[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.

                          ____________________