testing involved unique dangers, including
potential catastrophic nuclear accidents that private
insurance carriers would not cover, as well as chronic
exposures to radioactive and hazardous substances, such as
beryllium and silica, that even in small amounts could cause
medical harm.
(2) Since the inception of the nuclear weapons program and
for several decades afterwards, large numbers of nuclear
weapons workers at Department of Energy and at vendor sites
who supplied the Cold War effort were put at risk without
their knowledge and consent for reasons that, documents
reveal, were driven by fears of adverse publicity, liability,
and employee demands for hazardous duty pay.
(3) Numerous previous secret records documented unmonitored
radiation, beryllium, silica, heavy metals, and toxic
substances' exposures and continuing problems at the
Department of Energy and vendor sites across the country,
where since World War II the Department of Energy and its
predecessors have been self-regulating with respect to
nuclear safety and occupational safety and health. No other
hazardous Federal activity has been permitted to have such
sweeping self-regulatory powers.
(4) The Department of Energy policy to litigate
occupational illness claims has deterred workers from filing
workers compensation claims and imposed major financial
burdens for workers who sought compensation. Department of
Energy contractors have been held harmless and the Department
of Energy workers were denied workers compensation coverage
for occupational disease.
(5) Over the past 20 years more than two dozen scientific
findings have emerged that indicate that certain Department
of Energy workers are experiencing increased risks of dying
from cancer and non-malignant diseases at numerous facilities
that provided for the nation's nuclear deterrent. Several of
these studies also establish a correlation between excess
diseases and exposure to radiation, beryllium, and silica.
(6) While linking exposure to occupational hazards with the
development of occupational disease is sometimes difficult,
scientific evidence supports the conclusion that occupational
exposure to dust particles or vapor of beryllium, even where
there was compliance with the standards in place at the time,
can cause beryllium sensitivity
[[Page H3374]]
and chronic beryllium disease. Furthermore, studies indicate
than 98 percent of radiation induced cancers within the
Department of Energy complex occur at dose levels below
existing maximum safe thresholds. Further, that workers at
Department of Energy sites were exposed to silica, heavy
metals, and toxic substances at levels that will lead or
contribute to illness and diseases.
(7) Existing information indicates that State workers'
compensation programs are not a uniform means to provide
adequate compensation for the types of occupational illnesses
and diseases related to the prosecution of the Cold War
effort.
(8) The civilian men and women who performed duties
uniquely related to the Department of Energy's nuclear
weapons production and testing programs over the last 50
years should have efficient, uniform, and adequate
compensation for beryllium-related health conditions,
radiation-related health conditions, and silica-related
health conditions in order to assure fairness and equity.
(9) This situation is sufficiently unique to the Department
of Energy's nuclear weapons production and testing programs
that it is appropriate for Congressional action this year.
Mr. WHITFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not
object. I would just merely ask for a clarification of the correction
that was made thereon.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the modification, and I will give the
gentleman a copy, which I should have done earlier, changes one word.
In the original amendment that was at the desk, on the last page,
paragraph 9, line 19, which is the last time we used word ``action,''
that it is appropriate for Congressional action this year, that is what
the amendment shows. The original word was ``review.''
The gentleman who had asked for the term ``review'' to be in the
original amendment was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling),
and this came about after our negotiations with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the modification is
agreed to, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes in support of
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity today to speak in support of
this bipartisan amendment to the FY 2001 Department of Defense
authorization bill on behalf of workers throughout the Department of
Energy complex. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Chairman Spence) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) for their help to ensure that this amendment would be
considered.
Last week, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and I, along with
several others, introduced H.R. 4398. Our bill would establish a
comprehensive Federal compensation program for Department of Energy
contract and vender employees who have contracted illnesses from
exposure to beryllium, radiation, silica and other hazardous materials.
The legislation is patterned after the Federal Employees Compensation
Act, which provides compensation to Federal employees and/or their
survivors.
I represent the workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
Paducah, Kentucky. We have a chart down there that shows there are 200
other DOE facilities around the country in 37 states. For nearly a
year, the plant at Paducah has been the focus of extensive national and
local press reports about workers who were exposed to radiation and
other hazardous substances without their knowledge. The same thing
occurred in these 200 other facilities around the country.
The employees at these plants are Cold War veterans who manufactured
and tested weapons systems that kept this Nation safe. They may not
have worn military uniforms and they may not have been shot at by the
enemy, but the increased incidences of illnesses and deaths that they
are experiencing are every bit as dangerous. In my judgment, these
workers did their duty, and they deserve to be compensated in a fair
and timely manner by the government that put them in danger.
This amendment is simply a sense of Congress resolution which states
that Congress should move forward on a comprehensive program to
compensate these workers. I would urge support of the amendment.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that no Member has
risen in opposition to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this sense of the Congress
resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.
This past Monday, Senator DeWine held a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, on
the need for a Federal compensation program for our Cold War veterans
who were exposed to radiation, beryllium, and other heavy metals and
toxic substances while working for the Department of Energy and its
contractors.
At that hearing, we were told of Governor Taft's support ``for a
federal program to compensate the workers at Federal nuclear sites.''
The state of Ohio made it clear that it would not see a federal
workers' compensation program for DOE employees as an incursion on
States' rights.
It was pointed out that many individuals worked at numerous sites
under multiple employers across the complex. This creates
jurisdictional questions and calls for separate State workers'
compensation systems to pay the injured workers. In other words, the
unique circumstances faced by these DOE workers warrant Federal
intervention.
We also heard that altered, falsified or missing medical records deny
us adequate scientific evidence on which to base a compensation
program. At some sites, correction factors were invented and some
workers were given a negative radiation dose. Mr. Chairman, a negative
radiation dose does not exist in nature.
At last year's hearing of the Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, we learned that contractors made
conscious decisions not to test certain workers. We must not establish
a program that makes it impossible for workers to receive compensation.
We must not deny workers' compensation simply because we lack certain
medical documentation or because records were destroyed. If there is
any doubt, the benefit of the doubt must go to the workers who were put
in harm's way. We must pass and fund comprehensive workers'
compensation legislation this year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1715
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as the representative for the Oak Ridge operations of
the Department of Energy, I rise in support of this resolution, a sense
of the Congress resolution, but also in support of further action that
is going to be required in order to bring some benefits to the House's
acknowledgment that there has been a disaffect from certain workers who
were exposed through our nuclear buildup to radiation and beryllium and
other sources that have caused these health problems.
The Department of Energy has now recognized that these problems exist
and need to be addressed. The Congress needs to come along. We need to
move quickly with the hearings and move quickly with the legislation.
There are four committees of jurisdiction. This is a problem that we
need to unify on quickly and move forward.
[[Page H3375]]
We need these committees to come together. I came to the floor today to
appeal to all the committees of jurisdiction to try to waive as much of
their jurisdiction as possible so we can get legislation through this
year to get benefits.
We have to be careful that we do not create such a broad benefits
package, but we have to get help to these workers.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in support of this
resolution. I just want to point out to my colleagues that this is one
of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation that we have been working
on for several years. I initially got involved in this because of the
berylliosis problem at the Department of Energy plant in my district. I
have since discovered, in working with various Members of Congress,
that they have similar problems from beryllium, radiation, and other
hazardous exposures that occurred in Department of Energy and
Department of Defense installations in this country.
For more than 50 years now, people have been dying and suffering from
horrible injuries without compensation. The opportunity we have today
is to take advantage of at least four pieces of well thought out and
previously introduced legislation, to have the committees of
jurisdiction come together and take these pieces of legislation, hold
hearings, and construct a bill that this Congress can pass, probably
with unanimous consent, in the next several months.
Fifty years is too long to wait to assist these workers dying from
horrible diseases when we know they have only suffered as a result of
their exposure as Cold War warriors. To deny compensation any further
is foolish because the Department of Defense and the medical
establishment of this country have established, without question, that
these diseases are directly related to their employment and that
exposure. If we can enact other legislation in several weeks, this
Congress, in a bipartisan way in the next month, should come together
and pass a compensation bill to compensate the Cold War warriors of
this country.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, as we all learned in basic first aid, some
wounds heal faster than others. The wounds of war, of course, can be
the worst of all to heal.
As a representative of the Nevada Test Site, I rise in strong support
of this amendment. Today, the bipartisan sponsors of this amendment and
I are calling for long overdue first aid to protect and help our
constituents: Those forgotten, wounded, citizen veterans of the Cold
War. Their injuries and their wounds, for which no Purple Heart can
ever be awarded, were received in Cold War battles waged in our
laboratories and weapons plants all across America.
The culmination of these atomic laborers lit the skies and ripped the
grounds in the deserts of the Nevada Test Site. They left poisoned
workers in their wake, poisoned with radiation from the test and with
silica from the dangerous underground tunneling the test required.
This amendment calls for action to address these wounds and to regain
the trust and faith of these ill Cold War workers, and I call on all my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand here today
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this
important resolution. I want the listeners to know that I represent the
Rocky Flats facility, which was a key part of the nuclear weapons
complex in the great State of Colorado.
We need to pass this resolution today and, as so many of my
colleagues have called for, we need to put a bill together. In my
opinion, we could do it by July 4. That would be fitting because these
Americans were warriors in the Cold War, and they were no less
deserving of support for the illnesses and injuries that occurred to
them than those members of our society who were in the hot war that we
fought in the Second World War.
So let us get this done for these Americans. I am proud to stand here
with my colleagues.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for the purpose of a colloquy.
(Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Whitfield
amendment and enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Hilleary), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
about the need for comprehensive legislation to address worker
exposures at Department of Energy facilities during the Cold War.
Mr. Chairman, I along with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) represent a large number of Cold War veterans at the Savannah
River Site in South Carolina who helped this great Nation win the Cold
War through their dedication and hard work. We have heard the last
several speakers talk about DOE workers across the Nation who were
exposed to levels of radiation greater than they should have been, and
other DOE workers who were exposed to other substances, including
beryllium, which have had an adverse effect on their health.
I think that all Members will agree that if through the course of
producing nuclear weapons for this great Nation, Department of Energy
or Department of Energy contract employees were caused physical harm,
we owe it to them to seek a remedy for their lost wages and medical
treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I know that as of late there has been a concerted
effort on the part of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the
Department of Energy and others to come up with a plan to offer these
workers compensation.
I believe the smart and responsible thing for us to do is to take a
look at this situation and make sure we do the right thing for the
workers.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Smith) of the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims in which he states, ``I hope to work with you and other
Members to address the need to compensate workers at DOE weapons
production facilities whose health has suffered as a result of their
employment. Furthermore, I expect to hold hearings on this subject in
the coming months.''
I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith)
to hold a hearing on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Hilleary) has a similar letter from the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
(Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham) for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the
Whitfield amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure we do the right thing for these
workers. Many Tennesseans, in my opinion, are Cold War heroes and they
deserve to be compensated if, through the course of their work, their
health was adversely affected by exposure to radiation or other harmful
effects.
I do have a letter from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) addressed to myself and the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham) in which he too commits to hold a hearing this year on
this important matter.
In this letter, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling)
states, and I quote, ``I will work with you and
[[Page H3376]]
the other Members interested in this issue by holding hearings this
year and by otherwise helping them in whatever capacity I can to help
them pass reasonable workers' compensation for DOE and DOE-contract
employees where concrete documentation proves they were adversely
affected by their exposure to either radiation or other substances
through the course of their work at DOE weapons facilities during the
Cold War.''
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for
his willingness to work on this matter, and as a member of the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, I look forward to participating and finding a real solution
that benefits these injured workers and also look forward to assisting
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who represents Oak Ridge, and
other Congressmen from the surrounding area around Oak Ridge in their
efforts to help these workers.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.
Hon. Lindsey Graham.
Hon. Van Hilleary.
Dear Lindsey and Van: I appreciate your interest in
resolving the issue of compensating Department of Energy
workers for damage done to their health due to exposure to
radiation and other substances during their employment at DOE
weapon's production facilities during the Cold War.
I understand that Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Kanjorski,
Mr. Strickland and others have introduced legislation to
compensate these workers for their injuries. I'm also aware
that the Department of Energy has proposed legislation to
address the problem. These bills have been referred to the
Education and Workforce committee for consideration.
I will work with you and the other Members interested in
this issue by holding hearings this year and by otherwise
helping them in whatever capacity I can to help them pass
reasonable workers' compensation for DOE and DOE contract
employees where concrete documentation proves they were
adversely effected by their exposure to either radiation or
other substances through the course of their work at DOE
weapons facilities during the Cold War.
I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Member of Congress.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) if they will
agree to assist us in holding a hearing on this matter this year and
make serious efforts to pass comprehensive workers compensation
legislation?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree to work with this gentleman and
with all the Members who have shown so much concern for these folks who
are Cold War warriors and veterans in practically every sense of the
term. I think we realize three things on the committee. One is that we
do have a duty to take care of our Cold War veterans, including people
who experienced exposure in trying to develop the strategic systems of
this country that even today keep this country safe.
Number two, science has shown that there has been exposure, fairly
major exposure, to a lot of our workers.
Number three, the fact that we do have a responsibility to take
actions and perhaps to abandon this position that we have taken, which
has been a presumption against the worker in the past.
So let me just thank all of my friends who have worked on this, and I
support totally the Whitfield amendment and I want to let everybody
know that we will be holding hearings. We will be working in
cooperation with the gentleman, and we did put a couple of million
dollars in the bill already to direct DOE to start to construct a
program. So let us all work together and put this thing together and we
will work with the gentleman.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Members of both
sides of the aisle on this issue and look forward to working with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in doing what is right for these
workers, and I support this amendment and urge the House to accept it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort of all the Members
involved in this issue and thank them for bringing it to the attention
of the House. We need to do the right thing for these people who
through the course of providing for the defense of our Nation received
injury due to exposure to hazardous materials.
I support the amendment and I certainly encourage its adoption.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the hard work of
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and others who have brought
this resolution forth, and I agree to work with them and with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in the days ahead. I support the
amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2000.
Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Lindsey: I appreciate your interest in resolving the
issue of compensating Department of Energy (DOE) workers for
damage done to their health due to exposure to radiation and
other substances during their employment at DOE weapons
production facilities during the Cold War.
It is my understanding that Congressman Whitfield,
Congressman Wamp, Congressman Kanjorski, Congressman
Strickland and others have introduced legislation to
compensate these workers for their injuries. I'm also aware
that the Department of Energy has proposed legislation to
address the problem. These bills have been referred to the
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims for consideration.
I hope to work with you and other members to address the
need to compensate workers at DOE weapons production
facilities whose health has suffered as a result of their
employment. Furthermore, I expect to hold a hearing on this
subject in the coming months.
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.
Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Hon. Van Hilleary.
Dear Lindsey and Van: I appreciate your interest in
resolving the issue of compensating Department of Energy
workers for damage done to their health due to exposure to
radiation and other substances during their employment at DOE
weapon's production facilities during the Cold War.
I understand that Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Kanjorski,
Mr. Strickland and others have introduced legislation to
address the problem. These bills have been referred to the
Education and Workforce committee for consideration.
I will work with you and the other Members interested in
this issue by holding hearings this year and by otherwise
helping them in whatever capacity I can to help them pass
reasonable workers' compensation for DOE and DOE contract
employees where concrete documentation proves they were
adversely effected by their exposure to either radiation or
other substances through the course of their work at DOE
weapons facilities during the Cold War.
I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Member of Congress.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Whitfield-
Strickland-Udall-Gibbons-Kanjorski sense of Congress resolution in the
form of an amendment to cover workers from the Department of Energy and
its contractors and vendors.
I would just say to my colleagues that as this legislation moves
forward, there is one important category that is not covered and that
is those workers, like those at Brush Wellman in Elmore, Ohio, who
worked for the Department of Defense as contractors, vendors,
subcontractors. I stand today in memory of Gaylen Lemke, a gentleman
who died of chronic beryllium illness last year who first came to see
me in 1994. It was an absolutely cruel illness. He was as much a
veteran of this country as anyone who ever flew
[[Page H3377]]
an airplane or served on a submarine. I would just hope that as these
hearings are held that true compensation could be found for these
individuals and their families who have suffered so greatly, actually
through no one's fault but through our lack of knowledge about how
these metals actually react with the human body.
When one's lungs turn to crystalline over a period of 10 to 15 years,
it is among the cruelest of ways to die.
I just want to thank the Members of the Committee on Armed Services
here today, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Sisisky), for looking really seriously at this. I would say in my
region of Ohio we have upwards of 200 people who have died or will die
of this illness. Please do not forget those who have worked on contract
to the Department of Defense, especially providing the material that
was processed for the interiors of our missiles and our guided missile
systems.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland) for his help and his leadership on this issue and also the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield). It has been a pleasure to work
with them on this.
I really want to say that we are seeing the best of Congress here;
Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House and the
administration coming together to do what is correct.
{time} 1730
We need to help people like Clara Harding and Al Matusick. Clara's
husband Joe worked for 18 and a half years at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant in Kentucky which the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) now represents. He worked without any radiation protection
in air that was thick with uranium dust and plutonium, neptunium, and
possibly ruthenium.
Mr. Harding died in 1980 at the age of 58. Two years ago, Mrs.
Harding received only $12,000 in compensation. It is inexcusable. When
we stop and think about the problems health-wise that these workers
have experienced, it is unbelievable.
My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and his
staff, just doing good casework, they worked with Al Matusick and
discovered through him that there were this whole group of Cold War
warriors who were suffering. That really began this ball rolling.
I want to thank the gentleman from Nanticoke, Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kanjorski) for having the foresight and compassion to introduce H.R.
675. I am proud to be a cosponsor of his bill, and want to continue to
work with him on H.R. 3418, and work with the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield), and thank him for introducing H.R. 4398.
I want to thank Secretary Richardson for agreeing that the
administration would work with us to see that the right thing is done
on this issue. I think everybody is working together, and I am so happy
to hear the dialogue on the floor today that we are going to have
hearings and that something is going to be done. Fifty years is so long
for people to wait.
We have heard about some of the things in the hearings we have held
in the Committee on Commerce, and in fact that people were put at risk.
They knew there was a danger there. These workers, many have died.
Their families and workers need to be compensated. This Congress can
act. It is the right, the correct, the ethical, and the moral thing to
do.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In conclusion, I would like to say a couple of personal words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good and dear friend, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), for the work we have been able to do
together.
I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence),
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
This is the right thing to do. This is one of the joys that I have
experienced in this House, working together on this particular issue. I
just have a heart full of thanks for these Members.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank everyone. We cannot solve this
problem without the efforts of everyone.
If someone worked in a DOE facility during the Cold War and he is a
Federal employee, he is covered under the Federal Employee Compensation
Act. If he worked as an agent of a contractor and was exposed to one of
these diseases, he did not have any coverage. We need to correct that
problem. This is the first step.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment. Congress must act as soon as possible to provide
compensation and health care for the forgotten soldiers of the Cold
War--those who constructed America's nuclear weapons.
More than 50 years ago, hundreds of Manhattan Project staff inhaled
tiny particles of beryllium while helping develop the atomic bomb at a
University of Chicago lab. That lab later became Argonne National
Laboratory, a national energy laboratory operated for the Department of
Energy by the University of Chicago, and located in the district I
represent.
The Department of Energy estimates that as many as 2,300 people in
Illinois were exposed to beryllium during the two decades ending in
1963 when the toxic metal was used in the atomic program at Argonne.
Inhalation of beryllium dust causes Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD)--a
chronic, often disabling and sometimes fatal lung condition. It also
causes beryllium sensitization, wherein a worker's immune system
becomes allergic to the presence of beryllium in the body.
People who work at Argonne and other national labs are technically
employed by the contractors hired to run the labs, so they don't
qualify for federal employee health benefits. Meanwhile, state workers
compensation laws often fail to provide benefits for occupational
illnesses, which--in the case of nuclear weapons workers--can develop
years after exposure to beryllium, radiation, or hazardous chemicals
and long after a worker's eligibility for compensation has lapsed.
Beryllium dust, for example, can cause Chronic Beryllium Disease up to
forty years after exposure.
Mr. Chairman, compensating these workers for the suffering endured in
service to our country is the right thing to do. This issue deserves
our attention, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give my strong
support for this amendment. It represents an overall bipartisan effort
that I believe must move forward in order to provide fair and just
compensation for those who worked long and hard to win the Cold War:
the Atomic Veterans. Many of these Atomic Veterans are ill or dying
from diseases due to their exposures to hazardous materials at
Department of Energy facilities.
New Mexico has a long and valued tradition of service to our Nation.
New Mexico's workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the birthplace
of the atomic bomb, have suffered from illness due to their exposures
to radiation, beryllium, and other hazardous materials used in the
production of nuclear weapons. It is right that we compensate the
Atomic Veterans from all over this great nation who have sacrificed so
courageously for their country. We spend billions of dollars on cleanup
of nuclear waste sites; we now take responsibility for the human cost
of the Cold War.
Congress must act, first to support this amendment, and then to pass
legislation that is just and fair. When I introduced legislation to
compensate Atomic Veterans from Los Alamos National Laboratory, I urged
my colleagues from around the country, Democrats and Republicans, who
also have victims in their districts, to work together to craft a
solution to this problem at the national level. This amendment is a
step in that direction.
Compensation is important because these workers are true patriots.
They loved their country, they worked for their country, and now we
need to do what is right and compensate them fairly for their
illnesses.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 6 printed in House Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
[[Page H3378]]
Amend section 725 (page 231, line 3, and all that follows
through page 232, line 21) to read as follows:
SEC. 725. MEDICARE SUBVENTION PROJECT FOR MILITARY RETIREES
AND DEPENDENTS.
(a) Future Repeal of Limitation on Number of Sites.--
Effective January 1, 2001, paragraph (2) of section 1896(b)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) Location of sites; facilities.--Subject to annual
appropriations, the program shall be conducted in any site
that provides a full range of comprehensive health care and
that is designated jointly by the administering Secretaries.
The program shall be conducted nationwide by January 1,
2006.''.
(b) Authority to Modify Agreement.--Such section is further
amended in paragraph (1)(A) by inserting ``, which may be
modified if necessary'' before the closing parenthesis.
(c) Making Project Permanent; Changes in Project
References.--
(1) Elimination of time limitation.--Paragraph (4) of
section 1896(b) of such Act is repealed.
(2) Treatment of caps.--Subsection (i)(4) of section 1896
of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``This paragraph shall not apply after calendar year 2001.''.
(3) Conforming changes of references to demonstration
project.--Section 1896 of such Act is further amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``demonstration project''
and inserting ``program'';
(B) by amending subsection (a)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Program.--The term `program' means the program
carried out under this section.'';
(C) in the heading to subsection (b), by striking
``Demonstration Project'' and inserting ``Program'';
(D) by striking ``demonstration project'' or ``project''
each place either appears and inserting ``program'';
(E) in subsection (k)(2)--
(i) by striking ``extension and expansion of demonstration
project'' and inserting ``program''; and
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and
inserting the following:
``(A) whether there is a cost to the health care program
under this title in conducting the program under this
section; and
``(B) whether the terms and conditions of the program
should be modified.''.
(4) Reports.--Subsection (k)(1) of such section 1896 is
amended in the second sentence--
(A) by striking ``the demonstration project'' and inserting
``the program'';
(B) by striking ``, and the'' and all that follows through
``date'';
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (O) as subparagraph (S);
and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(O) Patient satisfaction with the program.
``(P) The ability of the Department of Defense to operate
an effective and efficient managed care system for medicare
beneficiaries.
``(Q) The ability of the Department of Defense to meet the
managed care access and quality of care standards under
medicare.
``(R) The adequacy of the data systems of the Department of
Defense for providing timely, necessary, and accurate
information required to properly manage the program.''.
(5) Additional conforming amendments.--Section 1896(b) of
such Act is further amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and
(B) in such paragraph, by striking ``At least 60 days'' and
all that follows through ``agreement'' and inserting ``The
administering Secretaries shall also submit on an annual
basis the most current agreement''.
(6) Continuation of provision of care.--Section 1896(b) of
such Act is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Continuation of provision of care.--With respect to
any individual who receives health care benefits under this
section before the date of the enactment of this paragraph,
the administering Secretaries shall not terminate such
benefits unless the individual ceases to fall within the
definition of the term `medicare-eligible military retiree or
dependent' (as defined in subsection (a)).''.
(d) Payments.--
(1) Permitting payments on a fee-for-service basis.--
Section 1896 of such Act is further amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(l) Payment on a Fee-for-Service Basis.--Instead of the
payment method described in subsection (i)(1) and in the case
of individuals who are not enrolled in the program in the
manner described in subsection (d)(1), the Secretary may
reimburse the Secretary of Defense for services provided
under the program at a rate that does not exceed the rate of
payment that would otherwise be made under this title for
such services if sections 1814(c) and 1835(d), and paragraphs
(2) and (3) of section 1862(a), did not apply.''.
(2) Payments to military treatment facilities.--Such
section is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(m) Payments to Military Treatment Facilities.--The
Secretary of Defense shall reimburse military treatment
facilities for the provision of health care under this
section.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsections (b)(1)(B)(v) and (b)(1)(B)(viii)(I), by
inserting ``or subsection (l)'' after ``subsection (i)'';
(B) in subsection (b)(2), by adding at the end the
following: ``If feasible, at least one of the sites shall be
conducted using the fee-for-service reimbursement method
described in subsection (l).'';
(C) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by inserting ``(insofar as it
provides for the enrollment of individuals and payment on the
basis described in subsection (i))'' before ``shall meet'';
(D) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by inserting ``and the program
(insofar as it provides for payment for facility services on
the basis described in subsection (l)) shall meet all
requirements for such facilities under this title'' after
``medicare payments'';
(E) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``, insofar as it
provides for the enrollment of individuals and payment on the
basis described in subsection (i),'' before ``shall comply'';
(F) in subsection (g)(1), by inserting ``, insofar as it
provides for the enrollment of individuals and payment on the
basis described in subsection (i),'' before ``the Secretary
of Defense'';
(G) in subsection (i)(1), by inserting ``and subsection
(l)'' after ``of this subsection''; and
(H) in subsection (j)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``or
subsection (l)'' after ``subsection (i)(1)''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
take effect on January 1, 2001, and apply to services
furnished on or after such date.
(e) Elimination of Restriction on Eligibility.--Section
1896(b)(1) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Elimination of restrictive policy.--If the enrollment
capacity in the program has been reached at a particular site
designated under paragraph (2) and the Secretary therefore
limits enrollment at the site to medicare-eligible military
retirees and dependents who are enrolled in TRICARE Prime (as
defined for purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code) at the site immediately before attaining 65 years of
age, participation in the program by a retiree or dependent
at such site shall not be restricted based on whether the
retiree or dependent has a civilian primary care manager
instead of a military primary care manager.''.
(f) Medigap Protection for Enrollees.--Section 1896 of such
Act is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(m) Medigap Protection for Enrollees.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), effective January 1, 2001, the provisions of
section 1882(s)(3) (other than clauses (i) through (iv) of
subparagraph (B)) and 1882(s)(4) of the Social Security Act
shall apply to any enrollment (and termination of enrollment)
in the program (for which payment is made on the basis
described in subsection (i)) in the same manner as they apply
to enrollment (and termination of enrollment) with a
Medicare+Choice organization in a Medicare+Choice plan.
``(2) In applying paragraph (1)--
``(A) in the case of enrollments occurring before January
1, 2001, any reference in clause (v)(III) or (vi) of section
1882(s)(3)(B) of such Act to `within the first 12 months of
such enrollment' or `by not later than 12 months after the
effective date of such enrollment' is deemed a reference to
during calendar year 2001; and
``(B) the notification required under section 1882(s)(3)(D)
of such Act shall be provided in a manner specified by the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.''.
(g) Implementation of Utilization Review Procedures.--
Subsection (b) of such section is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(6) Utilization review procedures.--The Secretary of
Defense shall develop and implement procedures to review
utilization of health care services by medicare-eligible
military retirees and dependents under this section in order
to enable the Secretary of Defense to more effectively manage
the use of military medical treatment facilities by such
retirees and dependents.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for the past half of a century people wearing the
uniform of the United States of America in federally-owned buildings
have been telling young 18-, 17-, 19-, and 20-year-old enlistees that
if they served their country honorably for 20 years, that upon
retirement they would receive free health care for them and their
spouse in a military facility for the rest of their lives.
By and large, our Nation did a pretty good job of honoring that
promise until
[[Page H3379]]
about a decade ago. Then, with the demise of the Soviet Union, the
subsequent drawdown, the subsequent reductions in the defense budget,
the military health care system started telling these military retirees
when they hit 65, we are sorry, we cannot see you anymore. Go see a
doctor out in Medicare.
They justifiably feel betrayed, and betrayed is the proper word. They
were made a promise. They kept their end of the promise, and their
Nation let them down.
Today I am going to ask my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to
honor that promise. After all, great nations keep their word. I am
asking us to take a major step that would allow these military retirees
to continue to go to the base hospital, and upon reaching their 65th
birthday, Medicare would reimburse that base hospital. It would make
this program nationwide, available at every military medical facility,
and it would make this program permanent.
Why is this program important? Today in America, people will be
retiring from the Armed Forces. When they retire and choose their
retirement home, in many instances they do so near a military facility
because they want to be able to use that hospital. I want those people
who choose a house, who choose a retirement home, to know that this is
going to be the law of the land forever, and that our Nation has failed
them, but we will fail them no more.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Taylor amendment.
This is the beginning of what is going to be an hour-long debate. My
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), is going to try to
gut the Taylor amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer)
seek the time in opposition?
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would change the vocabulary a bit, I say to my
friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). I seek to improve
the amendment, not gut it.
To improve the amendment, what I mean is what we have done in the
base text of this bill is stop the rhetoric. By speech, it is 101, any
Member can go to the well and give a great speech and throw their arms
around the military veteran. It is the easiest speech to give. It is
101 in speech.
Delivering the right preparation on the commitment and obligation of
the retiree is a little more difficult. I will never, ever create an
unreal expectancy. I caution Members who will speak on this issue,
because I will be quick on my feet. I want truth in advocacy.
When it comes to ``the Medicare subvention,'' let me bring the stark
reality into question. If we were to draw a pie of the 1.4 million
military retirees, half of that pie, they live next to medical
treatment facilities all around the country. Then, of that pie, I take
20 percent of the half, and that is all that could ever be treated in
Medicare subvention. Why? Because there is a capacity question,
capacity.
So be very cautious and tempered in words to say, and I throw this
warning out in the debate, that Medicare subvention, if we make it
permanent, delivers on the promise, because it does not.
The painful reality to the military retirees came into being not in
the 1960s, when we created Medicare as a program, and we then triggered
the retiree into the Medicare system, to be treated like everyone else
in the country, senior citizens who had never worn the uniform. The
painful reality really came when we went through the BRAC process and
closed a lot of military bases, to include those base hospitals.
Congress responded in search of an answer. The reason this is so
difficult, and it is a complex health system, is that the purpose of
the military health systems are to treat combat casualties and
accidents, and those active duty service personnel who are sick. Second
comes the dependents and retirees. The real purpose is combat
casualties, so military medical readiness is set up a little bit
differently.
So when Congress is in search of ``the answer'' of how we take care
of the commitment to the military retiree, we created some demo
programs. We created Medicare subvention, whether it is the FEHBP, we
have BRAC pharmacies, we have many different things.
What we do in the base text of this bill, which I compliment the
bipartisan support of, that came out of the Committee on Armed
Services, is, and it is supported by the administration, we put our
arms around all of these demonstration projects. We expand them, and
then we end them on December 31 of 2003.
Why do we end them? Because we want to analyze all these programs and
say, all right, what is best to deliver the care to the military
retiree? I would say that we do not have the competency to make that
judgment today, so we create a methodology that says, all right, we
create an independent advisory board, nominated by the Secretary of
Defense. They will examine these. They have a report due to Congress in
July of 2002.
We will have our ideas. The advisory group has theirs. DOD has
theirs. The Senate will have theirs. OMB I am sure is a player. Then
what we do is we come in and then make a judgment in the fall of 2002
of what is the best to deliver.
In the meantime, what can we do? Because that is the spirit of what
my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), is trying to
say: In the meantime, what can we do?
I have been a good listener to him. I will have an amendment that
comes up that says that we will expand the scope to the major medical
centers, but it is not timely for us to make permanent Medicare
subvention. Why? Because it is a crippled program. It was meant to be
cost-neutral when it was negotiated with the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Commerce. Today it is costing over $100
million to DOD, in excess of $3,000 per beneficiary.
Mr. Chairman, if we have a pilot program that is crippled fiscally,
is it the right thing to do by the taxpayers to say, well, we will just
go ahead and make it permanent? I believe that is not the proper and
prudent thing for us to do. Let us follow the methodology. Let us do
what is right for the military retiree.
In the meantime, we can do something. I will agree, I concur with the
gentleman, we will extend the scope. We will work with HCFA and DOD to
renegotiate these reimbursement rates. We will work on the utilization
question.
One glorious thing we did do in this bill is we said to the military
retiree, we said, we will create a pharmacy benefit, a pharmacy benefit
that is so rich that it is not going to be treated like Grandma and
Grandpa that never had served in the military. We are going to say to
the military retiree, you are entitled to this pharmacy benefit.
So there are some things that we can do while we are waiting for the
methodology, the analytical process of the data. Then we step forward,
working with the next administration, for the cost of this program.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be good for the gentleman to tell us a
little bit about the pharmacy benefit and what the retirees can expect.
It has not been talked about a lot in the base bill.
Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the TRICARE senior
pharmacy, what we do is reinstate access. We do not create new
entitlements for the military retiree. It is an earned benefit. What we
do is we preserve access to the military pharmacies at the medical
treatment facilities.
We create a mail order pharmacy with an $8 co-pay, so if someone has
diabetes or needs a drug that they know that have to have, they can. We
also create a network, retail, with a 20 percent co-pay. Then also we
have added an out of-network retail with a 25 percent co-pay and a $150
deductible.
What we are doing is giving the widest array of choices to that
military retiree. I think that is extremely
[[Page H3380]]
important, because most do not live next to medical treatment
facilities.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I just want to
thank the gentleman for the great work that he did, along with his
colleagues on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, in developing
this good program for our veterans and for our retirees.
I appreciate the fact that he is walking down through this road,
these problems, which are fairly complex and which have a lot of
potential options, and trying to put together a responsible program for
our veterans and our retirees.
Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the key word that I
believe the gentleman used is ``options.'' This methodology preserves a
wide array of options from which we can then choose.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, keeping our word to our Nation's military retirees is
not an option. Ten Members of Congress have cosponsored this amendment.
They are the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Scarborough), the gentlemen from North Carolina, Mr. Jones and Mr.
Hefley, on the Republican side; the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner) on the Democratic side.
We believe, Democrats and Republicans, that it is time we keep our
word.
{time} 1745
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), which
expands and makes permanent the TRICARE Senior Prime program, more
commonly known as Medicare subvention.
I focused on the need to improve access to health care services to
the men and women in uniform in the past and particularly for our
Medicare eligible retirees. This is truly the year of military health
care. The expansion and permanent authority for Medicare subvention
which the Taylor amendment will provide will begin to fulfill the
commitment made to our men and women in uniform who were promised
access to health care services for life if they served 20 years or more
in the Armed Forces.
We made that promise to take care of the career men and women and
their families and me must, Mr. Chairman, keep that promise. The Taylor
amendment improves access to medical care for Medicare-eligible
military retirees by expanding TRICARE Senior Prime to military
hospitals and making the program permanent. It is an important step
toward ensuring access to care for retirees and their dependents over
the age of 65 who live near military facilities.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, since we have the luxury of
so many cosponsors, I will be recognizing them in the order of
seniority on the committee, Democrat, Republican.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations
and Facilities.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am really torn on this. There is nobody
that has worked harder on this subject than the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer). The gentleman has struggled, he has negotiated with the
Committee on Ways and Means, and unless you have negotiated with the
Committee on Ways and Means you do not know what he has been through.
He has worked diligently and hard and not only that, his heart is in
this subject. He wants this problem solved, and he has come up with a
plan to solve it.
On the other hand, I have worked for so many years on this subvention
program. I can remember years ago, and I say to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I do not know if the gentleman remembers this
or not, because we did not know each other well at that time, when we
were before the committee and we were saying that we had made promises
to these people that we were not keeping, and at that time the Pentagon
was saying we did not really promise; that was overzealous recruiters
that made those promises.
And I say to the gentleman, remember, we waved in front of them
recruiting brochures to show, back from the 1950s I think they were, to
show that we had made those promises. We made promises and we need to
keep those promises, and one way to do that was that we passed the
subvention program, to give it a try.
I sponsored that when it was not popular. There was no other sponsor
in the House, there was no other sponsor in the Senate when that first
started, but now it is a popular program. The retirees like that
program, but it is not working like we planned, as the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has well pointed out.
Mr. Chairman, we made a bad deal on the payment schedule, and we need
to correct that bad deal. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer) will kick the ball down the field, and I think that is
good. And if that is all we can get, I think that is good, but I think
it has one flaw, I say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), and
that is that it has to be cost neutral, and I am not sure it ever
happens to expand it to those 12 or 13 if it is cost neutral unless we
correct the problem with HCFA.
Let me just say in closing real quickly, there are three things that
I would like to come out of this whole deal, and it may have to come
out in conference, I would like for us to make HCFA pay like they are
supposed to pay. I would like that to happen, and I think we are going
to have to write that in in conference.
I would like the program extended nationwide, and I do not mind at
all putting the sunset on it to take another look at it, and that is
what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is trying to do there. So I
think there is a way to compromise, do not make it permanent like the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) wants it and I would like it,
but have a time to reexamine it, but extend it nationwide.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I think the first thing that one ought to say when
looking at this issue is that the government did make a promise, and it
is important to keep that promise, not just for the retirees, but also
for the young folks who are in the military now or are thinking about
getting into the military.
Like many of my colleagues, I have had the experience of talking with
the young 22-year-old single male in the military and asking why he is
staying or whether he is going to stay in the military and the subject
of health care comes up from someone that we would not think would be
particularly concerned about health care.
I think all of us feel the frustration that the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) talked about of trying to get greater attention
to this issue and trying to find a way to solve this problem, to keep
that promise when there are not the base hospitals to keep the promise.
So it certainly has been a difficult thing.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) say
in front of the Committee on Rules that he wished he had a magic wand
to wave over the country to solve it for everybody. Subvention is not a
magic wand. As a matter of fact, I think there is no such thing as a
magic wand, which is why we have to look at a number of options.
The underlying bill that the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Buyer)
has put together gives us, I think, for the first time since I have
been in Congress a path towards a solution. It is not mere rhetoric,
but it moves us in a direction by extending the various pilot programs
and by expanding them to help make sure that it is a fair test.
My district is one of those that includes part of the subvention
pilot program test, and I can give my colleagues
[[Page H3381]]
a number of concerns that folks in my region have why it is not a true
test. In my district, I also have people who live in a city that has a
base that has been closed, and they are hundreds of miles away from the
base where the subvention test is going on.
In my district, I also have military retirees that live many miles
from any significant city, and around the country there are a variety
of circumstances, and no one approach, including subvention, or FEHBP,
is going to solve them all. We have to have a multilayered approach in
order to come as close as we possibly can to keeping that promise that
we made to retirees. I think that is the essential point.
What this bill does is gives us several options, tries to collect the
information on what is needed but also moves us towards a time certain
to make that decision, and we have never had that time certain before,
but the essential point that has to be included in this or any other
approach is that kind of choice; that is in the pharmacy benefit, which
is in this bill.
We can have the mail order choice, if that is what best meets your
needs, or we can a pharmacy that is inside this organization, or an
outside one. You pay a little different copay, but you have the choice
to make the decision that best meets your need. That is the only way we
will come close to meeting the commitment that we made to military
retirees, giving them those options.
The path that has been laid out by the chairman is the way to get to
that point, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, if a politician breaks his
promise, shame on him. If a Nation breaks its promise, shame on all of
us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, another member of this committee who is trying to see to it
that our Nation keeps its promise.
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, let me state that I do not think
anyone has worked harder on this issue than the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer). No one has worked with more diligence to try and put
together a package that we can present to the body, some of which has
already been mentioned, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
indicated about the prescription benefit.
We do not want the good work that has been put together to get lost
in this particular argument, and I do not even want to say it is an
argument. As a matter of fact, that is one of the points I want to
make. I do not think, and I hope that everyone on the committee would
certainly recognize, that no one has tried to work harder than with the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) than myself. This has been a
bipartisan effort.
And I really believe, I honestly believe, my friends, that we may be
having a dispute over something which really we have no argument about.
I was quite content with the bill the way it was in the sense that we
were trying to work the Medicare subvention thing, something which I
support and many people have supported right straight through.
The question, though, for us now is the Committee on Rules has made
this in order. And in my conversations with the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer), I indicated if they made it in order, I thought that
perhaps the best role for us to take was to go to the full expansion
and see where we win out.
Let me tell my colleagues why. The difference between what the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has and what the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has again may be a distinction without a real
difference if we work this right. The amendment to the amendment or the
substitute that the chairman has extends it to some additional sites,
the Taylor amendment makes it nationwide.
Here is the implementation idea, because I think in the end, we want
to go to subvention, Medicare subvention. The Taylor amendment now
reads beginning next January, but full implementation does not take
place till 2005. And the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer) now has beginning in 2002 and could be limited at least in terms
of the experimental time for about 15 months.
In other words, we are talking about a difference in time. There is
not a difference in principle here. There is a position versus our
interests. And I think our interests are to try and extend it now, not
because there is a victory or a defeat in this, but rather that
inasmuch as we are going to expand the program anyway, let us expand it
nationwide, let us give the House the opportunity to work its will on
this, and then we will move; as General Ryan has indicated in his
letter, that we need to have a more equitable arrangement than is now
possible on cost effectiveness between the HCFA and the DOD.
Certainly, the Armed Forces will work with us. In fact, he says ``I
ask your support in working with the DOD, HCFA and the Congress to
develop cost-effective solutions.'' I think virtually everything that
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has said with respect to the
difficulties is absolutely correct. I do not think anybody in any
honesty can argue with it, but if we give this a chance to work
nationwide, I think that we will all be the winners in the end. And I
hope that we can come together on that resolution.
I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for all of his
help.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. I
enjoyed working with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and I
would say that in the letter from the Air Force Chief of Staff, it also
reads, ``I urge that we heed the lessons already learned from the
Medicare subvention demonstration projects. The current TRICARE Senior
Prime demonstration, though popular with retirees, is not fiscally
sustainable over the long term.''
The real difficulty I say to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) between these two proposals is that the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) seeks permanency of a crippled program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the testimony of the DOD before the House Committee on
Armed Services on March 15 of this year, and I am quoting, ``We believe
that TRICARE Senior Prime is the key component of keeping health care
commitments to our 65-year-old retirees and family Members who have
sacrificed so much in the service to their country.'' That is Rudy de
Leone, the Under Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bartlett), another key player on this, a member of the House Committee
on Armed Services.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Taylor-Jones-Bartlett amendment. I have seen the recruiting
brochures. We did promise lifetime health care in a military facility
for those who honorably served their country for 20 years or more. For
a decade now, we have broken that promise and we are paying a high cost
for having broken that promise.
It hurts us in recruitment. When their father, their uncle, their
grandfather tells them that the military did not keep their promise to
them, why should they think we are going to keep our promises to them?
{time} 1800
Three of our services are failing to meet their recruitment totals,
and this is part of the problem.
It is hurting retention. When they look ahead to what will happen to
them when they retire, they wonder if they can trust us, and so they
are not staying in. They will not retire. They are leaving the service.
Properly administered, this program should cost no more than what we
are now doing. As a matter of fact, the Medicare reimbursement is only
95 percent of what it is in the other hospitals. This means it actually
ought to cost the taxpayers less. If the program is crippled now, it is
only because it is not being administered correctly and we need to
change that.
It is very important that we keep our promises to our veterans, not
just because we made them and that is what
[[Page H3382]]
honorable people do, it is important because it is hurting us now in
recruitment and it is hurting us now in retention.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a positive vote on this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, what is the time that
remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Mississippi
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), another sponsor of this
measure and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taylor
amendment.
What is at stake here is a fundamental commitment to the men and
women who wear the uniform. This is not a time to go slow. That is not
what we have asked our veterans to do. This is not a time for
incremental gain. We need the comprehensive approach that the Taylor
amendment calls for.
I join with my colleagues in recognizing the efforts of the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) on this committee, but I would like to point
out that what we need here is the will to move forward. As we go
through mid-time review and see the surpluses that this Nation will
have achieved because of our economic strength, we have the ability to
carry out the options necessitated to make sure that we live up to the
commitment that we made to these veterans.
Mr. Chairman, my father used to say to my mother Pauline, sitting
across the dinner table, ``Who won the war?'' It is to the bewilderment
of many of our veterans these days, thinking that their Nation has
forgotten about them, that it has reneged on their promise. I do not
question the patriotism or the fervor on the part of the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) or anyone here who has served on our committee to
do the very best for veterans. I simply believe that we can do more and
we should do more. This is not a time to pull back. This is a time to
move forward because we have the resources and the will to accomplish
this on behalf of our veterans.
Memorial Day is around the corner. I agree with the gentleman, too
many times we hear semantical speeches and plaudits given to veterans.
We have an opportunity here today to act on their behalf. I urge
support of the Taylor amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time, 1\1/2\ minutes, to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones),
another key member of the House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of this Taylor amendment, and I must say I have enjoyed this debate. I
have great respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and great
respect for the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) because what we
are all trying to do is to do what is right for our retirees.
I have 12,000 retirees in my district, the Third District of North
Carolina, and I have to say that the first thing on their mind is
health care; secondly is will they have adequate health care when they
get to be 65. They also say to me that we here all seem to be able to
send $13 billion to Kosovo, and they want to know why we cannot help
them with their health care.
So I am delighted that we are having this debate today because it is
extremely important, and this Taylor amendment will help our retirees
understand that we are willing to do what is necessary. I commend the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), and I think that his plan is good,
but I think this plan is much better because what we are saying to
those retirees is we are going to make an investment.
It is my understanding that 5 years of the Taylor plan would cost
$250 million. That is my understanding. If I am wrong a few million
dollars, still look at what we are spending in Kosovo. We can find the
money to help these retirees, and I think, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman,
that those of us who have the privilege to serve I hope will look
seriously at supporting the Taylor amendment tonight. We are saying to
our retirees that we are willing to roll up our sleeves, we are willing
to do what is necessary to give them the health care that they deserve
and that they need when they hit 65.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3\1/2\
minutes, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I do not often find myself facing a tragic
situation, but what I see occurring tonight here on the floor is a
tragic situation.
Everyone in this House wants to honor military retirees and veterans.
And those are two different groups. We have worked tirelessly to try to
assist military retirees, through the Department of Defense's program
called TRICARE, as we have worked diligently to try to help veterans
under the Veterans Administration program called Vision.
Now, what is at stake here is not helping Americans who turn 65. That
is not at issue. A military retiree turning 65, a veteran turning 65
has the Medicare benefits available to them. No one is being deprived
of the full Medicare services, even though the hospital portion is a
payroll tax, paid for by some Americans into a payroll tax and not paid
by others.
No one turning 65 does not get Medicare. That is not the issue in
front of us. Please, do not try to make that the issue. It is not. The
issue is should military retirees be able to go to military hospitals
to get their Medicare benefits.
Now, as my colleagues might imagine, the military hospitals were not
exactly structured to handle geriatrics. They did not have as their
history the ability to deal with old-age infirmities. That is not what
they were designed to do. By what we are trying to do is take the
Medicare funding, the taxpayers' money, and utilize it in Department of
Defense institutions. It is not an easy thing to do. They do not have
doctors that necessarily deal with old age. They deal more with wounds
than arthritis. But what we have tried to do is meet the request; merge
the Medicare monies into the DOD hospital structure. And we have been
moving forward.
In 1997, under the new majority, we said let us try this program.
Here was the first General Accounting Office evaluation in May of 1999.
``DOD Data Limitations May Require Adjustments and Raise Broader
Concerns.'' We knew that it was going to be difficult getting started.
Here is the September 1999 report. ``DOD Start-up Overcame Obstacles,
Yields Lessons and Raises Issues.'' That is progress. Here is the
January 2000 report. ``Enrollment in DOD Pilot Reflects Retiree
Experiences and Local Markets.'' We are making progress.
If I asked members of the Committee on Armed Services if they wanted
to issue a rifle that they knew jammed on every fifth shot, just so
they could say that they met some deadline in giving them new
equipment, when they knew the equipment would not work; is that really
what they would want to do? If we make this program permanent, it will
fail.
There is no question it will fail on the basis of the ability of the
DOD to account for the costs of seniors who are military retirees in
their hospitals. It will overwhelm them. We will be paying out billions
of dollars. Instead of receiving money, we will be paying money. We do
not want that.
My colleagues do not want what they are asking for. This program is
moving forward. It is responsible. Support the Buyer amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, all we have to do is go out here at Bethesda Naval
Hospital, or Walter Reed Hospital, or Fort Leonard Wood Hospital and we
will see those military physicians and technicians and nurses doing
their very best to take care of geriatrics, the senior citizen who
served his or her country for over 20 years.
So I wish to correct my friend from California.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn).
[[Page H3383]]
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I listened with great care to what the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer) had to say to warn us about the emotional side of being
inaccurate in this, but I am not running for reelection. This speech
gives me nothing.
I want to tell my colleagues what I learned when I first ran for
office 6 years ago, and that is that we have lied and cheated our
veterans and our retired military in terms of their health care. It is
too common a complaint. It is too real. I saw it. I saw it at Tinker
Hospital in Oklahoma City. They cannot even handle the people that are
there now that are active duty. They send the people off.
So the question is, yes, have we met our need? We all agree we are
trying to do that whether we do the Buyer amendment to this amendment
or not.
The question that was raised is, is it cost effective? I do not care
if it is cost effective. Because if it is cost effective or not, if the
first principle of not keeping our word is not met, it does not matter.
It does not matter.
We will not be able to ever man an army when we need to man a geared-
up army if that population believes that we will not keep our word. And
that is exactly what they believe today.
The final thing is that it is a crippled program. The only reason it
is crippled is because we have not thought outside of the box. If we
make the commitment to retired military that we are going to promise
them health care, then give them a card, a new card, that lets them get
it at a military hospital, at a VA hospital, at any hospital they want.
But, by dingy, keep that commitment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of this amendment.
I believe that H.R. 4205 laid the groundwork to address the
continuing health care problems that are plaguing our service members.
This amendment is crucial to our military retirees because it expands
the Medicare subvention demonstration program for our Medicare eligible
military retirees and their dependents.
Mr. Chairman, I just spent a week in my district visiting high
schools and working with each of our services on their recruiting
efforts. What is really great is the amount of young people that are
out there who have a sincere interest in serving their country. What is
unfortunate is that there are retirees who discourage them because of
their intense disappointment and anger in how we are addressing their
health care needs. They simply feel betrayed.
I want all my colleagues to know that this issue is real and that we
are feeling the effects at our recruiting stations in our recruiting
efforts. This amendment ensures that service members who served their
country honorably have access to Medicare subvention, and not just in 8
locations, but across the country.
I was concerned about subvention because of reimbursement costs,
however, this amendment also ensures that the Health Care Financing
Administration would reimburse the Pentagon for most of the program's
cost.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We owe this to the
men and women who have served and continue to serve our country.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
{time} 1815
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Taylor
amendment and as a cosponsor.
In my great State of Mississippi, we have the legacy of leaders like
Stennis and Montgomery, who have built a strong defense. We believe in
a strong military in Mississippi. But more important than our leaders
has been the men and women, the veterans and the retirees who have
honored our country by serving it.
How do we honor them? We honor our word. How do we keep recruitment
and retention? We honor our word. If we say ``cost,'' they say
``commitment.'' The question is will we keep our commitment, will we
find at least a part of the solution tonight?
I believe the Taylor amendment does that. I ask my colleagues to
support the Taylor amendment. I am pleased to join with him.
I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for all of his
efforts, from the pharmacy benefit to TRICARE reform to all of the
things in the underlying bill that help us keep our commitment as well,
but I believe the Taylor amendment is the right thing to do.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, now we are beginning to make some progress.
I thank my colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) because,
as we heard him say, he is not coming back so he wanted to speak from
his heart. What we heard from his heart was that we ought to give
military retirees and in fact we ought to give veterans a card, as he
said, to go anywhere to get the health care they deserve.
That is not the Taylor amendment. The Taylor amendment says they have
got to go to a military hospital on a military reservation.
Now, I tell my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that
I am quite sure that Bethesda Naval Hospital, in the middle of this
military area called Washington, does a pretty good job with military
retirees. He ought to come out to China Lake in the middle of the
Mojave Desert, he ought to go to Edwards Air Force Base and take a look
at their military hospitals. They are not Bethesda, believe me.
Those people deserve to get the best health care they can. They do
not deserve to be forced to get it on a military base. That is what
this Taylor amendment does.
What we did was to set up some programs to figure out how we could
merge the private sector assisting the military through the public
sector.
The Taylor amendment may be well-intentioned, but what they are
trying to do is guarantee that every military retiree gets their
Medicare benefits at a military hospital. That is the wrong service to
provide to our military retirees.
I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), let them go
anywhere. But that is not the amendment. I ask them to understand what
they are trying to do. They are going to guarantee that the military
retirees are going to fail in their effort to get Medicare services at
military hospitals.
The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is a definite
step forward in making sure that this plan continues to show progress.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is bound and determined
to give the military retirees a rifle that will jamb. Why does he think
a shiny new rifle that will not work is somehow benefiting military
retirees?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of our Armed Services
Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the leadership that
he has given me as I put this together and also worked with the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
I needed to address several points earlier when I talked about making
sure our advocacy is very correct. Let me address, number one, with
regard to the comments of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones)
that this will only cost $250 million. The actual scoring from CBO is
that it is $285 million. I just want to be very accurate.
The other is that what worries me is that if we are at six sites and
it is costing DOD $100 million when, in fact, it was supposed to be
cost neutral, and then we are going to expand nationwide, over 40 sites
nationwide, it boggles my mind the impact that is going have upon DOD
that has not even been budgeted.
With regard to my colleague, who I have great respect for and have
been in Oklahoma with him in saying that whether it is cost effective
or not does not matter, I believe that being cost effective in the
efficiencies of governmental operations does matter.
In this bill, for example, we even said, for every claim that TRICARE
files, we have learned that it costs $78 per claim. For Medicare, I say
to the
[[Page H3384]]
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), when he goes back to Oklahoma and
does his Medicare, it costs 85 cents to a dollar to file it. So we are
forcing TRICARE to do best business practices and on-line billing.
We are going to save over $500 million over 5 years. That is like a
touchdown and extra point for the American taxpayer. Asking government
systems to exercise business practices and principles should not be a
radical concept of the Federal Government.
I understand the gentleman saying these are men and women who put on
the uniform who were not only willing to risk their life but their
earning power, also.
Should we meet the commitment and obligation? Absolutely. How we get
there with the right method is what this debate is all about.
So I have to stand here, as hard as it is, to agree to disagree with
my colleague the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). We should not
be going to as permanent a system, not yet.
I do not want to, but I will bring my opinion into the matter. My
opinion is that I do not believe something magically should happen to a
military retiree when they turn 65. When they retire from the military
at age 46 or 42 or 50, whatever it is, or they are in TRICARE Senior
Prime or Standard, nothing magically should happen when they turn 65.
Keep them in the same system. It works for all.
I say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) that is
comprehensive. To say that what is being offered is comprehensive I
would respectfully disagree, because Medicare Subvention is only going
to apply to 20 percent of the 50 percent that live next to a military
medical treatment facility.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, having served in our nation's military, I am
aware of the hardships that our military men and women, and their
families, undergo on a daily basis. When they enlist in our nation's
armed forces, they know they are volunteering for a very hard life, not
only difficult physically, but also difficult financially and
emotionally. Even in peacetime, their jobs are among the most dangerous
in all of society, with injury or even death a constant threat.
In addition to the dangers they face defending America and its
interests and keeping the peace throughout the world, they also know
that their private lives will be very, very hard. Throughout their
military careers they accept reduced pay and the deep emotional strain
that inadequate finances places on their families. They face the
additional emotional strain caused by poor living conditions they must
endure. They face the emotional pain of constant uprooting of their
lives as they are moved from one military installation to another. Mr.
Chairman, the military life is a deeply difficult and painful life.
To be able to cope with the day-to-day difficulties in military life,
our military men and women and their families must cling to hope for a
better life when their military careers are over. One of the glimmers
of hope is that upon retirement, their medical costs, which can be
severe, will be paid. In retirement, they will finally have peace of
mind, free from the fear of financial ruin brought on by a debilitating
illness.
Mr. Chairman, when our military retirees are sick, they feel more
comfortable receiving their medical care in a military facility. That
is understandable. And because they feel more comfortable there, their
stay in the health care facility is less traumatic, less emotionally
painful, than in a civilian health care facility. Studies have shown
repeatedly that people experience fewer side effects from an illness--
and recover faster from it--when they experience less emotional stress.
And that is the fundamental reason that we need to find ways to help
our military retirees get their medical care in military health care
facilities.
That is why, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we authorized a
demonstration project under which military retirees in six sites who
are also entitled to Medicare would be able to get their medical care
in military facilities and have Medicare contribute to the costs of
that care. Because we did not know the answers to many questions about
controlling costs, the Congress decided to place certain restrictions
on this demonstration. Just as we needed to provide a means for
military retirees who are entitled to Medicare to get their medical
care in military facilities, the Congress also had to protect the
Medicare trust funds from going bankrupt, thus jeopardizing medical
care for 39 million other Americans who depend on Medicare.
As an example, one of the key issues concerned the form of the
Medicare payment for services in military facilities. Because medical
personnel in military facilities are paid a salary, unlike private
sector medical professionals, who are paid on a fee-for-service basis,
the Congress decided that payment for services in military facilities
should be on a ``capitated'' basis; that is, payment should be based on
the average amount that Medicare would normally pay for services for a
Medicare beneficiary living in the area where the service was provided.
The Congress also placed other limitations on the demonstration to
protect Medicare.
Because the Congress did not want to delay any longer than necessary
in providing this important benefit to military retirees, the
demonstration was limited to three years. The Congress asked the
General Accounting Office (GAO) to evaluate the demonstration and
advise us on how to expand the program and make it permanent. In
January of this year, the GAO issued its first report on the
demonstration. The GAO found that in the first year of the
demonstration, over one-fifth of Medicare-eligible military retirees in
the six demonstration areas had enrolled in the demonstration.
Enrollment was highest in sites where other Medicare managed care plans
were not present; it was lowest where such plans were widespread. GAO
will continue to monitor the demonstration and report to Congress
annually.
Mr. Chairman, the amendments that we are considering today would
either abandon the demonstration, and the knowledge to be gained from
it, and proceed immediately to a permanent unlimited program, or expand
the demonstration to eight additional sites, again without the benefit
of the knowledge gained from the demonstration already underway. This
is not the prudent way to proceed. This is not the way to help our
military retirees and also protect the 39 million other Americans who
depend on Medicare. The demonstration we have underway will give us
information on which both to help military retirees and to protect
Medicare. And we would know these answers in only two more years.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration has informed us that their position
on these amendments is that the current demonstration should be
extended for only one or two additional years, and that an independent
evaluator should review the demonstration before we proceed further.
That is the prudent course of action.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of the Taylor Amendment,
which will expand and make permanent the existing TRICARE ``Medicare
Subvention'' demonstration program for Medicare-eligible military
retirees and their dependents. The Health Care Financing Administration
would reimburse the Pentagon for most of the program's cost. Under the
Taylor amendment, TRICARE's ``Senior Prime'' program would become a
permanent program and would be available nationwide by Jan. 1, 2006.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a more worthy amendment that would
have a more wide reaching effect on the healthcare of our honored
Veterans and retirees. For many years, thousands of our military
retirees were promised by their recruiters a lifetime of affordable
healthcare if they served their nation for at least 20 years. The
Taylor Amendment will restore the covenant between a grateful nation
and those who faithfully served it in the Armed Services.
Medicare Subvention improves the military healthcare system and has
without a doubt been an unmitigated success. Under the Taylor Amendment
retirees will have access to the healthcare they need more
expeditiously than under the current ``space available'' standard. The
physicians at the military facilities where the pilot programs have
been implemented, have welcomed the introduction of retirees as these
patients have enabled a greater practice of medicine, which adds to the
recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses.
The Taylor Amendment is an important step towards fulfilling the
promise to our nation's military retirees. I urge its passage and I
urge a defeat to the Buyer substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider
Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 106-624.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Buyer As a Substitute For Amendment No.
6 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment
offered as a substitute for the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Buyer as a substitute for
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
Amend section 725 (page 231, line 3, and all that follows
through page 232, line 21) to read as follows:
[[Page H3385]]
SEC. 725. MEDICARE SUBVENTION PROJECT FOR MILITARY RETIREES
AND DEPENDENTS.
(a) Expansion of Project.--Section 1896(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (2), to read as follows:
``(2) Expansion; location of sites.--Not later than
December 31, 2002, in addition to the sites at which the
project is already being conducted before the date of the
enactment of this paragraph and subject to annual
appropriations, the project shall be conducted at any site
that includes a military treatment facility that is
considered by the Secretary of Defense to be a major medical
center and that is designated jointly by the administering
Secretaries. The total number of sites at which the project
may be carried out shall not exceed 14, and the total number
of military treatment facilities at which the project may be
carried out shall not exceed 24.'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``3-year period beginning
on January 1, 1998'' and inserting ``period beginning on
January 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2003''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Administration of project.--Not later than September
30, 2002, the administering Secretaries shall undertake
measures to ensure that the project under this section is
being conducted, and reimbursements are being made, in
accordance with subsection (i), including discussions
regarding renegotiation of the agreement authorized under
subsection (b)(1)(A).''.
(b) Authority To Modify Agreement.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``, which may be
modified if necessary'' before the closing parenthesis; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``At least 60 days'' and
all that follows through ``agreement'' and inserting ``The
administering Secretaries shall also submit on an annual
basis the most current agreement''.
(c) Continuation of Provision of Care.--Section 1896(b) of
such Act is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(7) Continuation of provision of care.--With respect to
any individual who receives health care benefits under this
section before the date of the enactment of this paragraph,
the administering Secretaries shall not terminate such
benefits unless the individual ceases to fall within the
definition of the term `medicare-eligible military retiree or
dependent' (as defined in subsection (a)). Notwithstanding
paragraph (2), the administering Secretaries shall continue
to provide health care under the project at any military
treatment center at which such care was provided before the
date of the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(d) Payments.--Section 1896 of such Act is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Payments to Military Treatment Facilities.--The
Secretary of Defense shall reimburse military treatment
facilities for the provision of health care under this
section.''.
(e) Elimination of Restriction on Eligibility.--Section
1896(b)(1) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Elimination of restrictive policy.--If the enrollment
capacity in the project has been reached at a particular site
designated under paragraph (2) and the Secretary therefore
limits enrollment at the site to medicare-eligible military
retirees and dependents who are enrolled in TRICARE Prime
(within the meaning of that term as used in chapter 55 of
title 10, United States Code) at the site immediately before
attaining 65 years of age, participation in the project by a
retiree or dependent at such site shall not be restricted
based on whether the retiree or dependent has a civilian
primary care manager instead of a military primary care
manager.''.
(f) Medigap Protection for Enrollees.--Section 1896 of such
Act is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(m) Medigap Protection for Enrollees.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the provisions of section 1882(s)(3) (other
than clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (B)) and
1882(s)(4) of the Social Security Act shall apply to any
enrollment (and termination of enrollment) in the project
(for which payment is made on the basis described in
subsection (i)) in the same manner as they apply to
enrollment (and termination of enrollment) with a
Medicare+Choice organization in a Medicare+Choice plan.
``(2) In applying paragraph (1)--
``(A) in the case of an enrollment that occurred before the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the enrollment (or
effective date of the enrollment) is deemed to have occurred
on such date of enactment for purposes of applying clauses
(v)(III) and (vi) of section 1882(s)(3)(B) of such Act; and
``(B) the notification required under section 1882(s)(3)(D)
of such Act shall be provided in a manner specified by the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.''.
(g) Implementation of Utilization Review Procedures.--
Subsection (b) of such section is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(8) Utilization review procedures.--The Secretary of
Defense shall develop and implement procedures to review
utilization of health care services by medicare-eligible
military retirees and dependents under this section in order
to enable the Secretary of Defense to more effectively manage
the use of military medical treatment facilities by such
retirees and dependents.''.
(h) Reports.--(1) Subsection (k)(1) of such section 1896 is
amended--
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ``3\1/2\ years''
and inserting ``4\1/2\ years''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (O) as subparagraph (T);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(O) Patient satisfaction with the project.
``(P) Which interagency funding mechanisms would be most
appropriate if the project under this section is made
permanent.
``(Q) The ability of the Department of Defense to operate
an effective and efficient managed care system for medicare
beneficiaries.
``(R) The ability of the Department of Defense to meet the
managed care access and quality of care standards under
medicare.
``(S) The adequacy of the data systems of the Department of
Defense for providing timely, necessary, and accurate
information required to properly manage the demonstration
project.''.
(2) Section 724 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261;
10 U.S.C. 1108 note) is amended by inserting ``the
demonstration project conducted under section 1896 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg),'' after ``section
722,''.
(3) Not later than July 1, 2002, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the independent advisory committee
established in section 722(c) a report on the actions taken
to provide that the project established under section 1896 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg) is being
conducted on a cost-neutral basis for the Department of
Defense.
(4) Not later than December 31, 2002--
(A) the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on such actions; and
(B) the General Accounting Office shall submit to Congress
a report assessing the efforts of the Department regarding
such actions.
____
H. Res. 504
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities
of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution and pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services for the purpose of debate.
(b) Except as specified in section 4 of this resolution,
each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. Each amendment printed in the
report shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent and shall not be subject to amendment (except as
specified in the report and except that the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services
each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of
further debate on any pending amendment).
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules are waived.
Sec. 3. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed,
but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
[[Page H3386]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is
recognized.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer would require the expansion
of Medicare Subvention, TRICARE Senior Prime Program, by the end of
2002 up to 13 more hospitals, bringing the total number of hospitals
offering enrollment in Medicare Subvention to 24, and making an
additional 140,000 retiree eligibles for enrollment.
We seek to extend Medicare Subvention, TRICARE Senior Prime
demonstration project, through December 31, 2003. We require the
Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services to take measures
necessary to ensure the program is being administered in a fiscally
sound manner and in accordance with the original legislation.
We also require GAO to oversee the efforts of both Secretaries. We
ensure that the current subvention sites continue and care for the
current participants is not interrupted.
We also ask that direct payments go directly to medical treatment
facilities where the program is being offered.
We also seek to eliminate discrimination among enrollees allowed to
``age into'' the program by removing the requirement that their care be
managed by a military treatment facility prior to enrollment.
We also seek to provide Medigap insurance protection to enrollees as
if they were enrolled in the Medicare+Choice Plan.
We will also seek to implement the utilization management controls to
keep the program within the budget caps as set by the budget
resolution.
We also seek to require several reports on the efficacy of the
demonstration project to be considered by the Congress in making the
final decision in the year 2003 about the type of care we seek to
extend to the Medicare eligible military retirees.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Buyer plan calls for a very limited program that
would end in 2003. The Taylor plan calls for a nationwide program that
would begin now and remain as long as we are a republic.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr), one of the sponsors of the Taylor amendment.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for all the members of
the committee that are dealing with this issue. I am not a member of
that committee, but I do have some experience in this issue. I
represent the largest base closure in the United States where they
closed the military hospital. Out of that developed a veterans health
clinic.
What I am seeing in this debate and I think our problem here in
Congress is that we know about the promises and promises and promises
that were made, but when we get down to trying to implement the
promises, we find we have excuses, excuses, excuses. Those excuses are
sort of promises dependent upon multi-layered solutions, promises
dependent upon studies, promises dependent on delays on pilot programs
and so on.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that we have military hospitals and
we have veterans clinics. I know that there is a different
jurisdictional issue here, but to the people outside of this building,
they do not understand that.
Most hospitals in America are having a problem of being filled
because our delivery of medicine is being more adequate. We have enough
facilities out there. And what we have is a process that does this,
they say they can go to a military clinic and they can get care and
there is where their records are, those are where their identities are
with their professional staff, but when they get to the age of 65, they
are out, to go out in the private sector and, for the first time in
their life perhaps, a doctor that will provide service for them and
accept Medicare payments.
This is a whole new series. Think if they are a widow who has been in
the military service and has not been able to understand the private
sector. So we kick people out at a very vulnerable time, they lose that
rapport, their records are not in one place.
What we are saying here is why not have, and this is where I think we
are crazy on our budgeting of this stuff, why not allow a continuum of
care at age 65 in the very same place they have been getting it,
whether it is a veterans clinic or a hospital.
This amendment should be defeated.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Buyer amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Buyer amendment provides a reasonable expansion of
Medicare Subvention by adding up to 13 more hospitals to the 11 already
participating today. It also provides 146,000 more retirees the
eligibility to enroll in the program, where today we only have 30,000.
What the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) proposes fully
complements the superb health care reforms contained in the base text
of our bill. In addition to restoring the access of 1.4 million
retirees to the prescription drug benefit they have earned, this bill
provides a process by which a permanent, comprehensive health care
benefit can be provided to Medicare-eligible military retirees. The
Buyer amendment substantially advances that process.
I am also swayed to support the Buyer amendment by the cautions
raised by General Mike Ryan, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. He
does not believe that the current Medicare Subvention program is
sustainable fiscally over the long term. In my view, that serious
caution must not be disregarded as we make decisions with regard to
changes in the level and scope of medical benefits for our military
retirees.
I urge my colleagues to support the Buyer amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that General Ryan is a four-star
general. When he retires, the private sector will be beating his door
down to offer him outstanding opportunities.
I am more concerned with the sergeants and chief petty officers who
do not have that financial security, and that is why we are trying to
make Medicare Subvention on a nationwide basis for all military
retirees.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget and
the senior member of the House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I represent a lot of military retirees; and
I can speak to the sentiments others have voiced that they feel
betrayed.
This bill is an effort to try to make them feel that we are keeping
the promises we made about military health care for life when we
induced them to serve the better part of their adult lives in the armed
services of the United States.
The base bill here is basic. What it simply says is that, when they
turn 65, if they are a military retiree, they can keep on going to a
military treatment facility for medical care and the care they receive,
if they have the space available, the resources available, will be paid
for by Medicare, by HCFA.
{time} 1830
If the military treatment facility is not able to provide that care,
then the retiree would continue to receive benefits that he had been
receiving under the TRICARE program. Basically if the resources are not
there, if the treatment facility cannot accommodate the military
retiree, then that person will go back into the private network that he
has always used if he has been a subscriber to TRICARE. This provides
among other things for continuity of care. It will help us get military
retirees to join TRICARE because they know when they get to be 65, they
will not have to start all over again with a
[[Page H3387]]
new battery of doctors and new treatment facilities.
The Republican-passed budget, when it came to the floor, initially
did not provide enough money for this, nor did it provide enough money
for a pharmacy benefit. When it came back to us from conference, the
conference report, however, provided $400 million, anticipating it
might be used for something like this. And so that is exactly what we
are doing. We are saying, let us use the money that is provided in the
budget resolution to extend the Medicare program, extend the benefits
of the Medicare program to military retirees so that they can go to
those military treatment facilities they have always used. It is fair,
it is sensible, it is affordable, it is not a token, it is substantial.
We ought to do it.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Buyer amendment, and I believe that that amendment and frankly the
underlying goal of the underlying amendment are both well-intentioned.
However, I believe that subvention does not do it all for all the
people we need to help. We are not keeping the commitment that we must
keep to the retirees. When you come from a district like mine where we
have no base to argue about a clinic, whether it is great for geriatric
patients or not, they end up having to drive 640 miles round trip to
McClellan from Oregon just so they can get their prescriptions filled.
So I am not ready to write a blank check here on subvention. I think
the Buyer approach is the best approach, take this a step at a time
while we do what my colleague from Oklahoma recommended about getting a
card for everybody, so that my veterans and retirees do not have to
make this trip.
I commend the gentleman and the chairman for their work so that they
can get prescription drug coverage, because right now these people are
boarding buses once a month to go to McClellan so that they can
establish their ability to get prescription drugs. Do you want them to
drive over mountain passes in the middle of the winter 300 miles each
way to do that? This legislation fixes that problem. I commend both of
the gentlemen and all the members of this committee for taking care of
that. I support the Buyer amendment so we do the right thing here and
not write a complete blank check.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me point out a couple of things. The Taylor amendment does not
deprive any single program of one cent. It is an expansion of health
care made permanent in military installations. The Buyer bill,
throughout the entirety of the bill, says ``may be carried out at a
limited number of places'' and it expires in 2003.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that with some difficulty I am going to vote
against the gentleman from Indiana and for the gentleman from
Mississippi's amendment. But I want to make it very clear that I have
no greater respect for anybody in the world than the chairman of this
committee and the gentleman from Indiana in their efforts to improve
the defense of this Nation and in their concern for caring for our
veterans and our retirees.
They do not have to take a back seat to anybody on that. The wonder
of this debate is, however, that we are really here today, all of us,
trying to find a solution to a problem that we have known about a long
time, and it started some years ago as a little low roar and now, by
golly, we are in here fighting it out how who can do the best for our
particular veterans. Medicare subvention, in my view, and in the
gentleman from Mississippi's view is probably the better way to go. It
does not fulfill our commitment totally, nor does it force our veterans
to go to military treatment facilities. They do not have to do that.
They can continue to go to civilian facilities if they like.
Now, I am concerned about the difference in the cost. However, there
is something badly wrong there. HCFA pays the same thing for an MRI,
whether they go to Eisenhower Army Hospital or whether they go to a
civilian community. The question is what is causing that cost and that
is exactly what we need to do. We need to fix that and make sure it is
cost neutral. I believe that we can do that if we put sort of the wheel
to the grindstone. When we get through passing this today and giving
our retirees part of what we owe them, Medicare subvention, we need to
continue pushing, we need to continue to have this debate, and there is
a bill for us all that will allow all of our retirees to be able to use
the very health plan we have, the Federal employees' plan. That is what
they want to do. They just want the same thing that we get, and there
is absolutely no reason that you can justify that we should not do that
and do that this year, do it immediately and keep our word.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one as far as
veterans and trying to help them, whether it is FEHBP, subvention, or
other programs. I fought for their COLAs and I fought for their
funding. I am a veteran. I am a combat veteran. I have health care
needs because of that combat. And I understand the need. I have gone
into hospitals where a general running a military hospital said,
``Duke, I'm losing two or three veterans a week from World War II, and
they're not getting the health care that they need.'' And I understand
what the gentleman is doing probably more than anybody in this room.
My veterans in San Diego wrote the subvention bill, the original one.
I fought it through this body and through the Senate, and the White
House limited it to a pilot program. And the whole idea of it was that
you could use Medicare at a hospital, a military hospital where you do
not have large overheads. I am giving you the other side of your
position, which is good, because I am trying to show you where my heart
is. That because you do not have to pay for illegal aliens and children
born out of wedlock and all of those things at a military hospital, you
actually save Medicare dollars. I do not think they take that into
account when they talk about, my side, talking about the expanded cost
of it. We save Medicare dollars. It costs the military, but there needs
to be a change in that.
But I want to tell you something. TRICARE, when you talk to the
veterans is a Band-Aid. Subvention is a Band-Aid, even if it is
expanded. Because instead of having to drive hundreds of miles just to
fill a prescription, if you have a military hospital close to you, then
it is okay, it is good, in the advancement of subvention. But if you
live in a rural area, then you are left out.
What I want to do is work with the gentleman from Indiana and the
gentleman from Mississippi and the rest of you to bring about a program
of FEHBP where if you have a civilian working along with a lieutenant,
the civilian at the end of the 20 years will get FEHBP supplement to
Medicare and the military does not. If we will provide subvention along
with that, but I do not know what that mix is.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the bill does
provide very properly and excellently, I think, for other ways to
obtain prescription as opposed to just going to military hospitals.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand that. But I want to tell you, if we jump
off into this, we may prevent in the future with this commission
looking at what we could do to help everybody, not just the people that
live next to a hospital. And that is my goal. I want to fight for that,
and I want to work with the gentleman. But we cannot on this basis.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the broad
base of congressional support, the Taylor amendment has been endorsed
by the Military Coalition, a group of 24 veterans groups; the National
Military Veterans Alliance; the Retired Officers Association; and the
Retired Enlisted Association. It has also been endorsed by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to whom I yield 2 minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H3388]]
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for
yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment and in
strong support of his proposal. This country made a promise to its
veterans of lifetime quality health care. I know both of the
contestants in this debate are honorable people that want to meet that
objective. I believe that the gentleman from Mississippi's approach is
absolutely the right way to do it. That promise did not say that you
get lifetime quality health care on conditions.
There are veterans in this country that are about to turn 65 who want
to continue their care at a veterans health facility and have Medicare
pay for it. That is the way they have chosen to have that promise
honored. But the promise did not say that it will be honored if you are
lucky enough to live near one of those 14 places. The promise did not
say that the promise would be honored if one of those 14 places has a
major medical center. The promise did not say you would have to wait
for over 2 years if you live in one of the new places, and it did not
say that the promise expires in 2003. It says it for keeps and forever.
At a time when the country is bringing in about $1.05 in revenue for
every $1 we spend, I believe the money is here. I think this is a
question of will, not fiscal ability. I believe that there is both
Republicans and Democrats that will be supportive of the gentleman from
Mississippi's approach. I think the right way to do that is to reject
the amendment before us and strongly support the gentleman from
Mississippi's approach which I do.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to thank all my colleagues, the gentleman from
Mississippi, the gentleman from Indiana, all of the folks that have
spoken on this important issue, because I think together you are all a
great team and we have come a long ways.
With respect to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) talking
about the promises that were made and the brochures that were
distributed, I just want to let my colleagues know that when I went
down to the post office and signed up to go to Vietnam, all they told
me was ``get on the bus,'' but I know that promises were made and
extended to American veterans and retirees deserve that reciprocity and
that trust.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) so he can finish his statement. He is the father, at least
in my mind, of subvention, and he did a lot of great work on it in the
early times.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, if anybody should know the merit of this bill, it is
the originator of the bill and what it stands for and what we can and
cannot do with it. I want to use part of the subvention in whatever we
go forward with. But my fear is if we go ahead with this, we may
prevent an overall support for a bill that is going to help all
veterans.
I want to tell you something. We told you that when you voted to go
into Somalia, we have spent $2.4 billion into Haiti. We went to Iraq,
we went to Sudan and bombed an aspirin factory with the White House,
and all of these things, $200 billion. We could have more than paid for
all of this. But yet, your liberal left on the Democrat side, oh, we
need to go into Haiti, we need to go into Somalia, we need to go into
all these other places. We said there would be a cost. I do not care so
much about the cost of this that I want to take care of the veterans,
but there is limited dollars in what you do.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. We have a limited amount of time.
I thank him for his championing of the subvention system. Let me just
say to my colleagues that we have the three options, FEHBP and
supplemental and subvention. Let us give them all a chance. Let us go
with Buyer.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again in addition to the
Military Coalition, the National Military Veterans Alliance, the
Retired Officers Association, the Retired Enlisted Association who have
all come out in favor of the Taylor amendment is the Colonel from the
Tennessee National Guard, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) to
whom I yield 2 minutes.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Mississippi for yielding me this time and I want to urge the defeat of
this amendment. This is not hard. We have made promises to people who
have given their productive lives to the uniformed service of this
country. This is an attempt to partially fulfill that. The money we are
talking about is within the caps. There is absolutely, in my mind, no
good reason that we cannot at least partially fulfill what we told
people that we would do as a Nation, as a grateful Nation for their
service to this country.
Now, you talk about the liberal left, somebody said, about limited
dollars. Yes, there are limited dollars around here.
{time} 1845
But it is not too limited that we cannot vote for a $800 billion tax
cut. This is about priorities. Are you for a tax cut, or are you for
doing what we told veterans who gave their productive lives to this
country we would do for them when they got through? It is not hard, it
is not complicated; it is within the budget caps, it ought to be done,
and this amendment ought to be defeated.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I wondered how long it would take before we
get a little politics involved in the issue. I thank the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson), one of our true American heroes.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position on
both sides, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for
offering this amendment.
As a veteran and former prisoner of war, I support ensuring veterans
have access to the best health care our Nation has to offer. The
amendment before us would extend Medicare subvention through 2003 and
allow Medicare to pay for military retirees to get the health care they
need at veterans hospitals.
To suggest that we are abrogating our responsibilities to America's
veterans is just plain wrong. Before we make any program permanent, we
ought to make sure that all the health care needs of our veterans are
being met.
We have got to do the right things by our veterans. TRICARE is not
working. We are committed to this Nation's veterans and our promise of
lifetime health care. Let us make sure it is right when we do it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), but if the gentleman from Texas had read the
Buyer amendment, he would notice that it limits the number of sites
where Medicare subvention will be allowed; it says it may be carried
out, it does not say it shall be carried out, and it expires in 2003.
Quite frankly, our Nation's military retirees are tired of being told
maybe, sort of, kind of, if we get around to it. The Taylor amendment
says we are going to do it, we are going to fulfill the promise. The
Buyer amendment says we might. It is that simple.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Shows), the champion in the United States Congress as far as health
care for military veterans and military retirees.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about
something that means a lot to me and I think millions of Americans
across this country, and that is being fair to our military retirees.
I have actually talked to men and women who were recruiters, who are
retirees, and they hang their head in shame because they promised these
other young men and women when they joined the service they would have
health care for the rest of their lives if they stayed 20 years.
Mr. Chairman, just imagine yourself in a foxhole, or out fighting a
war or a
[[Page H3389]]
conflict or something like that, and trying to help this country
survive to keep us free where we can participate today, thinking when
you get out, you are going to have free health care for the rest of
your life, or health care access. TRICARE does not work, CHAMPUS did
not work, we are trying to get subvention and what Congressman Taylor
is trying to do now.
This is something that is important. It meets the 4 R's, as far as I
am concerned. It meets the recruitment, retention, military readiness,
and it is the right thing to do.
Let us think about our military retirees. I ask Members to support
the Taylor amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), I have the luxury of a team that is going to
win on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson), another key member of that team, and a member of the House
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I have
great respect and admiration for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer)
and his efforts on this committee, and I applaud those efforts.
As has been said by many of the people that have risen today, we
worked very hard as a committee to come to solutions. I believe,
however well intended the gentleman's solution is, that it only goes
part of the way, and that the wisdom behind the amendment of the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the time that it allows
from its inception to its fulfillment, will provide us the remedies,
whether the gun has been jammed, whether the program has been crippled,
to correct those problems within the system, so that we can provide for
our veterans what they richly deserve, the fulfillment of the
commitment and the pledge that we made to them.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor). When you look at the amendment itself, when the gentleman
said ``what Buyer offers is a `might,' it might happen,'' no. In the
amendment we say in here ``the project shall be conducted at any site
that includes a military treatment facility that is considered by the
Secretary of Defense to be a major medical center.''
So what is that? That is the National Capital region, which is Walter
Reed, it is Bethesda, it is Malcolm Grow, it is Fort Belvoir. Then we
also go down to the Tidewater area, that is, Portsmouth. It is Naval
Hospital, it is Langley Air Force Base, it is Fort Eustis. Then we drop
down to North Carolina, it is Fort Bragg. In Georgia, it is Eisenhower
Medical Center. In Ohio it is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In Texas
it is William Beaumont. In California it is Travis Air Force Base. In
Hawaii it is Tripler.
Now let me address this, ``Oh, this only does it part of the way,
and, gee, is this really going to take care of everyone?''
Mr. Chairman, I tried to do this pie and tried to explain it to
everybody. Now I am going to grab the back of the chart and I am going
to do another what I say is truth in advocacy. Let me just define this
for everyone. Let me show you this really quick.
When you draw the whole of the pie, cut it in half, because this half
over here represents how many military Members actually live in close
proximity to a medical treatment facility. Now, of that half, of the
1.4 million, Medicare subvention, if we go permanent, it only addresses
20 percent of the half, which is only 10 percent of the 1.4 million.
That is only 140,000 of the military retirees that we actually take
care of. Why? Because of the capacity question.
So, even in my amendment, when we expand it to the major medical
centers, it makes eligible 146,000 military retirees, but we only have
room at the facilities that I listed for 30,000.
Then I had the list of all the other medical treatment facilities
that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) would add. What would
it add? It would then make 195,800 eligible to enroll, but, at most,
there is only room for 39,000. See, we have to be very, very careful
between our rhetoric and demagoguery and what this really does.
Now, I have great respect, and I will say it again, with the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), because we are going to
continue to work, whatever the outcome here, as we move to conference.
But I think what is extremely important for us to do as a body is all
these demonstration projects, we get our arms around them all; we get
our arms around them, we actually have good analysis of the data so we
can deliver the plan. In the meantime, we get the pharmacy benefit and
we try to make sense out of this very complex military health system
that we have. That is our pursuit.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to vote for the Buyer amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the Taylor amendment tells
the Department of Defense to do it and we tell HCFA to pay for it. Our
Nation's military retirees kept their word; we want our Nation to keep
its word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Clement), a recently-retired Colonel from the Army National Guard.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor) for standing up for so many military retirees that need
help, deserve help. Let us, once and for all, keep those promises.
The Taylor amendment corrects the inequity for military retirees
dropped from TRICARE at age 65, to now enable them to continue to
access the TRICARE benefits at the military treatment facilities. That
is what it does, and that is what we are trying to accomplish here.
That is not asking too much.
I served 2 years in the regular army, and then I joined the National
Guard, and I am around military people, like many of you, on a daily
basis. Being a Member of Congress, I have fought, ever since I have
been here for the military retirees, to stay on track and do what we
said we would do and keep our promises.
The gentleman from the great State of Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has
stepped forward, a great champion for the military retirees, and for
the defense budget and all that, and he knows the issues, and he is
offering some legislation that will, once and for all, correct a lot of
these problems. What it offers, more than anything, is peace of mind,
and peace of mind means a lot to our military people, when they do not
know about what options are available to them anymore and they see so
much deterioration in veterans affairs programs.
I used to be on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, just like the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and others have served on it, and I
know the issues.
Let us stand and support the Taylor amendment, because it is the
right thing to do.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Taylor amendment and against the Buyer amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I would again like to remind everyone that the Taylor
amendment has been endorsed by the Military Coalition, the National
Military and Veterans Alliance, the Retired Officers Association and
the Retired Enlisted Association.
A week from Monday we will all be honoring our veterans at Memorial
Day. We are going to honor them for what they have done, the many who
died, the so many who were away from
[[Page H3390]]
their families, who lost their sight, their limbs, their loved ones.
What better way to honor our veterans than to finally say to them we
are going to keep our word, we are going to fulfill the promise that
was made to you the day you enlisted?
Mr. Chairman, I attended Walter Jones Sr.'s funeral, and I remember
the preacher saying a quote by a man named Everett Hale, he was using
it to describe Walter, Sr. He said ``I am but one, but I am one; I
can't do everything, but I can do something; and those things that I
can do, I should do, and, with the help of God, I will do.''
We are 435 Members of Congress, given the awesome opportunity to do
what is right for our Nation's veterans. I am asking Members to step
forward. We are not going to solve every problem in the world, there
will still be other things. But we have the opportunity to do what is
right for our Nation's military retirees, to say to them we are going
to fulfill the promise at every base hospital in America, for every one
of you, and it is forever. We are not going to cut you off in 4 years.
We are going to keep our word.
Let us do what we can to make the world a better place. Let us
fulfill our promise to our military retirees.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are charged to do our best for the people that we
represent, for the people of our country. In this particular case, by
voting for the Taylor amendment, unamended, we will be doing our best.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we owe the American people,
the veterans, the military retirees, is the truth, and I have not heard
much of that here tonight. The idea that military retirees, if the
Taylor amendment passes, can now go to military hospitals, and if you
are Medicare-eligible, receive care, is simply not true.
{time} 1900
It was not true yesterday. It is not true today. It is not going to
be true tomorrow.
I heard a lot of people saying we promised the military and that we
ought to deliver on the promise. What is being proposed does not
deliver on the promise.
If we heard the gentleman from Oklahoma, if we really truly want to
provide healthcare to all Americans and most especially veterans and
military retirees, we ought to make sure they have the ability to get
it where they are able to get it, as close to them as possible; not at
isolated locations called military hospitals.
The whole approach of trying to say one does not have to change,
notwithstanding the fact that they are a widow and they have moved away
from the area that their husband served his military service in, that
they have to locate a particular physical place for them to get the
benefit that we promised, is 19th Century thinking. It is worse than
19th Century thinking. It is telling people we are going to deliver a
hope and a promise and, in fact, shatter a belief once again.
Now I do believe there has been some enlightenment in the
understanding that there needs to be a change in the way in which we
honestly meet a commitment to our veterans and to our military
retirees. It frankly is not the Buyer amendment. It most certainly is
not the Taylor amendment, because it makes permanent a flawed system
which guarantees it fails.
Now, I didn't have to speak on this. I could have sat on the
sidelines but what I do not want to be done is what has been done
repeatedly, and that is make a promise that cannot be delivered,
because the Taylor amendment does not do it. At least we are moving
forward with the Buyer amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to be
responsible in moving forward.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence) for yielding the balance of his time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that any of the Members who have
spoken here today or those of whom served dutifully on the Committee on
Armed Services can claim the cornerstone of fulfilling the promise,
because I believe in fact we are all working in that direction.
I also will concur with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in
that we are all charged to do our best, honor the commitment. Those are
all the words that all of us will use, but let us be very careful.
I am always extra cautious not to create unrealistic expectancies
among populations, and here in particular the military retiree. Let us
say that today we even voted to make Medicare subvention permanent.
Okay. Let us do a hypothetical. We vote to make it permanent right now.
None of us can go back to our districts, pound the chest and say we
have now fulfilled the promise and all the military retirees are taken
care of.
The reason I drew out the pie and tried to show the map is the total
eligibility of military retirees next to the medical treatment
facilities is about 350,000. Of that 350,000, because of the limited
capacity, we can only do about 69,000, which means out of 1.4 million
military retirees we are only talking about 69,000. So let us be very
honest with ourselves about what we are doing here today.
It is a pilot program that is flawed at the moment. It is running a
deficit to the Department of Defense of $100 million. One says, well,
money does not matter. Oh, really? Go back home and say that again.
Money does matter. We have to make sure that we make the right
decision, and what we have done is laid forth the methodology to
deliver the care.
In 2002, when we get that report from the independent advisory
council, Congress will work with OMB, work with the Department of
Defense; in 2002, put together the program, make sure the $9 billion to
$10 billion will be in the budget; it comes over here; in October of
2003, this question is done. It is done, but what we have done is made
sure that what we do is the right thing.
We do not have the capacity today to say, well, I already know the
answer; we are going to do it; we are just going to make Medicare
subvention permanent. Permanent when it only addresses a small minority
of individuals who are located next to a medical treatment facility?
Let us do the right thing. Let us take the time and do the analysis.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) as a
substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, the
minimum time for electronic voting on the underlying Taylor amendment,
if ordered, will be 5 minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 95,
noes 323, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 206]
AYES--95
Archer
Armey
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bateman
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Everett
Ewing
Fowler
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Hansen
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Largent
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Martinez
McCollum
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
[[Page H3391]]
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Weldon (PA)
NOES--323
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Meehan
Murtha
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
{time} 1927
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mrs. Northup, Mrs. Biggert, and Messrs. Sweeney,
Young of Alaska, Tancredo, Conyers, LaHood, Nussle, Bass, Rogers, Hyde,
Miller of Florida, Rogan, Weller, Calvert, Rush, Diaz-Balart, Dickey,
Terry, Weldon of Florida, Peterson of Pennsylvania, and Horn changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HOBSON, STARK, and CHABOT changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406,
noes 10, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 207]
AYES--406
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
[[Page H3392]]
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--10
Archer
Buyer
Houghton
Packard
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Stark
Stump
Thomas
NOT VOTING--18
Ackerman
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Meehan
Murtha
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
Waters
Woolsey
{time} 1934
Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I include the following exchange of letters
for inclusion in the Record.
Committee on Education
and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Spence: Thank you for working with me in your
development of H.R. 4205, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, specifically:
1. Section 341, Assistance to Local Educational Agencies
that Benefit dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees.
2. Section 342, Eligibility for Attendance at Department of
Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools.
3. Section 504, ``Extension to end of calendar year of
expiration date for certain force drawdown transition
authorities.''
4. Section 1106, ``Pilot Program For Reengineering the
Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process.''
As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction
of the Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not
intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 4205, the
Committee does hold an interest in preserving its future
jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the
aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives
should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments
thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We
would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions
should a conference with the Senate arise.
Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the
amendments to H.R. 4205 and look forward to working with you
on these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 4205,
legislation that was ordered reported by the Committee on
Armed Services on May 10, 2000.
As reported, H.R. 4205 contains language within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, specifically
sections 543, 906, and 1101.
The Judiciary Committee staff was consulted on these
provisions of the bill to the satisfaction of this Committee.
For this reason, the Committee does not object to the terms
of this provision, and will not request a sequential
referral. However, this does not in any way waive this
Committee's jurisdiction over those portions of the bill
which fall within this Committee's jurisdiction, nor does it
waive the Committee's jurisdiction over any matters within
its jurisdiction which might be included in H.R. 4205 during
conference discussions with the Senate.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In the interest of expediting Floor
consideration of the bill, the Committee will not exercise
its jurisdiction over the following sections of FY 2001
Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 4205.
Section 518: Extension of Involuntary Civil Service
Retirement Data for Certain Reserve Technicians.
Section 651: Participation in the Thrift Savings Program.
Section 723: Extended Coverage under Federal Employee
Health Benefits Program.
Section 801: Extension of Authority for the Defense of
Defense Acquisition Pilot Program: Reports Required.
Section 906: Organization and Management of Civil Air
Patrol.
Section 1101: Employment and Compensation Provisions for
Employees of Temporary Organizations Established by Law or
Executive Order.
Section 1102: Restructuring the Restriction on Degree
Training.
Section 1104: Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees
of the Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily in
Reductions in Force.
Section 1106: Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal
Employment Opportunity Complaint Process.
Section 2939: Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support
Center, Illinois.
As you know, House Rules grant the Committee on Government
Reform wide jurisdiction over government management issues
including matters related to Federal civil service,
procurement policy, and property disposal. This action should
not, however, be construed as waiving the Committee's
jurisdiction over future legislation of a similar nature.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the
Government Reform Committee to ensure that these provisions
address the legislative goals of both Committees as well as
the American taxpayer.
I look forward to working with you on this and other issues
throughout the remainder of the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I support most of the provisions of the
Defense Authorization Act; at the same time, I have grave concerns
about the Kasich amendment that the House adopted yesterday. In my
judgement, the Kasich amendment does serious harm to U.S. policy in
Kosovo.
If possible, this amendment is even more misguided than a similar
proposal the House rejected earlier this year when we debated the
Supplemental Appropriation. The Kasich amendment conditions U.S.
participation in Kosovo on whether or not our European allies meet a
specified percentage of their aid pledges. All of these so-called
burdensharing amendments contain the same fundamental flaw: They seek
to abdicate control of U.S. policy in Kosovo to Europe. If the Kasich
amendment becomes the law of the land, the decision on whether U.S.
forces remain in Kosovo will not be made on the basis of whether doing
so is in the best interest of our national security. Instead, the
decision will be put on automatic pilot on the basis of what Europe
does.
I know some Members of the House honestly disagree with U.S. policy
in Kosovo. They feel we should not be there. I disagree with them, but
if that's the way they feel, let's debate U.S. participation in Kosovo
directly and have an up-or-down vote. Don't try to dress this up as a
burdensharing amendment. The fact of the matter is that Europe is
already providing 80 percent of the 46,000 NATO troops in Kosovo,
Macedonia and Albania. There is no legitimate burdensharing argument
that would dictate the withdrawal of U.S forces from Kosovo.
I agree with NATO Secretary-General Robinson who recently wrote that
an American withdrawal from Kosovo ``risks sending a dangerous signal
to the Yugoslav dictator--Slobodan Milosevic--that NATO is divided, and
that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up stakes.'' Having
prevailed in Operation Allied Force, we should not now hand Milosevic
the victory he could not win on the battlefield.
The Kasich amendment would undermine peace in Kosovo and jeopardize
the relationship between the United States and our NATO allies. While I
will vote for the Defense Authorization today, I do with the
expectation that the Kasich language will be modified in conference
with the Senate.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns
about aspects of this bill. But I will vote for it because it includes
many provisions that are important for our country and for Colorado.
For one thing, today the House adopted the amendment that added a
strong statement of the need for the Congress to promptly pass
legislation to provide compensation and fairer treatment for workers at
DOE nuclear-weapons sites who were exposed to beryllium, radiation, and
other hazards. I joined with colleagues from both sides of the aisle in
proposing that amendment, which is very important for the nation and
especially for the many Coloradans who have worked at Rocky Flats.
Earlier, the House also approved my amendment to assist federal
employees at Rocky Flats to make successful transitions to retirement
or new careers as we move toward expedited cleanup and closure of the
site.
In addition, the House approved the amendment by Representative
Kasich and others to
[[Page H3393]]
condition further U.S. military involvement in Kosovo on more equitable
burden-sharing by our NATO allies. I voted for that amendment because I
believe our allies should keep their commitment to help us bear the
load of peacekeeping in Kosovo. The United States is a great power, and
as such must continue to play a leading role in global affairs. That
doesn't mean, however, that we should have to carry the weight of the
world on our own.
I am also glad that the House adopted the amendment by Mr. Dreier and
others to reduce the current six-month waiting period for new computer
export controls to a more realistic time period. I believe this is an
important step toward developing an effective export control policy
that protects our national security at the same time that it ensures
continued U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness.
The bill would also make TRICARE's ``senior prime'' a permanent,
nationwide program--a change of great importance to veterans.
However, as I said earlier, I do have serious concerns about some
provisions in the bill.
First, the bill's authorized levels exceed last year's appropriated
levels by $21 billion, and are $4.5 billion more than the Pentagon
requested. I remain concerned that too much defense spending means not
enough investment in education, health care, and the needs of our
children.
Second, the bill authorizes $2.2 billion for the initial phases of a
national missile defense system. I am concerned that the authorization
of these funds could encourage a premature decision on the deployment
of a national missile defense system. I don't believe that it is an
accurate statement to say--as the bill does--that the National Missile
Defense Act of 1999 entails a commitment by the President to deploy
such a system. In fact, this was conditional on feasibility and on
whether we are able to deploy in the context of other arms agreements.
I am convinced it would be irresponsible--as well as strategically
disadvantageous--for us to make a unilateral move toward an
inadequately tested defensive system. Earlier this year I wrote to the
President urging that he not make a deployment decision based on
politics instead of on diplomacy and technical feasibility, and without
weighing considerations of cost. The same holds true for Congress.
The House rejected a proposal to simply close the School of the
Americas. Instead, the bill will replace it with a new military
training institute that is not substantively different than the current
one. I am deeply concerned that this cosmetic change is being viewed as
the best we can do to clean up the School of the Americas.
I was also disappointed that the amendment Ms. Sanchez proposed did
not pass. The amendment would have ensured equal access to
comprehensive reproductive health care for all U.S. servicewomen and
military dependents.
These are not trivial defects. They are real shortcomings.
Nonetheless, on balance, I think the merits of this bill as it stands
outweigh its shortcomings and I will vote for its passage. It is my
hope that the bill can be further improved as it moves through the
legislative process.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4205, the Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001 bill for a number of reasons. This
bill spends too much for a national missile defense system that the
President hasn't even determined to deploy and it seeks to keep defense
contractor coffers plentiful.
H.R. 4205 authorizes $2.2 billion for national missile defense (NMD)
systems when President Clinton hasn't made a decision on whether or not
to deploy such a system. The President had indicated that he will make
his decision later this year. But the longer he waits, the more
evidence indicates that deployment is unwise.
Last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered a
devastating blow to NMD proponents when they calculated the costs of
building and operating the Administration's defenses system at almost
$60 billion. For months now, the Pentagon has insisted that the cost of
the Administration's system over the next six years was a modest $12.7
billion.
The Pentagon was shocked once again when a recent poll was released
that national missile defense is an extremely low priority for
Americans. Improving education, protecting Social Security and
Medicare, and improving health care coverage are all significantly
higher priorities than defense-related matters. I would much rather
spend $12 billion to cover 11 million uninsured children--the cost of
my MediKids bill.
While GOP feels at liberty to throw more money at the defense
industry for deployment of a national missile defense, they considered
my amendment unworthy of floor consideration.
I offered an amendment to H.R. 4025 that prevents the use of taxpayer
funds at international air and trade shows. Unfortunately, my
amendment, along with other amendments that would have saved millions
of taxpayer dollars, were not made in order. This is especially
egregious because the Defense Appropriations managers on the floor of
the House accepted the same amendments last fall.
Currently, the Pentagon pays for incremental costs to advertise
sophisticated weaponry and aircraft at international air shows and
trade exhibitions. Last year, industry leaders such as Boeing, Lockheed
Martin and Raytheon pawned off their wears to developing countries in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Lockheed pushed their high-ticket items such as
the F-16, while Boeing advertised their FA/18 Super Hornet Fighter.
These companies peddle their wares to countries that cannot even afford
to feed their own citizens. And the U.S. government helps them to do so
by subsidizing the expense at the shows.
The aircraft used during these shows and weapons exhibitions is paid
for with American taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer subsidizes the cost of
insurance, ramp fees, transportation to and from the show, and payment
for government personnel needed to attend and monitor the show.
A conservative estimate of the total cost of taxpayer subsides is
$34.2 million per year. This is a blatant form of corporate welfare and
wasteful spending by the government.
My amendment prevents any further direct participation of Defense
personnel and equipment at air shows unless the defense industry pays
for the advertising and use of the DoD wares. The amendment prohibits
sending planes, equipment, weapons, or any other related material to
any overseas air show unless the contractor pays for all related
expenses. If a contractor is making a profit by showing the aircraft,
they will also be required to pay for the advertisement and use of the
aircraft. In addition, my amendment prevents military and government
personnel from lending their expertise at the show unless the
contractor pays for their services during the show.
This amendment in no way prohibits the use of U.S. aircraft or other
equipment in trade exhibitions. The bill simply takes the financial
burden off of the American taxpayer and puts it on the defense
contractor.
This is a wasteful practice that must end. It is a shame that my GOP
colleagues did not agree that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars and
make my amendment in order.
I urge my colleagues to stop throwing money at the defense industry
and oppose H.R. 4205.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of section 535
of H.R. 4205.
At the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific there are 647
nameless remains of soldiers and sailors who died on December 7, 1941
as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. They are buried in graves
marked simply ``unknown.''
H.R. 3806, which I introduced on March 1, 2000, would require that
the Department of Veterans Affairs add information to the gravestones
identifying the ship and the date of the death of those gallant
servicemen.
I thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Spence, for
being a cosponsor of the legislation. I appreciate his efforts, and the
efforts of the ranking minority member of the Committee, Mr. Skelton,
to include language in H.R. 4205 to recognize these gallant men who
gave their lives for their country.
Section 535 of the bill provides that the 74 graves containing the
remains of 124 unknowns from the U.S.S. Arizona be marked with the name
of the ship on which they served. The section is based on the
validation of the research of Mrs. Lorraine Marks-Haislip of the U.S.S.
Arizona Reunion Association and Mr. Ray Emory of the Pearl Harbor
Survivors Association by the Director of Naval History. The two
historians worked hard using the records of the Army and the Navy to
identify the ship from which each set of unknown remains was recovered.
The Director of Naval History reviewed the research and confirmed its
accuracy.
I look forward to the validation of the remainder of the research of
Mrs. Marks-Haislip and Mr. Emory so that the remaining graves of the
unknown dead of the attack on Pearl Harbor may be properly marked as
well.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the priorities in this bill are
misplaced. For years we made commitments to military retirees that they
and their families were entitled to lifetime health care. Some may
argue it is too expensive but the commitment was made and people relied
upon it.
We can afford to honor our commitments. We are spending too much in
this bill on too many unproven technologies, duplicative systems, and
Congressional add-ons. We are not spending enough on our people or on
environmental remediation of past actions.
We are making a down payment totaling $2.2 billion on a national
missile defense system that CBO estimated last month will cost $60
billion over the next 15 years. Many describe our current approach to
national missile defense as a ``rush to failure'' that is resulting
[[Page H3394]]
in excessive spending on a system that has only a spotty record of
success.
We don't need three brand-new advanced fighter jets. We will have
military air superiority over all potential adversaries for years to
come with our current planes. The combined cost of the Air Force's F-
22, the Navy's F-18 E/F, and the Joint Strike Fighter will be well over
$350 billion. This bill adds over $3 billion this year for weapons
systems that were not requested by the Pentagon and no funds were added
to the personnel account for our troops.
Before we embark on new projects, we must address our primary
responsibilities of taking care of our people who serve and have served
in uniform and cleaning up our environment. If in the name of politics,
we can give the military money it cannot afford for projects it does
not need or want, then in the name of taking care of people, we can pay
the bill and do it right. In the name of national security, we must not
shortchange our people or the environment.
I regret that we did not have the opportunity to consider Congressman
Allen's amendment giving the Pentagon the flexibility to dismantle
strategic nuclear missiles it no longer wants or needs. We could save
billions if we were not forced to maintain our nuclear arsenal at the
START I level of 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons while Russia's forces
continue to decline due to aging and funding shortfalls.
I am also disappointed that the McCarthy amendment was not allowed.
It eliminated language that discriminates against gun manufacturers
that have entered into common-sense agreements with our government to
add child safety locks to their product. The McCarthy amendment would
have allowed our government to lead by example by giving our business
to gun manufacturers who want to bear some part of the responsibility
for the end use of their products. The fact that the leadership does
not want members to vote on this issue is a sure signal that we would
have prevailed. I hope the offending language will be removed in
conference before the president signs this bill.
We have to ask ourselves, what is truly important? Should we spend
more money on a military that is unrivaled anywhere in the world, while
ignoring commitments to our military retirees and family's health care?
I think not.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, rear (now Vice) Admiral Michael Mullen,
Director of Surface Warfare, testified in March before the SASC Sea
Power Subcommittee that, in effect, the present absence of naval
surface fire support places the lives of Marines ``at high risk.''
Commandant General James Jones testified that ``we [Marines] have been
at considerable risk in naval surface fire support since the retirement
of the Iowa-class battleships.'' The Navy retired these ships in 1992
even though during the Gulf War they were the only warships we had
which could, and did, provide our soldiers and Marines with effective
fire support. This left us with zero-capability in this critical area.
As the Senate Armed Services Committee declared on July 8, 1995, our
decommissioned battleships represent the Navy's ``only remaining
potential source of around-the-clock, accurate high volume, heavy fire
support . . . .'' This will remain true for many years to come. As we
learned again from Kosovo, bad weather can effectively eliminate air
support for our troops in coastal region conflicts. Without surface
fire support, they could needlessly suffer heavy casualties. We simply
cannot continue taking this risk. It is, therefore, imperative that two
battleships be returned to active service as soon as possible to bridge
this dangerous fire support gap.
Two battleships, Iowa and Wisconsin, could be reactivated and
modernized for about the cost of one new destroyer. The Navy stated
that they can be reactivated in 14 months. Measured against their
capabilities, they are the most cost effective and least manpower
intensive warships we have. The Navy solution, however, is the near
term five inch ERGM program and the long term DD-21 and 155mm advanced
gun programs. The Navy's unrealistic requirements for this small gun
have made the intrinsically flawed ERGM an engineers' nightmare.
Moreover, as Lt. General Michael Williams recently testified, ERGM will
not have the lethality the Marines need. The complex, still largely
notional DD-21 and AGS programs face many challenges and it could well
be 12 or more years before they could be fielded. In the meantime, two
reactivated battleships could buy time essential for the deliberate and
ultimately successful development of the DD-21 concept. General James
Jones testified that the absence of naval surface fire support would
``continue until the DD-21 . . . joins the fleet in strength.''
Probably 2020. He earlier had testified that ``DD-21 will not be able
to match the Iowa-class battleships in firepower and shock effect.'' He
did, however, express positive hopes for the DD-21, but later stated
that ``the Corps still requires more options.'' Could any option
surpass the already available battleships? It should also be noted that
only the battleship is survivable enough for a close-to-shore
peacekeeping forward presence, the Navy's main peacetime mission. It
alone can provide us a truly menacing visual show-of-force in coastal
crisis areas.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my support to the
FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation applies
virtually all of the additional $4.5 billion above the President's
request to unfunded requirements identified by the military service
chiefs and defense agencies. Unfortunately, this bill cannot solve the
fundamental problems facing the U.S. military with a single year's
authorization bill. It will take a substantiated effort over a number
of years to bring our military forces to the level needed to maintain
our national security.
We in Congress must fund the military based on the fact that the
first priority of the federal government is national defense. As we
look at the defense budget and the U.S. military in general, we need to
remember the quote attributed to George Washington, ``Those who love
peace prepare for war'' is as true today as its ever been.
Frankly, I sometimes worry that many people have forgotten the real
mission of the military. I firmly believe the U.S. Armed Forces exist
for only one reason--to win the nation's wars when told to do so by the
elected representatives of American people. To accomplish this mission,
we must ensure that our military remains focused on war fighting and
readiness. We have done much in this bill that allow our Armed Forces
to be prepared to fight not only today, but also tomorrow. First, we
have given a well deserved increase in military pay of 3.7 percent.
Next, we included increasing funding for National Missile Defense
development by $85 million, increasing procurement accounts by $2
billion, and increasing research and development accounts by $1.4
billion.
Finally, we must keep the faith with our veterans and military
retirees so that our present and future service members know that the
American people, through their elected officials, can be trusted.
Toward that end, this bill removes barriers to an effective TRICARE
system and generates significant savings that will be redirected to pay
for future benefits. It restores pharmacy access to all Medicare-
eligible military retirees, and establishes a road map toward
implementation of a permanent health care program for military retirees
over age 65.
I know some do not believe that a strong defense is necessary today.
I believe just the opposite. We must strengthen the Armed Forces by
increasing funding of defense and we must insure that our foreign
policy makes sense.
I strongly urge my fellow members of Congress to support the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2001.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the
Defense Authorization for FY 2001.
I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
Armed Services Committee for including language I requested to be
included to convey the Charles Melvin Price Support Center to the Tri-
City Port District located in my congressional district in Southwestern
Illinois. The passage of this language will reduce the financial burden
on the Army by entering into an interim lease with the Port District.
It is in the best interest of the military and the local community. By
downsizing the military to convey this property we are setting a good
example of peacetime benefits which will also aid in lessening future
costs to the Army. I am pleased an agreement was reached to keep the
military housing in the area protected. I am confident the Port
District will be a good landlord as long as the military has a
presence. I am hopeful an interim lease can be entered into
expeditiously. While there are several small areas that will need to be
worked out in conference, I strongly encourage the passage of this
legislation.
However, Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to learn this morning that
Congressman Sanford will be offering an amendment jeopardizing such
conveyances. This is an amendment opposed by the committee. Not only
will passage of such an amendment continue to cost the military more
money on land they wish to excess, it goes against Congress' best
efforts to convey such land to local governmental agencies. Many times
these land conveyances offer better resources from local governments
than the military may be interested in providing. In many cases the
Armed Services Committee has conveyed excess property to local law
enforcement agencies--property that is desperately needed in many
areas.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Sanford
amendment and support final passage of the Defense Authorization bill.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 4205, the
[[Page H3395]]
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001, to provide assistance to a small but important museum in my
district of Galveston, Texas.
The Offshore Rig Museum was opened to the public in April 1997. It is
unique among museums in the United States and probably around the world
because the Museum was literally created out of a jack-up drill rig,
the Ocean Star. The Ocean Star was acquired by the Offshore Rig Museum,
a nonprofit corporation established under the laws of Texas, and doing
business as the Offshore Energy Center, in 1995. The Ocean Star was a
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), built in 1969 at the Bethlehem
Steelyard in Beaumont, Texas. The Ocean Star was designed to work
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. During its working life, the Ocean
Star drilled about 200 wells. After its working life was over, the
Ocean Star was acquired by the Offshore Energy Center and moved to Pier
19 in Galveston and jacked into place for its new assignment as a
museum.
Since its opening in April 1997, the Ocean Star has proudly seen
close to 100,000 visitors tour this glorious old rig and learn how
energy resources are recovered from the world's oceans. The mission of
the Museum is to chronicle the unique heritage and technological
accomplishments of an industry that discovers, produces, and delivers
energy resources to mankind in safe and environmentally responsible
ways.
The Museum has educational programs for children as well as for
adults. School children regularly tour the Museum to learn about their
world's resources and special programs are offered for scouts and other
groups. In addition, the Museum offers safety training for offshore
workers. I commend the Executive Director of the Museum, Ms. Carol
Fleming, for all her hard work in bringing the Museum to life and
building its educational and outreach programs.
As a result of acquiring the Ocean Star, the founders of the Museum
were forced to assume some financial obligations on an earlier drill
rig they had originally acquired from a private party. The earlier
drill rig, the Marine 7, was encumbered with a promissory note to the
Maritime Administration (MARAD). As a non-profit organization and
public Museum, the Offshore Rig Museum has not been able to raise
sufficient revenues to make the payments on this note. I have consulted
with the Maritime Administration, and they are agreeable to my
amendment that will convey full title to the Ocean Star to the Museum
and release the note under certain conditions. The Museum has agreed to
all these conditions, including the agreement to return the rig to
MARAD should the Museum ever stop using the Ocean Star as a museum open
to the public. These conditions were worked out with Marad and I
appreciate their assistance on this project.
As MARAD understands, this is probably the best use of this obsolete
drill rig. The cost to MARAD of foreclosing on the note and having to
store and maintain the rig in its defense reserve fleet are certainly
outweighed by the benefits of keeping the rig where it is and open to
the public as a museum. Numerous other obsolete vessels are proudly
serving as maritime museums these days, having being conveyed with
special legislation similar to my amendment. The OCEAN STAR is one more
proud testament to our merchant marine and offshore energy fleet.
The Offshore Rig Museum is an important part of the Galveston skyline
and community. It brings many visitors every year to Galveston and is
recognized for its important contributions to education and awareness
of our Gulf of Mexico resources. With this amendment, the Museum will
continue to do this job proudly and enable future generations of school
children to see how we recover energy from the ocean and bring it to
our shores.
I thank my colleagues for their support, and especially thank Mr.
Bateman and Mr. Taylor for their assistance.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of section 536 of
H.R. 4205.
This section expresses the sense of Congress that the commander of
the U.S.S. Indianapolis, Admiral (then Captain) Charles Butler McVay
III was not culpable for the sinking of the heavy cruiser by a
submarine on July 30, 1945. The ship sunk in 12 minutes. Of the 1,196
crew members, only 316 survived the attack and a five day ordeal being
adrift at sea before being rescued.
Captain McVay was court-martialed in 1946 for the loss of his ship
despite the opposition of Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz and Admiral
Raymond Spruance. The hurried court of inquiry and subsequent court
marital did not provide adequate opportunity for a defense.
Furthermore, information which would have exonerated Captain McVay was
withheld from him.
Admiral Nimitz recognized the injustice done to Captain McVay and
when he became Chief of Naval Operations, he remitted Captain McVay's
sentence and restored him to active duty. Captain McVay went on to
complete 30 years of active naval service and was promoted to the rank
of Rear Admiral effective upon the date of his retirement.
The survivors of the U.S.S. Indianapolis still living today have
remained steadfast in their support of the exoneration of Captain
McVay.
A special word of thanks is due to Hunter Scott for pursuing the
vindication of Captain McVay. Three years ago then-12 year old Hunter
began his campaign to clear Captain McVay's name. He had thoroughly
researched the case and concluded that the Captain was unjustly
convicted. Hunter Scott should be proud of his successful effort on
behalf of Captain McVay.
I support this long overdue recognition of the Congress that the
court martial charges against Captain McVay were not morally
sustainable and that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, Mr.
Pease, having assumed the Chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore 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.
4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 504, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KUCINICH. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kucinich moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4205 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of title II, add the following new section:
SEC. . NMD SYSTEM REDUCTION.
The amount provided in section 201(4) is hereby reduced by
$2,200,000,000, to be derived from funds for the National
Missile Defense Program.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion, because we do not even have a copy of it yet. I ask that we get
a copy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) for 5 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleagues, today's New York
Times reports that Dr. Theodore Postol, a prominent scientist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says that the National Missile
Defense Plan that we are considering authorizing at this moment is a
hoax. He says that the Missile Defense System cannot distinguish
incoming weapons from decoys.
He says in this article, in today's New York Times, that the
contractors and the Department of Defense have deceptively planted the
data of the tests. I want to repeat that, this article in today's New
York Times says from a prominent scientist at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology that contractors and the Department of Defense have
deceptively manipulated the data of tests for this National Missile
Defense System, which this bill will authorize $2.2 billion.
[[Page H3396]]
This time we know about the scandal before we vote on the money. Dr.
Postol is calling on the administration to appoint an independent high-
level scientific panel to investigate alleged efforts to cover up these
flaws.
Why would Congress authorize $2.2 billion for more fraudulent tests
on the same day that The New York Times carries this story?
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to recommit in order
to give us a chance to take account of the fraud in past tests of the
National Missile Defense System and to save the taxpayers billions of
dollars in tests. When you have the credibility of the Pentagon and of
defense contractors being called into question by a prominent scientist
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when this report says
they are covering up flaws in data, this makes it a national security
matter, because if this system cannot work, then we are telling the
American people to pay $2.2 billion in the hope that somehow a system
will work when there is data that has been according to this scientist
when there is data that has been phonied up.
Now, this is a matter for the taxpayers, and it is a matter for
national security. And if we care about national security, if we care
about the taxpayers, we will vote to recommit this bill, straighten out
this thing in committee and put forth a bill which is good and solid. I
know a lot of good Members have done great work on this bill. It is a
shame to have the bill clouded up with deception by the Pentagon and by
defense contractors.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) insist on his point of order?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
Is there a Member opposed?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1945
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) is a friend of mine. He and I traveled to Vienna last year to
try to write an end to the Kosovo conflict. I have respect for him. I
also have respect for the members that sit on the Committee on Armed
Services; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton); my friend, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Sisisky). We went through this bill after literally hundreds of
hearings over the course of the last several months and came up with a
solidly bipartisan bill that passed out of committee 51 to 1. The only
member that opposed the bill was a Republican who objected to the bill
because of the nuclear waste provisions and the impact on his own
State. In this subcommittee there were no amendments raised of this
type. In fact, our effort on missile defense has continually been
bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, I know Ted Postol. I do not know whether my colleague
does. I know what his feelings are on missile defense. The article in
today's paper is not new. He has been arguing against missile defense
since I have been in Congress. I work with Ted Postol. I try to
convince him and work with him. We should not vote on a motion to
recommit and end years of research and technology development because
of one article in one paper that no one else, my good friend, agrees
with.
There is no member of the committee that offered this amendment, and
the gentleman has to respect the members of the committee that sit with
us on a day-to-day basis. They are all solid members of the minority
party. They are all talented people; the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
These are people who work these issues.
We should not overturn all of the hard work of the committee because
of an article in The New York Times based on a report by a scientist
who has an axe to grind, who has his own initiative that he would like
us to fund, by the way, in case the gentleman did not know that, called
boost phase intercept.
I would suggest to my colleagues, and I would hope they would believe
this as well, that this is an easy vote for all of us. I would hope all
of us would join together, my Democrat friends, like the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and all of us who work together, and
rousingly oppose this motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 353,
noes 63, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 208]
AYES--353
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
[[Page H3397]]
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--63
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson
Conyers
Coyne
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Doggett
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rivers
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wu
NOT VOTING--19
Ackerman
Campbell
Cannon
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Kasich
Knollenberg
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Murtha
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
Woolsey
{time} 2003
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:
``A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________