[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9641-H9666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 616

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, only yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
normal conference report rule for H.R. 4205, the Fiscal Year 2001 
Department of Defense Authorization Act.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration.

                              {time}  1030

  In addition, the rule provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  This should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that 
we grant for every conference report that we consider in the House.
  But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial 
bill. Once and for all, we are taking care of military retirees by 
giving them TRICARE for life and by improving their prescription drug 
benefit. Our military retirees were promised lifetime health care 
coverage when they enlisted, and so it is about time that we fulfilled 
our promise to them.
  Also, at long last, we are taking care of our men and women in 
uniform. We are getting them off of food stamps and out of substandard 
housing.
  Finally, we are providing for our Nation's general welfare by giving 
our military the tools they need to win on the battlefield.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying bill. Now more than ever we must provide for our national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support 
of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides 
the authorization for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2001 
and, in doing so, it provides for the defense of the United States and 
for the defense of freedom and democracy around the world.
  This conference report ensures that our military forces continue to 
be second to none, and it ensures that now and in the future our forces 
will be able to meet the demands of every mission they are assigned.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report addresses the real needs and the 
real priorities of our Nation's armed services and is, therefore, a 
conference agreement that every Member of this body should support. But 
at the same time, every Member should be aware that meeting these needs 
and priorities comes at a price. I happen to be one who believes the 
price of defending our Nation and ensuring peace around the world is 
one worth paying.
  This conference report authorizes $310 billion in spending for the 
Department of Defense and its programs, addressing shortfalls in 
readiness, funding in modernization programs, and improving the quality 
of life for our military personnel and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, no one can argue the fact that our military stands 
second to none in the world. No campaign rhetoric can truthfully say 
that our Armed Forces are not up to the job. But there is no denying 
the fact that improvement of readiness capabilities and continuing 
modernization are constant requirements to ensure that we do not fall 
into a condition that would find us shorthanded in an emergency.
  All that requires money, money that must come from a Federal budget 
with hundreds of competing interests. We must remember that education 
for our children is also a national priority, that protecting Social 
Security and Medicare and providing a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit for senior citizens is a national priority, and that reducing 
the national debt should continue to be a national priority.
  Americans understand this, and they know full well the folly of 
cutting taxes while increasing spending. I would remind my colleagues 
in this House that we have gone down that road before. I am committed 
to ensuring that our Armed Forces are the best trained, best equipped, 
and the most ready in all the world. But we cannot lose sight of the 
fact that those forces are protecting a Nation that has other pressing 
needs. Let us not shortchange our military, our children, or our senior 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains many important 
provisions, but chief among them is one that keeps a promise made to 
the men and women who have chosen the military as a career and have 
served faithfully and well for 20 years or more.
  When I am back home in my district in Texas, I often have the 
opportunity to meet with some of the many military retirees who live in 
the Dallas-Fort Worth area and, more often than not, they raise the 
issue of the lifetime health care they were promised when they chose to 
make the military a career.
  Cuts in the military budget and base closings have decreased the 
number of facilities where military retirees can go to receive health 
care. Even if those facilities are available, they must often wait far 
too long to see a doctor.
  At the beginning of this Congress, the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Shows) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), two 
Democratic Members, offered comprehensive plans to address these 
inequities in the military health care system for those men and women 
who have dedicated their careers to defending our country.
  Mr. Speaker, while what is in this conference agreement falls short 
of the original proposals made by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Shows) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I am gratified 
that this conference report restores to military retirees benefits they 
were promised and in doing so begins to make good on

[[Page H9642]]

the commitment made to all of them as they embarked on their careers.
  This conference report provides permanent lifetime TRICARE 
eligibility for Medicare-eligible military retirees and their families 
beginning in fiscal year 2002 and restores the prescription drug 
benefit by allowing those retirees who cannot access a military 
treatment facility to participate in the Department of Defense mail 
order and network retail pharmacy program.
  While this benefit is not extended to retirees before they reach 
Medicare eligibility, the provisions in this conference report 
represent an important start and one that I say is long overdue.
  I encourage the Committee on Armed Services to continue to work on 
this issue and to especially strive toward ensuring these benefits can 
be used by retirees who live in rural areas, to ensure that 
reimbursement rates are adequate, and to provide a benefit for military 
retirees before they reach the age 65.
  We made a promise to those men and women who were willing to put 
their lives on the line for their country. Now, we have an obligation 
to live up to it. I am extremely gratified that this provision will 
become law, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
their willingness to see this through.
  Mr. Speaker, retention of a trained and ready fighting force is one 
of the greatest difficulties facing the military today. Long 
deployments and better offers in the civilian world have taken a toll 
on the number of military men and women who are willing to stay in and 
continue to serve.
  While retention is improving, this conference report makes 
significant improvements in the military standard of living which 
should further assist in reducing the number of service personnel who 
leave.
  The conference report provides a 3.7 percent increase in basic pay, 
establishes a targeted subsistence payment for those personnel who 
struggle hardest to make ends meet and provide for their families, 
provides housing allowances which will assist junior military personnel 
to find suitable housing for themselves and their families, and 
provides active duty special pay and bonuses.
  These are all important components in the ongoing efforts of the 
Congress and the administration to recruit and retain the men and women 
we need for our military forces.
  This conference report also increases readiness accounts and 
importantly includes $222.8 million for spare parts for aircraft 
squadrons in an effort to stop the cannibalization of aircraft that has 
occurred in the past.
  The conference report provides an increase in funding for live-fire 
training ammunition for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps and 
significantly increases the funding for improvements for training 
facilities for the National Guard and reserves.
  The conference report also funds the weapons programs that are so 
critical to our military, and I am especially gratified that the 
conference has included $305.5 million for F-16 modifications and 
improvements for the Air National Guard.
  Looking forward to the future, the conference has provided $2.5 
billion for procurement of 10 F-22 fighters, the next-generation Air 
Force fighter which will ensure our air superiority over any force we 
might encounter.
  Also included is $1.4 billion in research and development funding for 
the F-22 program. The conference includes $1.2 billion for the 
acquisition of 16 MV-22 Osprey and $358.4 million for four CV-Osprey.
  In addition, the conference includes $154.2 million to accelerate the 
radar development for the CV-22 Special Operations Variant.
  These are all valuable investments in the fighting capabilities of 
our Armed Forces, and I am pleased that they are included in this 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I should note this conference does contain a significant 
new compensation plan for those Energy Department employees who are 
exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, beryllium, and other toxic 
substances while they work on the Nation's nuclear weapons program.
  The agreement calls on the Congress to enact a compensation program 
by next July 31. I would hope that these workers can count on the 
Congress to act quickly in the 107th Congress to enact a legislative 
compensation program to assist them.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference agreement. It was signed 
by all conferees, making it a truly bipartisan agreement. I encourage 
all Members to support this rule and to support the conference 
agreement which provides so much to every American.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and conference 
report. Since I came to Congress almost 6 years ago, the Congress has 
made rebuilding our military a top priority. Each year we have been 
able to make great strides towards this goal, and this bill is another 
critical example of our efforts.
  This defense bill is a great credit to the outstanding leadership of 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and also the strong 
leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking 
member.
  More importantly, it is a fitting tribute to those who serve our 
Nation in uniform and to those who have served.
  This legislation takes concrete steps toward providing the proper 
resources to equip and train the military of today, as well as making 
the investments needed to support the military of tomorrow.
  It provides the proper financial support for our military personnel 
by providing a 3.7 percent pay raise for those in uniform and by 
reforming the pay tables for those critical mid-career, noncommissioned 
and petty officers.
  This legislation invests heavily in the important quality of life and 
health care accounts to ensure that we are not only able to recruit the 
best and brightest men and women in the military but also to keep them. 
That is extremely important to the defense of this Nation.
  Finally, by expanding access to TRICARE and by providing a pharmacy 
benefit to our Medicare-eligible retirees, this Congress is ensuring 
that a promise made is a promise kept.
  Despite these great accomplishments, we must also recognize that we 
still have much work to do. We must continue to address modernization 
and readiness accounts. We must eliminate the inequity caused by the 
prohibition against receiving retiree pay and disability pay. We must 
continue to invest in the most important aspect of our military, our 
people.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member. I urge my colleagues to pass 
this important legislation for our men and women in uniform, past 
present and the future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the conference report. 
I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member, for their hard 
work in putting together this legislation.
  This conference report contains a prescription drug benefit for 
seniors on Medicare, but only those seniors on Medicare that are 
military retirees. Like the Democratic Medicare prescription drug plan, 
on which the majority refused to allow a vote, this bipartisan 
prescription drug benefit is guaranteed and administered by a Federal 
agency.
  Unlike the Republican prescription drug plan, this bipartisan drug 
benefit does not throw military retirees to the whims of the private 
insurance companies that say they will not offer such insurance anyway.
  Like my bill, H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors 
Act, this bipartisan drug benefit gives seniors who are military 
retirees access to the best prices negotiated by the Federal 
Government: the Federal supply schedule price, the VA price, or an even 
lower price.
  Now, some in this body call H.R. 664 a price control bill. It is not 
since it does not set prices. It allows the government to negotiate 
lower prices on

[[Page H9643]]

drugs. But if one believes H.R. 664 involves price controls, then 
surely this Department of Defense drug benefit involves price controls. 
Both bills use the same mechanism.
  When this bill with the prescription drug benefit passed the House in 
May, 353 Members voted for it, including 208 Republicans. I ask those 
Members the following questions: If Congress can provide a government-
run prescription drug benefit to one segment of the Medicare eligible 
population, military retirees, why cannot it offer the same kind of 
benefit to the rest of our Nation's seniors?
  If Congress offers some seniors on Medicare discount drug prices 
negotiated by the Federal Government, why cannot it offer the rest of 
our seniors on Medicare the same discount prices?
  The answer is we can. The reason we do not is the undue hold the 
pharmaceutical industry has over the majority of this Congress.
  Military retirees need and deserve this bill's prescription drug 
benefit. I support it with enthusiasm. The tragedy is that Republicans 
will not do the same for all other seniors on Medicare.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute everybody that made this 
authorization bill work. It is a bill to be proud of.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the committee staff, 
members of the conference committee all came together and made a big 
difference on an issue that I have been hearing about, not only since I 
first got elected in 1994, but heard about from my grandfather who 
fought in World War II, who gave his entire life to the military, and 
yet, when he died, he was upset because his military and also his 
government did not keep the promises that they made to him about 
military health care.
  Well, this bill makes a big difference and moves us in that direction 
where a promise made to our brave fighting men and women when they 
first enlisted is now being kept.
  Again, everybody involved in this process should be saluted: 
certainly the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence); his tireless 
committee staff; members of the conference committee; the gentleman 
from Indiana (Chairman Buyer) on the House side that made a big 
difference. On the Senate side, of course, so many Senators helped out; 
but also people like the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), 
who, along with me and some others, have been fighting and talking with 
the leadership about how important this is; the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood), who has been fighting on military health care for so 
long; the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones); and so many others 
who understand we need a health care fix for our military retirees, and 
this does it.

                              {time}  1045

  It does several things. First of all, it is permanent. So it tells 
our military retirees that they can give up their supplemental health 
care insurance, that they are going to be taken care of. It also gives 
continuity to those who are going to enlist in this TRICARE plan by 
allowing them to stay with their physicians that they are with right 
now. How important that is.
  I will tell my colleagues that when I first held TRICARE hearings 
across my district back in 1997, I heard so many military retirees and 
their families telling me that they cannot afford to get into any 
TRICARE plan because they do not know how long it is going to last. 
Because of the fight of the House conferees who said we must make this 
benefit permanent, we must set up a trust fund and keep it in mandatory 
spending, because of that, this program will not be doomed to failure. 
This program will work, and it will keep the promise that was broken to 
my grandfather and millions of military men and women and their 
families and dependents who counted on the promise being kept.
  Today is a great day, and I am proud that I am going to have an 
opportunity to vote for this bill, a bill that I believe my grandfather 
would be proud of, were he still alive.
  I am also proud of another provision in here regarding a school 
project started by Hunter Scott. He was an eighth grader in my district 
when he started this fight, and now the crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis 
is going to be recognized for their bravery and their work in the 
closing days of World War II, and also it will be an honor to Captain 
McVay, too.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows), who has helped lead the way on this issue of 
health benefits for our retirees.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate his comments very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the defense authorization 
conference report. This bill will help promote a first-class military. 
When we pass this bill today, a great victory will be won for our 
military retirees.
  The problem is that the military retirees health care system fails to 
care for many of its people. This defense bill takes a giant step in 
correcting this injustice for our military retirees. They devoted their 
lives to defend this democracy. Many of them served in World War II, 
Korea, and Vietnam. And when they joined the service, they were 
promised lifetime health care, just like the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Scarborough) was talking about awhile ago, and they were hopefully 
getting it at military bases.
  In the old days, this system worked pretty well. But changes in the 
law made it very difficult to get and base closures eliminated care for 
many retirees and their families. Civilian retirees can join the 
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, which offers lots of health care 
options. At 65, FEHBP supplements Medicare and provides a very nice 
health care package when they need it the most. But TRICARE, the 
military health plan, ends at age 65. Military retirees get Medicare 
but nothing else if they cannot afford supplemental insurance.
  To correct this sad situation, and I want to mention my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), 
and Senators Tim Johnson, John McCain, and our esteemed colleague, Paul 
Coverdell, introduced the Keep Our Promise to America's Military 
Retirees Act, H.R. 3573. The Keep Our Promise Act has united military 
retirees and families across the country. Their billboards, bumper 
stickers, e-mails, phone calls, and letters to newspapers and Congress 
have educated us to their plight. Their persistence has gained the 
Promise Act 306 cosponsors in the House and 36 in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, we would not be here today debating this issue today 
without the grass roots support for the Shows-Norwood Keep Our Promise 
Act. The defense bill accomplishes part of what the Keep Our Promise 
Act would do by extending TRICARE to military retirees beyond age 65 as 
a supplement to Medicare. This is a great step in the right direction, 
but the defense bill does not do everything the Promise Act would do. 
The Promise Act would offer military retirees the option to participate 
in the FEHBP, because many retirees are not well served by TRICARE.
  So while we congratulate ourselves on a job well done, we must 
remember that this defense bill only begins to make good on the 
commitment we made to our military retirees. We need to pass the rest 
of the Keep Our Promise Act. It is the right thing to do. And I promise 
my colleagues that military retirees across the country will keep 
fighting for the benefits they were promised, earned and richly 
deserve.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and in strong 
support of the underlying legislation that will authorize spending for 
our Nation's military and spending for the Department of Energy's 
nuclear sites.
  This legislation represents a great leap forward in our Nation's 
military, and I would like to especially congratulate the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for their great effort over the past 6

[[Page H9644]]

years to ensure that our Nation's military is the best prepared in the 
world. It is only appropriate that this legislation before us today 
bears the name of our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence).
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus specifically on one provision that 
I am especially pleased was included in the final conference report. In 
the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress created the 
Office of River Protection to manage the Nation's largest environmental 
cleanup project, which is in my district. The River Protection project 
is charged with the safe cleanup and vitrification of 54 million 
gallons of highly radioactive liquid waste that is stored in 177 
underground storage tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in central 
Washington. Over one-third of these tanks have leaked over a million 
gallons to the ground, which could potentially endanger the Columbia 
River and the salmon populations within the Hanford Reach.
  The Office of River Protection was established to provide a 
streamlined management structure that would manage the program 
primarily at the site to allow for quick decisions and to cut through 
the DOE bureaucracy that too often impedes cleanup projects. 
Specifically, the head of the Office of River Protection was charged 
with managing all aspects of the River Protection project and was to 
report directly to the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental 
Management.
  Unfortunately, DOE headquarters has not followed the intent of this 
1999 legislation and continues to micromanage the Office of River 
Protection. This micromanagement has contributed to unprecedented 
frustration among the stakeholders, the State of Washington, other 
Federal agencies, Congress, and certainly the Tri-Cities communities 
that I represent.
  This year's defense authorization bill contains an amendment I 
offered in conference to clarify the role of the head of the Office of 
River Protection. The amendment clearly states that the Assistant 
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management shall delegate in 
writing responsibility for the Office of River Protection to the head 
of that office. Such delegation shall, at a minimum, include 
authorities from contracting, financial management, safety, and general 
program management equivalent to the authorities of other operations 
offices of the Department of Energy. This delegation must be completed 
and submitted to Congress within 30 days.
  I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, to the Department of 
Energy that Congress has taken this step because of our continuing 
concerns with the micromanagement of the office. It is time to put an 
end to this. I expect the Department to immediately provide the 
necessary authority to the head of the office for budgeting, 
contracting, and staffing.
  Further, I believe the Department must transfer the regulatory unit, 
now under the management of the Richland Operation Office, to the head 
of the Office of River Protection, to comply with this legislation. Now 
is the time for the Department to recognize the unique mission that 
Congress has provided to the Office of River Protection and to assist, 
not hinder, the office to its completion of this vital project.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment would not have been possible without the 
support of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and others that were on the 
conference. I also want to thank specifically the staff, Pete Berry and 
Steve Thompson, for assisting my office in working through this 
legislation.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We have heard several reasons for supporting this bill, including the 
pay raise for our armed forces and the health care for our retirees. I 
want to add one more reason to vote for this bill, and that is because 
of the provisions which enact an important agreement to save the 
drinking water for 25 million citizens in the Southwest United States.
  These provisions would move the largest uranium mine tailings pile 
that has ever threatened a drinking water supply in the U.S. The 
dangerous radioactive waste currently sits only 750 feet away from the 
Colorado River near Moab, Utah, where it threatens the drinking water 
of one-seventh of the United States, including people who live in Las 
Vegas, Arizona, and the Southern California urban areas of Los Angeles 
and, of course, the city I represent, San Diego.
  I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), for their 
leadership in moving this pile, which is as big as 118 football fields, 
rather than what was previously suggested, which was capping it in 
place. We have all fought for 3 years to prevent the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission from doing just that, capping the pile, because that would 
ensure that the poisonous waste would continue to leach into the 
Colorado River for almost 300 years.
  This bill gives jurisdiction to move the pile to the Department of 
Energy, which has the expertise and experience to relocate it to a 
secure, permanent, location, safely away from the Colorado River. I 
want to congratulate all those who have worked so hard to cement this 
agreement into law instead of allowing the capping of this huge pile of 
nuclear radioactive waste where it would nearly forever pollute the 
Southwest's drinking water. I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the Floyd D. Spence Authorization Act 
and encourage the adoption of this rule.
  This legislation contains many provisions that are important to the 
defense of this great Nation and to our veterans. However, I want to 
speak briefly on title 36 of the bill, which establishes the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to provide timely, 
uniform, and adequate compensation to employees or their survivors for 
illnesses incurred during the performance of their duties for the 
Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program.
  The legislation requires the President to submit to Congress by March 
15 of next year a legislative proposal that identifies the types and 
amendments of compensation for individuals whose health was adversely 
affected by their work at DOE facilities, and the procedures for 
providing those benefits and compensation. If Congress does not act by 
July 31, 2001, to enact a compensation program, eligible employees 
exposed to beryllium, radiation, and those working in gaseous diffusion 
plants will be entitled to a lump sum payment of $150,000 and medical 
care for their disease.
  I want to thank Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee and Senator George 
Voinovich of Ohio for their leadership and dedicated efforts on behalf 
of these workers. Without their efforts, we would not have this 
legislation today nor any other compensation legislation.
  Additionally, the bicameral bipartisan compromise that was reached on 
this program could not have been realized without the tireless efforts 
of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.  Wamp), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield), and their dedicated staffs, as well as Mr. Aleix Jarvis of 
my staff, who I want to thank for his efforts.
  I represent the Savannah River site. The workers there and at DOE 
facilities across the Nation dedicated their lives to winning the Cold 
War. They did what their country asked of them. Unfortunately, the 
Government was not always aware or up front about what they were being 
exposed to and the dangers it presented to their health. Today we 
acknowledge our mistakes, and I think it is only right that we correct 
this wrong.

                              {time}  1100

  This is a good bill. I think it is only fitting that this legislation 
that does so much for so many years by so many

[[Page H9645]]

bears the name of my friend and colleague, fellow South Carolinian 
(Chairman Spence) who has fought tirelessly for both the men and women 
in uniform and for those who once wore the uniform.
  I encourage adoption of this rule and passage of the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, H. Res. 616, which will 
allow the House to consider H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National 
Defense Authorization Act for 2001.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Rules crafted a rule that will 
waive all points of order against the conference report. A blanket 
waiver is efficient and would be consistent with the actions of this 
committee in the 106th Congress.
  I also want to commend the members of the House and Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and applaud the conferees for their deliberation and 
consideration of important measures included in the legislation.
  I am pleased that the conferees retained language from the Senate 
bill that establishes new and important resources for our Nation's 
firefighters. The provisions in my legislation, H.R. 1168, the FIRE 
Act, are included in the DOD authorization bill. The level of 
authorization may not be what we wanted it to be, but this is a 
beginning for our firefighters.
  We have dedicated our efforts, Mr. Speaker, to the six heroes who 
died in Worchester, Massachusetts, the firefighters. The $100 million 
that is authorized for this year and the $300 million that is 
authorized for 2002 are significant attempts to help the 32,000 fire 
departments and the million firefighters throughout America.
  Paid, combination, volunteer departments and emergency medical 
technicians will be eligible to apply for these grants.
  When appropriated, fire departments can hire personnel, purchase new 
and modernized equipment, provide fire prevention education programs 
and wellness programs for our firefighters to modify outdated fire 
stations. It sends the dollars directly to the departments to the 
communities in need through competitive grants without going through 
the State red tape.
  I want to thank all 284 cosponsors in this House, Mr. Speaker, for 
this important legislation and for their support and interest. I 
especially would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). 
This is a victory for our firefighters. I am honored to have been part 
of it. And again, I want to thank the committee, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report and the rule that brings this bill to the floor. I want to thank 
my good friend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for 
yielding me the time.
  There are many important functions of our Federal Government, Mr. 
Speaker, but probably no more important or more legitimate function 
than providing for our national defense. And I think it is very, very 
appropriate that this very strong pro-defense bill is named after our 
good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Floyd Spence) 
who has been such a leader in this area for so many years.
  But I particularly want to thank the conferees and everyone who has 
worked so hard on the provisions for the sick nuclear workers that the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) just detailed.
  While Oak Ridge is in the district of my friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), about half the people who work there live in my 
district. Over the years, several Oak Ridge nuclear workers suffering 
from beryllium disease and other health problems related to their work 
with radioactive material have come to me for assistance, and we have 
always tried to get them the help we could. But more needed to be done.
  I especially want to congratulate my constituent Ann Orick who really 
led the fight to call attention to the plight and the problems of these 
sick workers. And I want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) and Senator Thompson who really led the battle in this Congress 
to see that appropriate action was taken. I was pleased to assist them 
in their heroic efforts.
  Now, hopefully, these workers will receive compensation and, much 
more importantly, medical treatment for their illnesses. They served 
our country well and they deserve no less.
  I want to urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this conference 
report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago a bipartisan majority here in Congress 
passed the Defense budget that substantially increased funding for the 
Armed Forces, launching a rebuilding process that is gradually 
addressing the deficiencies in readiness and quality of life in 
military service that had developed over many years of post-Cold War 
downsizing.
  Rebuilding has not been as fast as I would like and certainly not as 
fast as the men and women at the bases located in the part of Georgia 
that I have the privilege of representing would like. But, on a 
bipartisan basis, we are moving in the right direction.
  For one thing, this bill authorizes a reorganization plan prepared by 
Army Secretary Caldera to shut down the School of the Americas at Fort 
Benning, Georgia, and to open a new program with a restructured 
curriculum and with a strong independent oversight that includes 
congressional representation on the school's board of visitors.
  This program, which teaches professionalism and the principles of 
democracy to Latin American military and government personnel, is an 
important instrument of U.S. policy in our hemisphere; and I commend 
Congress for its farsighted action on this issue.
  The bill also is commendable for stepping up the process of raising 
the quality of life for all Americans who are serving in our military 
and for those who faithfully served in the past. This includes the 
health care benefits for our veterans. And for active duty personnel, 
it includes a pay raise, new housing facilities and allowances, new 
reenlistment incentives, new child care centers, new educational 
assistance and establishment of a thrift savings plan, not to mention 
the funding for new equipment and weaponry that will greatly improve 
working conditions and our readiness.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill keeps our country moving in the right 
direction, and I urge all of our colleagues to give it their full 
support by voting for this rule and voting for the bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman (Mrs. Myrick) for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the Fiscal Year 
2001 Floyd D. Spence Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the conference, I am proud of the 
bipartisan bill the House and Senate agreed upon. Over the last 8 
years, the Clinton-Gore administration has cut defense spending to 
historic lows. In fact, the Service Chiefs have testified that there is 
still a mismatch between resources and requirements. The services are 
migrating funds from modernization accounts to operations and support 
accounts to maintain current readiness.
  This bill tries to lessen the current Clinton-Gore impact on long-
term readiness by increasing procurement accounts by $2.6 billion and 
increasing research and development accounts by $1 billion.
  The bill includes $688.6 million for the Joint Strike Fighter. Boeing 
recently flew their concept demonstrator at Edwards Air Force Base, and 
their competitor, Lockheed Martin, is scheduled to fly their version 
later this month.
  We have included language in the bill which will require the 
Department of Defense to perform a cost study of final assembly and 
checkout alternatives for the Joint Strike Fighter program. Studies 
have been done that show that $2.2 billion can be saved by building the 
Joint Strike Fighter in California. The

[[Page H9646]]

Joint Strike Fighter may be the last manned fighter ever built and is 
expected to be the fighter of choice by all three services and our 
allies, as well. The Joint Strike Fighter is important to our defense 
and to our economy.
  Also included is $115.3 million for research and development to 
modify the B-2 fleet. The B-2 Spirit of America is the Air Force's only 
all-weather, stealth, long-range bomber. The funds will be used to 
enhance the B-2 capabilities making it far more capable even than it 
was in Allied Force.
  A Link 16 and Center instrument display will give connectivity for 
in-flight re-planning. New bomb racks to carry state-of-the-art weapons 
will increase its lethality, and maintainability upgrades will increase 
its survivability.
  These are just a few examples of modernization efforts we have funded 
this year. Others have spoken of other things we have done to improve 
our readiness and enhance the quality of life for our troops. This is a 
good bill and a good rule, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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. Speaker, I support this rule. I also will 
support the conference report.
  The conference report does include some things that I do not like. It 
omits some things also that I think should been included, especially 
the hate-crimes provisions that were in the Senate bill and that the 
House instructed the conferees to accept.
  But I will support it because it includes vital legislation to set up 
a system of compensation and care for current and former nuclear 
weapons workers made sick by on-the-job exposure to radiation, 
beryllium, and other dangers.
  This has been a priority for me. For over a year, I have been working 
with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to achieve its enactment, 
and I am very pleased that the House today will be voting on it.
  This is a very important matter for our country. It is particularly 
important for many Coloradans because our State is home to the Rocky 
Flats site, which for decades was a key part of the nuclear weapons 
complex.
  Now that that site's military mission has ended and we are working 
hard to have Rocky Flats cleaned up and closed, we need to work just as 
hard to take care of the people who worked there.
  The people who worked at Rocky Flats and the other nuclear weapons 
sites were part of our country's defense just as much as those who wore 
the uniform of an armed service. They may not have been exposed to 
hostile fire, but they were exposed to radiation and beryllium and many 
other hazardous substances. And because of that, many have developed 
very serious illnesses while others will develop such illnesses in the 
future.
  Unfortunately, they have not been eligible for veterans' benefits and 
they will be excluded from other programs because they technically 
worked for DOE contractors and for far too long the Government was not 
on their side.
  To explain what I mean, let me summarize part of a recent statement 
by Dr. Lee Newman as it affects nuclear weapons workers. Dr. Newman 
says these workers were ``failed by the Federal Government in at least 
eight ways.''
  The Federal Government failed to adequately warn them. The Government 
failed to adequately protect them. The Government failed to institute 
medical monitoring. The Government failed to support investigation of a 
beryllium disease epidemic affecting them. The Government failed to 
support compensation claims they filed. The Government failed to do 
enough to reduce exposure, provide education, and detect early disease. 
The Government failed to support adequate research on treatment. And 
the Government failed to study and act on other occupation illnesses, 
including ones now covered by the conference report now before us.
  Now, the good news is that things have changed. Secretary Richardson 
and the administration have reversed a decades-old policy of opposing 
workers' claims. Now we in the Congress need to finish the job. Today, 
by approving the conference report, we can start to do just that.
  I am not saying this is perfect legislation. In fact, I think it can 
be further refined to include wages that workers lost because of these 
illnesses. But we are nearing the end of this Congress and time is of 
the essence, so we should adopt this rule and pass the conference 
report in order to take this essential first step.
  Mr. Speaker, we must pass this conference report today.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I, like others, rise in strong support of 
this Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense conference report.
  I support this bill because we must reverse the downward spiral in 
defense spending that we have seen for more than a decade. That spiral 
has seriously undermined our readiness, modernization, recruitment, and 
retention efforts.
  It has been my honor to represent the men and women serving in the 
military at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. This legislation is important to 
them because it provides those soldiers a 3.7 percent pay raise and 
provides up to $500 a month to assist soldiers and families who are 
forced to live on food stamps.
  For our military retirees, this bill finally fulfills the promise 
made when they joined the service years ago. It guarantees a lifetime 
health care benefit for all retirees and their eligible family members. 
For Department of Energy contract and vendor employees, this bill 
establishes the first Federal program to compensate workers who have or 
will contract beryllium disease or certain cancers resulting from 
radiation exposure.
  At a minimum, workers will be entitled to a $150,000 lump sum payment 
plus medical expenses. For the employees that I represent at that 
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant who have been unknowingly exposed to 
contaminated uranium, plutonium, neptunium, and other hazardous 
substances while producing the materials needed to sustain our nuclear 
weapons arsenal throughout the Cold War, approval of this compensation 
package was a hard-fought and long-overdue victory.

                              {time}  1115

  I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and all of those on both sides 
of the aisle who worked on this important compensation package, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham) on our side, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kanjorski) and others. This is an important piece of legislation. 
It corrects some long overdue inequities.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this Department of Defense 
conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I rise 
in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Conference 
Report, H.R. 4205. I would like to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
subcommittee chairs, ranking members and all committee staff who have 
worked so hard to get this bill ready.
  This year's bill makes great strides towards improving modernization, 
quality of life and military readiness. First, military health care is 
getting on the right track, but there is still a lot we need to do. 
Second, recruiting and retention are showing signs of improvement, but 
it will be a constant challenge during strong economies and changing 
demographics.
  One area that I have been working on is to better inform our service 
members about the true value of the total compensation that they get in 
the military. If younger service members fully understand the value of 
all their benefits, then they may opt to stay in military service more 
often.
  Third, I would like to commend the committee on their work in 
improving

[[Page H9647]]

the research and development accounts, specifically science and 
technology. R&D is the future of this Nation's defense. We should not 
shortchange our future to fund today. Research and development is 
critical because it maintains our technological edge and helps our 
service people with the growing and changing needs of our national 
security.
  Finally, I would like to commend the committee for looking at 
California as a potential production site for the Joint Strike Fighter. 
Building the Joint Strike Fighter in California would save taxpayers 
billions of dollars through State-sponsored economic incentives and by 
using existing production facilities. If we are asking taxpayers to 
support the best manned, equipped, and trained fighting force in the 
world, actually in the history of the world, then we must ensure that 
it is as cost effective as possible for taxpayers.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I note with dismay but 
unfortunately not with surprise that the hate crimes bill which got a 
majority vote in both houses is absent from this bill.
  Let me say we have seen this scenario before, Mr. Speaker. A majority 
vote, according to the rules, for a certain result and the people in 
power blatantly ignore the wishes of the majority. Now, that describes 
two recent situations: the Serbian presidential election and the 
conference committee on the defense bill. In the case of the Serbian 
election, when the Milosevic regime refused to pay attention to 
majority rule, the people found a way to remedy it. Here, a majority in 
both houses voted, a significant majority, for the hate crimes bill. 
Yet the people in power, emulating Milosevic, have decided to repudiate 
the results of the election. I hope a similar result will ensue.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the 
rule and the conference report for the Floyd Spence National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001.
  First let me congratulate Chairman Spence, Ranking Member Ike 
Skelton, and all the conferees for their hard work and dedication to 
the men and women who serve in our armed forces.
  I know that this was a difficult conference, with many hard issues to 
resolve, however the end product before us today has certainly been 
worth the wait.
  Mr. Speaker, I am specially grateful to the conferees for including 
important provisions, which address the needs of thousands of workers, 
including workers in my home state of Ohio, who were exposed to 
dangerous levels of radiation, beryllium, and other toxic substances 
while working on our nation's nuclear weapons programs.
  While these workers never served in our military, they nevertheless 
helped us to win the Cold War.
  Sadly, many of these workers today are suffering from debilitating 
diseases directly related to plant conditions.
  The compensation package, included in this conference report 
represents a major step in recognizing their service and will provide 
needed help and assistance to these individuals and their families, who 
are suffering from illness due to exposure.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the conferees for helping 
to keep our promise to our military retirees, their families, and their 
survivors by: Restoring military healthcare as a benefit for life; 
Providing comprehensive pharmacy benefits; Extending the Tricare Senior 
Prime Program; and, Reducing the healthcare ``out of pocket'' expenses 
for all our military retirees from $7,500 to just $3,000.
  We can never fully repay the debt of gratitude we own the men and 
women who freely choose to serve in our armed forces.
  However, these needed provisions maintain our commitment, improve 
their quality of life, and will truly make a difference in the lives of 
those who served and sacrificed for our nation with honor and 
distinction.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and this very important 
conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, adoption of the 
conference report, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4205) 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Pursuant to House Resolution 
616, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 6, 2000 at page H9053.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, the fiscal year 2001 defense authorization 
bill has been a bipartisan effort from start to finish. In May, the 
bill was reported out of the Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 
56-1. Later in May, the bill passed the House on a vote of 353-63. Now, 
I am pleased to report that all Armed Services Committee conferees in 
both the House and the Senate have chosen to sign this conference 
report in the latest reflection of the broad bipartisan support for 
this legislation.
  This is not to mean that this has been an easy process. We faced 
having to reach agreement on over 800 legislative provisions, dealing 
with a broad range of topics, many having little or nothing to do with 
defense. However, with the strong cooperation of all Members on both 
sides of the aisle and a determination to once again complete our work 
prior to adjournment, we are able to present to the House a strong 
agreement that furthers the national security of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents 6 years in a row that 
Congress has increased the level of defense spending requested by the 
President. Consistent with the budget resolution, this bill authorizes 
$4.5 billion above the budget request in order to address urgent 
shortfalls in key readiness problems, modernization and personnel 
accounts. The four military service chiefs, in testimony before the 
Armed Services Committees, have repeatedly itemized these shortfalls in 
great detail. While this bill will not eliminate these shortfalls, it 
will go a significant way toward addressing the most urgent of these 
requirements.
  I have said many a time that we are facing a military crisis in this 
country. Notwithstanding the efforts of Congress, the readiness and 
combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces continue to decline. 
Irrespective of who wins the election in November, America faces a 
fundamental national security choice next year. Either we accept our 
role as the sole global superpower and step up and provide our military 
with the associated necessary resources, or we decline this difficult 
responsibility and start to walk away. I believe the choice should be 
clear, but continuing to attempt to fulfill our superpower 
responsibilities on the cheap is simply no longer an option. We are 
running our military into the ground, continuing to lose our most 
valuable national resource, our men and women in uniform, and falling 
further behind the urgent need to recapitalize the force.
  With that admonition, Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly cover two 
aspects of the conference report that deserve particular attention. 
Others will highlight the other important provisions in the conference 
report.
  First, this bill continues the work started by Congress last year in 
addressing the serious problem facing our military retiree programs. 
Last year, we successfully reformed the military retirement system and 
restored confidence in a program that had lost its appeal in attracting 
and retaining our best and brightest Americans into military service. 
This year, we continued this support by tackling an even thornier 
problem, the military health care system, and, in particular, access to 
adequate health care by the oldest

[[Page H9648]]

portion of our military retirees, those who currently lose access to 
military care when they become eligible for Medicare.
  This conference report allows Congress to finally fulfill the pledge 
given to millions of military retirees that they would receive lifetime 
medical coverage in exchange for their selfless military service to the 
Nation. The conference agreement would establish a permanent program 
for all Medicare eligible military retirees and dependents to receive 
lifetime coverage under the TRICARE health care program. The bill would 
also provide a much-needed expansion of prescription drug coverage to 
ensure that all retirees have full access to this critical military 
benefit.
  Finally, the conference agreement recognizes the need to continue to 
aggressively improve the TRICARE system program as it takes on an 
expanded beneficiary population.
  Mr. Speaker, the second area I wanted to briefly cover involves the 
difficult question of how best to compensate Department of Energy and 
contractor employees suffering from the ill effects of exposure to 
radiation and other hazardous substances. This becomes one of the most 
difficult issues in conference and it raises a series of very complex 
and difficult policy questions. However, I am pleased to note that the 
conference agreement includes landmark legislation establishing a new 
energy employees occupational illness compensation program. This 
program establishes statutory eligibility for workers exposed to 
radiation, beryllium and silica in the course of carrying out their 
work in the United States nuclear weapons complex. I believe this is a 
just and fitting response by Congress to the tragic situation facing 
these courageous Americans who played an important but often 
unrecognized role in helping us win the Cold War.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a result of hundreds of 
compromises with the Senate. In this regard, the outcomes are not all 
what we would like them to be. However, it remains a sound and balanced 
proposal that deserves the full support of my colleagues. That is what 
conferences are all about, compromise. We are able to bring this 
legislation today before us as a result of the hard work and commitment 
to success by all conferees in both parties on both sides of the aisle, 
from both houses. In particular, the critical roles played by the 
Committee on Armed Services subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking 
members deserve mention. We unfortunately lost our good friend and 
Readiness Subcommittee chairman Herb Bateman before we began the final 
work on our bill. But Herb's characteristic imprints are all over this 
bill and its many provisions to shore up sagging military readiness. I 
also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), for another very productive effort in guiding this bill 
through the process in an open and bipartisan fashion. In our 
committee, bipartisanship is not merely talk. It is the only way to 
approach the very difficult national security issues we must address.
  I also want to thank Chairman Warner and his colleagues on the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for sharing our mutual commitment to complete 
the conference report in spite of overwhelming odds. It is this 
continued bipartisan and bicameral commitment that allows Congress to 
provide this critical legislation every year.
  Finally, I want to single out the extraordinary efforts of my friend 
and colleague the gentlewoman from Jacksonville, FL (Mrs. Fowler) who 
as a senior member of the committee and of the House leadership team 
has been an indispensable ally in helping us arrive at the best 
possible outcomes on so many issues.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is important to our troops, to our 
military families, to our military retirees, and to the continued 
protection of our national security. It deserves a strong vote of 
confidence in this body. I would ask my colleagues to vote accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

                              {time}  1130

  It is appropriate that this bill has been named in honor of our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). 
I want to commend him for his leadership throughout the long and 
sometimes difficult deliberations on this legislation. We produced an 
excellent bill for national defense, and this conference report 
deserves the support of all the Members in the House.
  This conference report builds upon the President's budget proposal 
for defense and makes important improvements in military quality of 
life, readiness, and modernization programs. Moreover, this bill will 
keep the promise of lifetime health care for all military retirees. We 
have been working to make this the year of military health care, and I 
am proud of those Members of our committee on both sides of the aisle 
who worked so diligently to improve health care for our military 
retirees, as well as for the active duty service members and their 
families.
  I want to especially recognize the efforts of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), 
the chairman and ranking member of our Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has 
been a leader in this effort from the beginning.
  For military retirees, the conference report provides permanent 
medical coverage under TRICARE for military retirees over age 65; 
expands and makes permanent TRICARE Senior Prime, also known as 
Medicare Subvention, provided Congress approves a new agreement; 
establishes a permanent pharmacy benefit with access to the national 
mail order program and retail pharmacies; and reduces catastrophic 
expenses from $7,500 to $3,000 for retired TRICARE beneficiaries.
  Mr. Speaker, for active duty service members and their families, the 
conference report provides TRICARE Prime Remote to active duty family 
members; eliminates copayments for active duty family members in 
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote; phases in chiropractic care to 
active duty personnel; reimburses certain travel expenses for military 
families who must travel to a referred specialist; eliminates certain 
referral requirements for specialty care; and improves TRICARE claims 
processing and reduces costs.
  In addition to these health care improvements, I am pleased that the 
conference report includes increases in funding for the procurement of 
weapons, ammunition and equipment, for research and development, and 
for operations and maintenance.
  The conference report supports the important Army transformation 
initiative, recognizing the need for the Army to build a medium weight 
force that is capable of quickly deploying to a full spectrum of 
contingencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this conference report includes 
authorization for the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program. This program will help compensate those thousands 
of workers who become ill from exposure to dangerous levels of 
radiation, beryllium, and other toxic substances while they worked in 
our Nation's nuclear weapons programs. These workers are the unsung 
heroes of our victory in the Cold War, and it is only appropriate that 
we acknowledge their sacrifice and compensate them for their illnesses.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is the result of cooperation and 
compromise between the House and the Senate and between Members of both 
sides of the aisle. It deserves strong bipartisan support, and I urge 
all Members to vote for the approval of this conference report, which 
is named appropriately so for our chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement.
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from

[[Page H9649]]

South Carolina (Mr. Spence), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence) also for his great leadership in maneuvering this bill 
through some pretty tough waters here in the last several weeks, and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his leadership; and also 
for my ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), who 
worked as my partner to help put together the procurement package that 
is manifest in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just run over a few things that we did for the 
services. The Army General Shinseki needed a light armored force that 
could be quickly moved around the world to react to emergencies. We do 
not have that capability right now. We have heavy armor, and we have 
soft bodies in the airborne groups. We do not have that ability to move 
a light armor around; and he is working to develop that transformed 
Army, and we rewarded his initiative with some money to put these first 
several brigades of new Army units together.
  He is moving out on that program. With respect to the Navy, we 
preserved the option to keep some 688 submarines that otherwise would 
be junked or retired because of refueling costs. We put in money to 
refuel them so we can get that attack submarine force up from the 56 or 
so boats that we have now up to around 65 or 70.
  With respect to the Air Force, we reinstated the caps for the F-22; 
but we gave a little breathing room, a percent and a half of breathing 
room, for EMD so they can have a robust testing and manufacturing 
program for the F-22. We think that is important for the Air Force.
  Now we still have major problems with procurement, and we are 
spending $30 billion too little annually to upgrade the force structure 
that we have now to keep modern equipment in the force structure that 
we have now.
  The Joint Chiefs testified the other day, General Shinseki, that we 
are $3 billion short on critical ammunition supplies for the Army. The 
CNO testified that we have about a 50 percent shortage of Tomahawk 
missiles and the Air Force said we are 50 percent short of munitions. 
We have a lot of ground to make up. We are going to try to do that in 
the next year or so, but this was a good bipartisan bill and a good 
start.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), did not tell the whole story; but this 
conference report includes over $63 billion for procurement. That is a 
lot of money, but I believe it gets America more than the number might 
indicate. In fact, I would call this America's first true post-Cold War 
defense budget.
  The reduction in the size of our military forces begun in 1990 is 
largely complete. Troop numbers are stable, and this year's 
authorization uses the power of technology to equip those forces to do 
a more effective job and with less risk to our troops. It begins to 
outfit those troops to meet the missions they are likely to face today 
and tomorrow. We authorize and fully fund the Army's bold effort to 
become faster and more mobile without losing its punch. The Air Force 
will move into the 21st century with the immensely capable F-22 
fighter; and the Navy gets new technology, ships and creative ways to 
buy them that will defend the taxpayers' wallets.
  The procurement program in this bill does not provide all the 
answers, but it should eliminate a lot of questions about whether 
America's military is ready for today's challenges.
  Finally, let me commend my friend and subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for the cooperation he and the 
staff showed in putting our title together. I commend to the attention 
of other Members the fact that the staff of the Committee on Armed 
Services is bipartisan in intent and in effect. In large part, this is 
why this bill turned out so well for the country and for Members 
interested in national defense.
  The bottom line is, we must never forget why we are here and what 
this bill is really for. This bill supports the great young military 
men and women who protect our freedom. It provides equipment and 
training, keeps commitments for health care and supports their 
families. I ask all my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this will be very brief also. I 
want to clarify an aspect of section 3303 of the conference report 
which provides in part for the cleanup of uranium mill tailings from 
the former Atlas uranium mine.
  The bill language directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a 
remediation plan with the help of the National Academy of Sciences to 
determine the right way to remediate this site. Elsewhere in this 
provision is other bill language which appears to define remediation as 
being relocation of the tailings pile. I am concerned that someone 
might view this language as authorizing removal of the tailings pile 
regardless of the findings of the NAS or the remediation plan developed 
by the Secretary.
  My understanding is that we are authorizing an objective threshold 
determination by the Secretary of Energy, with the advice of the 
National Academy of Sciences, on whether or not the Atlas pile needs to 
be moved, and that only if a determination to move the pile is made 
would the condition apply that the pile must be moved out of the 
Colorado floodplain to another location in the State of Utah.
  Is this the understanding of the gentleman of how this provision will 
operate?
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) for his inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. We expect the Secretary will 
develop a remediation plan that fully considers the recommendation of 
the National Academy of Sciences in order to reach an objective 
determination by the Secretary on whether the pile should be relocated 
or simply treated in place.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services for his response.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say I adopt the remarks made by the ranking 
member and the chairman as well as my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), with respect to this bill. I am a strong 
supporter of its provisions as it deals with readiness and as it deals 
with quality of life for our members of the armed services.
  I want to talk about really an extraneous provision on this bill 
which I am very pleased with. The National Commission on Fire 
Prevention and Control issued a report in 1973 called America Burning. 
For the Fire Service, this was a turning point in its 350-year history. 
This is another turning point. The fire package attached to this 
conference report is a scaled-back version of legislation offered by my 
good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). The 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has championed his fire act 
tirelessly for the past 2 years. Some told the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) that it would not happen.
  I note that on the floor today, as well, is my good friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who cochairs the Fire Service 
Caucus with me. He and I are still working on getting an additional 
$100 million in emergency funds available for our fire fighters.
  To the credit of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), he 
never lost faith. He pushed and working together with all of us in the 
Fire Service Caucus, and I note the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) is also on the floor with me. We have one of the finest pieces 
of legislation for fire fighters this Congress has ever passed, and I 
thank the chairman. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and Senator

[[Page H9650]]

Warner as well, for their leadership and help on this, and congratulate 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his work on this as 
well.
  To his credit, he never lost faith. He pushed, cajoled, and lobbied 
tirelessly to move his legislation forward. As a cochair of the Fire 
Caucus I would like to thank him, the Fire Service organizations and 
literally thousands of fire fighters from across the Nation for all 
their hard work.
  I would also like to thank my fellow cochairs Rob Andrews, Curt 
Weldon, and Sherry Boehlert for all their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before this is a watershed moment for the Fire 
Service and I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to 
thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence), for this conference report. No one has done more in this 
Congress over the past 6 years and beyond on behalf of America's 
national security than the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). 
He has been a tireless advocate for our military, and it is appropriate 
that we name this bill in his honor. It has been my pleasure and honor 
to serve with him and under him.
  Equally, I am proud to serve with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), a real gentleman and someone who is always doing what is best 
for our service personnel. I want to pay special attention to those 
Members who will not be coming back with us. We lost Herb Bateman this 
year, one of our real giants in the Congress. We all miss him because 
of his leadership on defense issues.
  I want to add our thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Fowler) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for their service on 
the committee, but I want to especially single out my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett). He has been my ranking member on 
the subcommittee for 6 years. I am proud of the fact that we have never 
had a split vote on any issue in 6 years. Now, that speaks to how we 
can work together with almost 30 members of the committee on issues 
that are important to America's security.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) for being an 
outstanding American. I appreciate his work.
  In terms of the overall bill and R&D, we made the best of a bad 
situation. In my opinion, this bill is not adequate to meet the defense 
needs when we couple the decreasing defense spending with massively 
increasing use of our troops and a total disregard for proliferation. 
Therefore, our rogue state enemies have technologies that we did not 
expect them to have for 15 or 20 years because arms control agreements 
have not been enforced. In the R&D area, the administration cut R&D 
spending by 25 percent over the last 8 years. We have gradually tried 
to reverse that. This year's bill adds a billion dollars under the R&D 
account lines.

                              {time}  1145

  We focus on the three newest threats that we see emerging in the 21st 
century:
  One, the threat of missile proliferation. We increase funding for 
both theater missile defense and national missile defense;
  Two, the threat from the use of weapons of mass destruction, and we 
increase funding significantly in that area;
  Finally, the threat from information warfare or cyberterrorism. We 
increase funding in that area. We created a special core of young 
people to deal with the issue of information dominance and 
cyberterrorism.
  We also deal with the issue of establishing a Federal-wide national 
data fusion center.
  Several Members have talked about an add-on to the bill. Contrary to 
what has been said, it was an entirely new initiative for our domestic 
defenders. It has not just one part, but seven key parts.
  First of all, it takes technology from the military and establishes a 
deliberate mechanism with the fire service groups to transfer that 
technology to our domestic defenders.
  Number two, it elevates our fire and EMS community to get first 
access to surplus equipment that the military no longer has a need of.
  Number three, it includes the bill authored by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), our good friend, which I cosponsored with him, to 
deal with a $10 million authorization for Hepatitis C demonstration 
projects in both our cities and within the military emergency response 
community.
  Number four, it has the military look at the whole access of 
frequency spectrum, and to deal with that.
  It also includes a provision for funding.
  These are all new initiatives. It is the domestic defender package. I 
am proud that this Congress for the first time in 40 years did 
something besides talk about the fire service in America.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4205, the 
Chairman Floyd Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2001.
  I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for a good, good job, and of course 
the other Members and the staff.
  I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the significant 
contributions of our recently deceased subcommittee chairman and 
colleague, Herb Bateman. He contributed immeasurably to the committee, 
the Congress, and the Nation. Few have been willing to take the extra 
steps and extraordinary measures he took while serving this great 
Nation. We will sorely miss him.
  We will also miss the active participation and support of my good 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), 
who have chosen not to return to this body next session. We wish them 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, on balance, I believe the readiness portion of the bill 
is a significant and prudent step in the right direction. It is not all 
that I would like to see, but we could definitely not satisfy all the 
different requests that we had.
  This year, just over $1 billion have been added to the readiness 
accounts. Members will find increases for those activities that 
contribute directly to increased readiness. Funding has been included 
for flying hours for the Air Force and Naval Reserve units, depot 
maintenance for active and reserve components, real property 
maintenance, the Marine Corps' corrosion control program, army range 
modernization, impact aid funding, cold weather equipment for 
personnel, and other items too numerous to mention here.
  Many of the programs we were able to fund in the bill address the 
Services's unfunded requirements.
  There are also a number of policies that will have a direct impact on 
readiness. For example, we tasked the Department to provide the 
Congress information on requirements to reduce the backlog in 
maintenance.
  I ask my friends and colleagues to support this nonpartisan bill. It 
is a good bill. We request their vote.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I do not believe I could take 3 minutes to describe all of the work 
that has been done in the personnel section of this bill, so I want to 
take a moment and pay some tribute and thanks.
  I want to thank in particular the chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
because when the Buyer proposal to extend health care for life to the 
military retirees came up, they said yes. They backed it up.
  Then they went to the leadership, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, said yes, and put the pressure 
then on the Senate; not that the Senate did not

[[Page H9651]]

particularly want to go in that direction. They have their own problems 
in the Senate. But in fact, the conference committee came together, and 
we are keeping faith with America's veterans.
  Let us talk about motive for a moment. I am going to make an appeal 
to the country. Why should we be doing this? I think it is very simple. 
The motivation behind my efforts is this: When I think of the World War 
II and the Korean War veterans, who are now over 65, they fought for 
freedom.
  They were truly crusaders. They fought for no bounty of their own. 
They protected the borders and the interests of our Nation, as they 
also sought freedom for people around the world. Yet, when they came 
home and then they retired, and now they are over 65, they are not 
free. How ironic that those who fought for freedom are not free.
  People say, ``What do you mean, Steve, they are not free?'' They do 
not have freedom of movement. They retired next to a medical treatment 
facility. Then we go through a base closure, and then all of a sudden 
they lose that retirement benefit.
  This bill gives freedom, freedom to those who fought for it. They now 
do not have to live next to a military medical treatment facility. They 
can live anywhere they choose around the country. If they want to go 
now to be with their children so they can spend out the years with 
their grandchildren, they can do it.
  We also included in here a pharmacy benefit that is an earned 
benefit. What we sought to do is to give that over 65 military retiree 
the greatest arena of choice. So now they can go to the medical 
treatment facility for their drugs if they like, they can utilize the 
mail order pharmacy. We have a retail network. Then if they do not like 
the formulary, the list of those drugs, they can even go to an out-of-
retail network.
  I am going to throw a caveat out here on all the good things we have 
done on health care. I am going to speak directly now to the seniors 
who are about to use this program. There are no co-pays and there are 
no deductibles. If the utilization rates get out of whack, we are going 
to come back here and impose co-pays and deductibles. They have been 
extended by this Congress as an earned yet generous benefit. Do not 
abuse it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), who has chosen to leave this 
body, but leaves a tremendous record of service to our Nation.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I appreciate the kind remarks from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton). I also want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) for his leadership on the Committee on Armed 
Services, and particularly I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development, for being such a pleasure to work with on 
this subcommittee.
  The conferees are to be commended for this conference report, and in 
particular, for the military research and development program. The 
level of authorization for R&D provided over and above the 
administration's request, some $1 billion more, provides an impressive 
total of $38.8 billion for research, development, tests, and 
evaluation. The report strikes an excellent balance between mature R&D 
programs and investment for additional leap-ahead technologies.
  Major programs, such as the F-22 Raptor, Comanche, and Army 
Transformation Plan, will continue as programmed. In addition, the 
report deals responsibly with the Joint Strike Fighter program, given 
recent program slippage, and also robustly funds anti-submarine warfare 
initiatives.
  The outcome for the DD-21 program should give the Department ample 
room to make successful adjustments in this program. Investments for 
leap-ahead technologies included in this conference report represent an 
even greater commitment to confront the evolving asymmetrical threats 
of the future.
  The conferees agreed to provide additional assistance for combatting 
terrorism, for overhead reconnaissance capabilities, and for enhancing 
the security measures for information systems.
  Other provisions also provided additional investments for an 
assortment of promising battle management systems, next-generation 
night vision capabilities, radars, lasers, and sensors.
  This is a conference report that strikes a constructive balance 
between short-term and long-term investments. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the 
conference report on the fiscal year 2001 defense authorization bill. 
This will be my last time to come to the well to support a defense 
authorization bill. This is the eighth one in my eighth year, and this 
is one of the best we have had.
  I want to thank the generous and kind remarks that were made by my 
chairman and some of the members of the Committee.
  I first want to pay tribute, again, to a really dear departed 
colleague, Herb Bateman, who worked so hard on the readiness portion of 
this bill. Herb's contributions to this legislation were critical, and 
this bill may be the best evidence ever of his unyielding commitment to 
our Nation's military readiness and our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, we do have a readiness crisis 
in our military today. Last year, during a visit to Naval Air Station 
Jacksonville, I learned that only four of 21 P-3 aircraft based there 
could even get off the ground due to spare parts shortages and other 
maintenance shortfalls.
  I checked back on the status of the wing just last month, a year 
later, to see how many of those aircraft now were rated mission 
capable. The number had risen. Now seven out of the 21 could fly, but 
of those seven, only two were fully mission capable.
  Meanwhile, this administration's own Defense Science Board Task Force 
on Quality of Life has found that the majority of our military and 
family housing is unsuitable. The current Navy building replacement 
rate is roughly 175 years. In the Air Force alone today, we have a real 
property maintenance backlog of some $4.3 billion. Our most recent 
readiness reports indicate that over half of the Army's combat training 
centers scored the lowest possible rating, a C-4.
  I want to just quote a General commanding one of those elite training 
schools: ``This mode of operation cannot be sustained another year 
without incurring unacceptable safety risks and severe training quality 
degradation.''
  These are not the exceptions, these are the rule. They should remain 
troubling to every Member of this body. This outstanding bill goes to 
correct some of these troubling readiness issues.
  Among other things, this bill would authorize a $1 billion increase 
in funding for critical readiness accounts, including an additional 
$335 million for Depot Maintenance; $223 million for spare parts; and 
$428 million for real property maintenance. These budget adjustments 
reflect badly needed increases to deal with serious readiness problems 
facing our military today.
  Aside from authorizing key programs, this bill contains many 
important policy measures aimed at improving our ability to track 
military readiness. Moreover, the bill includes a modified version of 
H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000, including 
provisions to speed payments to heavily impacted school districts, 
authorize the Secretary of Education to provide grants to school 
districts unable to raise funds through local bond efforts to renovate 
and repair schools, and other key steps.
  This outstanding bill strongly merits the House's support. It 
contains landmark legislation to provide health care and pharmacy 
benefits to our military retirees, addresses the health care needs of 
our nation's nuclear workers, and achieves significant savings through 
multiyear procurement authorities. It is a fitting tribute to the man 
for whom it is named, Armed Services Committee chairman Floyd D. 
Spence, who has labored tirelessly for months to produce the excellent 
bill before us today. I also would take a moment to express my deepest 
appreciation to the committee staff for their hard work. I urge 
adoption of this outstanding legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill merits the House support.

[[Page H9652]]

  I want to thank the chairman, who has worked tirelessly to bring this 
bill to the floor and for whom it is named, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence). He has spent many hours on this.
  I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), for all his hard work.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who did so very much to further the health 
care issue along that is reflected in this legislation.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the previous speaker and every 
speaker, every person who serves in this body, that Article 1, Section 
8 of the Constitution says it is Congress' job to provide for the 
national defense. It goes on to say in Article 1, Section 9 of the 
Constitution that no money may be drawn from the Treasury except by 
consequence of an appropriation by Congress.
  If there are too few ships, if there are too few planes, if the 
people are underpaid, living in poor housing, it is because Congress 
has failed its job. It is that simple.
  Mr. Speaker, the day the Republican majority took over Congress, 
there were 392 ships. At this date, it is 318. In the last 6 years the 
Democrats ran the House, there were 56 ships put in the budget. In the 
past 6 years, the Republican Congress has put in 33.

                              {time}  1200

  We have done some great things on health care. We have done some 
great things on other things, but there is a heck of a lot of work to 
be done. Tonight there will be a presidential debate. Both candidates 
will unfortunately spend all their time talking about tax breaks of a 
nonexistent surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind them that until we get kids out of 30-
year-old helicopters, till we get those young Americans who are serving 
our country out of 30-year-old airplanes, until we get to a point where 
we are going to have more than a 200-ship Navy, because at the present 
procurement rates, that is where we are going to be at no time at all, 
then there is no money for tax breaks, because the highest priority for 
this Nation, the highest priority for this Congress should and must 
always be to provide for the common defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill because it does a lot 
of good things, but before one of my colleagues comes to this floor and 
says we have plenty of money for tax breaks, let me remind them of all 
the work that still remains to be done.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of our Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, which is very aptly named for the distinguished gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for the hard work he 
has put into this.
  This is, as has just been pointed out by statements that have been 
made here, a measure that enjoys bipartisan support. We are extremely 
proud over the past several years we have been able to take on this 
issue of rebuilding our national defense. It has been a very high 
priority. It was stated here very clearly by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Speaker Hastert) at the beginning of the 106th Congress that 
as we looked at the four issues with which we were going to deal, 
improving public education, providing tax relief to working families, 
saving Social Security and Medicare, clearly, as has been pointed out, 
rebuilding our Nation's capability has been a top priority. That is 
exactly what this legislation and the conference report which we are 
considering will be doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially express my appreciation for a 
very important provision in this measure which deals with the issue of 
exportation of the export of computers. I believe that we have come to 
a very important compromise on this, which does reduce the time level, 
but at the same time, underscores our commitment to our national 
defense. I appreciate my colleagues for doing that, and I thank the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for joining with me in that 
effort.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is in the forefront of the military 
retiree effort, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel.
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report for the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act. I 
say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), I like the sound 
of that title. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
  I want to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman 
Spence) for his leadership and stewardship of the past several years. 
While he will step down as chairman next year, I know that he will 
continue to contribute to the committee's efforts to improve the 
quality of life for our service members and their families and provide 
for a strong national defense.
  I would also like to acknowledge the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member, for his guidance and leadership. Both 
individuals have placed the security of our country above partisan 
struggle and have continued the committee's tradition of bipartisanship 
and cooperation.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I am 
proud to say that the conference agreement before us includes quite a 
list of accomplishments in the personnel arena. We are sending a strong 
signal to the men and women in uniform that we have listened to their 
concerns about their need to provide for a quality of life for 
themselves and their families, and we have taken the steps to address 
those concerns.
  I also am particularly pleased that a number of health care 
provisions that I proposed have been adopted. I want to recognize the 
efforts of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel chairman, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), for his dedication and commitment 
to improving the lives of our service members.
  Working together, and I want to emphasize that point, Mr. Speaker, 
working together, we have made major strides in providing for our 
service members, retirees, and their families.
  Finally, I would like to thank the full committee staff and, in 
particular, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel staff, including 
Debra Wada, Nancy Warner, John Chapla, Mike Higgins and Ed Eyatt. It is 
a terrific team, Mr. Speaker, one that this body can be proud of; and 
it exemplifies the kind of staff work that the entire community of 
people throughout the United States can be proud of. The scope of their 
assistance is immeasurable.
  Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by referring to one of the most 
important aspects of the bill, which is the promise that we keep our 
Medicare-eligible military retirees to restore access to lifetime 
military health care. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has gone 
into this in some detail.
  The conference agreement allows the Medicare-eligible retirees who 
are currently forced out of the system when they turn 65 to continue 
their coverage under TRICARE. Mr. Speaker, I realize I am at the end of 
my remarks, but I would like to emphasize as I close that the 
bipartisanship that we have enjoyed I hope will continue regardless of 
what happens in November, and I for one am pledged to it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary to remind our colleagues that it 
was the administration that cut the defense budget and this Congress 
has added back $60 billion over the past 5 years, and we still need to 
do more.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), who is the chairman of our DOE panel.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report, but I also rise in appreciation of the work of the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) as he has guided this committee 
over the last 6

[[Page H9653]]

years. I think it is fitting to honor him in the title of this bill, 
which helps make our country stronger and safer, because that is 
exactly what he has done as well.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, this bill takes a big step forward 
towards keeping our commitment to military retirees. I think it is the 
most significant progress we have made towards keeping that commitment. 
The bill also does right by those who have served our country in the 
nuclear weapons complex, and I would like to particularly thank two of 
my constituents, Mr. Pete Lopez, who came to Washington from Amarillo, 
Texas, to help testify about that proposal, and also Frank George, who 
has helped guide us to make sure that we did something that really 
helped.
  This bill also includes some refinements of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, which this Congress passed last year. And I 
particularly would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher) and the other members of the panel who have worked over the 
past year to try to make sure that the law was followed and that the 
country's best interests were also advanced.
  The panel will have a report released this week which gives full 
detail of our recommendations for the future; but in this bill, we 
prohibit dual hatting of employees by the Department of Energy and the 
NNSA exactly as Congress voted earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, we also included that the NNSA administrator will be 
removed from political pressure and he has a specific term of years to 
help make sure that he can do what is right, regardless of who wins the 
election. We require specific budget and planning to help put some 
stability into the nuclear weapons complex, including in that crucial 
area of infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, just within the past week or two, there has been a 
report released that shows our infrastructure in the nuclear weapons 
complex is deteriorating. This will help make sure that we do not take 
money out of this pile to put over here and allow our infrastructure to 
continue to deteriorate.
  There is a lot of work left to make sure our nuclear deterrent is 
strong and effective, but this bill takes a step forward. I recommend 
it to my colleagues.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is a member of our committee, the 
Committee on Armed Services, and also ranking member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on H.R. 4205, 
and I commend my colleague from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for 
his weeks of labor on this bill and on 29 other bills, I believe, over 
the 30 years that the gentleman has been here.
  This bill bears his name in recognition of his years of patriotic, 
diligent, effective service as chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services; and it is a bill worthy of his name.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in particular with the provisions of this 
bill that deal with retiree health care. I want to commend on our side, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie), and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for 
taking up this issue, pushing it, persevering and also the conferees 
for bringing it to fruition with a generous package of improvements to 
the health care we offer to our military retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, I am concerned that these provisions by 
shifting so much spending from discretionary to mandatory will not 
leave the Pentagon with any cost-containment incentives. I think that 
will bear our watching and oversight in the future. But on balance, we 
owe it to our military retirees to continue medical coverage after the 
age 65.
  It is an outrage that we have terminated it, and I strongly support 
these provisions to right that wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on H.R. 4205. I 
commend my colleague from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, for his work 
on the bill. Indeed, it bears his name in recognition of his years of 
diligent service as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and it is 
a bill worthy of his name.
  I am pleased in particular with the bill's provisions on military 
retiree health care. I want to commend Representatives Skelton, 
Abercrombie, and Taylor for pushing this issue early on, and the 
conferees for working out a generous package of improvements to the 
health care offered our military retirees, particularly Medicare-
eligible retirees.
  With passage of this bill, retirees 65 and older will no longer have 
to abandon doctors they have grown to know, and or be forced into HMOs 
or under-served Tricare networks. Instead, for the cost of their 
Medicare Part B premium, retirees can stay with their own doctor, and 
Tricare will serve as a Medigap policy, paying their co-payments and 
deductibles for costs Medicare does not cover.
  I am concerned that these provisions do not provide the Pentagon with 
any cost containment incentives. But on balance, we owe it to our 
military retirees to continue medical coverage after they reach age 65, 
and I support these provisions.
  While I support the provisions for military retirees and the bill 
overall, as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, I must point out 
that this bill exceeds the budget resolution. I do not blame the Armed 
Services Committee for this departure. To the contrary, this bill 
illustrates the dangers of adopting budget resolutions that are not 
realistic. Just as the appropriations targets will be exceeded this 
year by tens of billions of dollars, this bill alone will exceed the 
budget resolution's mandatory allocations by $20 billion over five 
years. In the future, if we want our budget process to have meaning, we 
must be more realistic, as we were in the Democratic budget resolution 
I brought to the floor last March when we provided an increase of $16.3 
billion for retiree health care.
  The conference report also contains language recommending that the 
President advance Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short 
posthumously to their highest wartime ranks of four-star admiral and 
three-general. Kimmel and Short were the Hawaiian commanders 
scapegoated for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 
7, 1941. Official investigations have exonerated them from dereliction 
of duty charges. Nevertheless, Kimmel and Short were singled out for 
exclusion from the benefits of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, which 
allowed World War II flag-level and general officers the privilege of 
retiring at the highest rank attained during the war. This sole 
exclusion only perpetuates the myth of their responsibility for the 
disaster at Pearl Harbor.
  I have worked for this issue for years. The Senate actually approved 
this provision last year, but it did not make the conference report. I 
am grateful now that we have reached a just conclusion. I want to thank 
Chairman Spence for his support, and also thanks to those in the other 
body who helped ensure passage of this amendment, especially Senators 
Kennedy and Roth.
  In addition, the conference report includes reauthorization of an 
important ``Buy American'' provision for equipment components the 
Defense Logistic Agency has determined to be mission-critical: ball 
bearings. This standing provision of the law stood to expire this year, 
and I appreciate the support of Procurement Subcommittee Chairman 
Hunter on this reauthorization.
  These are just a few examples of the important provisions of the 
conference report. This conference report moves us in the right 
direction in regard to military personnel, readiness, modernization, 
and military construction. I urge my colleagues to approve it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 4205, and I would like to especially thank 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for their 
leadership in providing our hard-working men and women in uniform the 
tools and resources necessary to protect our national security and in 
providing for an intelligent, bipartisan plan for our armed forces 
which meets our security needs.
  This agreement provides $309 billion, $4.5 billion more than 
requested. It provides for a 3.7 percent pay increase for military 
personnel in 2001 equal to the administration's request; and most 
significantly, it provides for lifetime health care for military 
retirees and their eligible family members and restores much-needed 
pharmacy access

[[Page H9654]]

to all Medicare-eligible military retirees.
  These new medical benefits are an entitlement finally delivering a 
promise made to our military retirees and frees them, as mentioned by 
the leadership of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, both the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie). Finally, it frees them to move around anywhere in the 
country so that they can be with their families as they plan.
  It also adds over $1 billion to various readiness accounts. This 
measure also endorses essentially the agreement between President 
Clinton, the Secretary of Defense, and the Puerto Rican Government 
regarding Vieques, including $40 million in economic assistance, an 
additional $50 million if the residents vote to resume live fire 
training in a required referendum.
  Importantly, for my people, for Guam, this provision establishes a 
memorial on the Federal lands near the Fena Caves in order to honor 
those Guamanian civilians massacred by the occupying military forces of 
Japan in July 1944, and it also makes a commitment to include the 
territories in missile defense plans, so that strategically valuable 
places like Guam will not be left defenseless.
  Overall, H.R. 4205 is a step in the right direction for our military 
forces. It meets our challenges in a post-Cold War world. I encourage 
all Members to support this important measure.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of our Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4205, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. And I also want to 
thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for their 
leadership.
  I would like to offer my best wishes to all the retiring colleagues 
from this committee, especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Fowler) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), my friend.
  I want to specifically address the provisions of the act relating to 
the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the Committee on Armed Services' 
NNSA oversight panel is a clear message of Congress' intent to more 
aggressively exercise its oversight responsibility in an area that is 
crucial to our national security.
  This resurgence of meaningful interest in the DOE defense nuclear 
activities will have a lasting impact on an activity that has been 
entangled in bureaucratic kudzu since its inception.
  Starting with the establishment of a 3-year term of office for the 
NNSA's first administrator, General Gordon, the provisions of this bill 
represent an important step towards building an agency that runs 
efficiently and that effectively protects our Nation's nuclear secrets. 
Within the resources available, this bill redresses issues relating to 
funding shortfalls in the production facilities and the laboratories.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill includes a significant 
increase over the budget requests for the National Ignition Facility at 
Lawrence Livermore. In fact, it also provides some limited relief for 
the significant infrastructure improvement backlog.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not provide relief for all the 
challenges the administration faces. I look forward to the study and 
enactment of specific legislation that will ease the difficulties of 
recruiting and retaining the world-class scientific minds that the 
laboratories need and this Nation deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to note for the full House that the panel's 
accomplishments would not have been possible without the strong 
leadership of the panel chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), and the cooperation and support of our colleagues on the 
panel.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 4205.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Augusta, Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) for a job well done over the last 6 years. I thank 
him for fighting every day to keep our military from deteriorating and 
particularly thank him for this bipartisan conference report. I thank 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It is enlightening to us all 
to see this bipartisan conference report. That may be why it is good.
  There are many good reasons to vote for this particular conference 
report, but let me just isolate one. I do not think it is any surprise 
to any Member of this Congress that there has been a great 
deterioration in the health care benefits of our retirees.
  I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence), the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Fowler), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) finally for 
helping us right some wrongs.
  Today they have given us the opportunity to change direction and take 
the first step in fulfilling our promises we made to our Nation's 
retirees.
  George Washington, addressing the Continental Army before a battle 
during the Revolution, perhaps sums up best what we owe those who 
serve. ``The fate of unborn millions will now depend upon God, on the 
courage and the conduct of the Army,'' so says George Washington.
  When I think about these words and return to these words after seeing 
the volatile events of the 20th century, I realize they could not be 
more appropriate. Around the world, the courageous sacrifices of the 
American soldiers have lit the flame of liberty where once there was 
darkness and preserved this same flame within our borders so that 
generations to come will be able to walk free under its light. These 
are truly remarkable achievements for which we are today showing we are 
grateful.
  Our retirees bravely answered the call to duty when our country 
needed them, and we should and we must be there for them when they need 
us. I urge us all to vote for this conference report, bipartisan as it 
is.
  However, I must speak quickly to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor). It is no secret to anyone that, under the leadership over the 
last 6 years of the Republicans and of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), we have tried to stop the deterioration of the 
military. The problem has been a Presidential budget and the fact that 
we could not override with a veto.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, for the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the good doctor, I would remind him that, again, 
article 1, section 8 calls upon the Congress to defend the Nation. 
Article 1, section 9 says that no money may be drawn from the Treasury 
except by appropriation by law. If there is not enough money in the 
defense budget, it is Congress' job.
  The President may not have asked for enough, and I will agree with 
that, but the bottom line is this Congress has passed over $900 billion 
worth of tax breaks the President did not ask for. We do lots of things 
the President did not ask for. The bills the President vetoed on 
defense were over social issues, never underspending.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation, and I 
commend and thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for 
legislation that bears his name and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton). It is an honor to serve with each of these gentlemen and the 
other subcommittee chairs and ranking members as well.
  I am particularly gratified that this bill which reflects the finest 
bipartisan tradition of this House graciously includes three items in 
which I have expressed an interest and devoted energy.
  The first is legislation I authored with respect to preventing

[[Page H9655]]

cyberterrorists. I believe that one of the most lethal threats to this 
country's security is one of the most silent. It is the work of those 
with laptops instead of missiles who would threaten our air traffic 
control system, our banking system, our other critical infrastructure.
  Because of the bipartisan cooperation, we were able to include 
legislation that I wrote that creates for the first time a loan 
guaranteed program that will help those in the private sector that 
maintain that critical infrastructure to upgrade it so that we are less 
vulnerable to attack.
  Second, the legislation very graciously includes legislation I worked 
on to create a center for the conversion of domestic and civilian 
networking and telecommunications technology for the use of the 
military. That center will be located in my district in Camden, New 
Jersey, and I believe it will benefit our country for generations to 
come as a result of the leaps forward that will occur.
  Finally, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon), our long-time mentor on this subject; the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell); and 
others in achieving a first step toward a sufficient level of funding 
for America's first responders in the fire and emergency services 
community. The work that we have done on this bill is very gratifying, 
and I am pleased to see it also has gone forward in a bipartisan way.
  I want to especially thank Terry Gillum in my office for his work on 
this legislation. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, the conference report contains a 
provision on an issue that I have been working on for over 15 years, 
the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability 
compensation.
  A law enacted in 1891 requires a disabled career military veteran to 
waive the amount of his retired pay equal to his VA disability 
compensation. Military retirees are the only group, only group of 
Federal retirees who must waive retirement pay in order to receive VA 
disability compensation.
  My legislation, H.R. 303, which has 321 cosponsors, would eliminate 
the offset entirely. The Senate provision drafted by Senator Harry Reid 
would do the same.
  Some Members are concerned that complete elimination is too 
expensive. But in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, no amount of money can equal 
the sacrifice our military men and women have made in service to their 
country.
  Last year's authorization act included a provision to authorize a 
monthly allowance to military retirees with severe service-connected 
disabilities rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs at 70 percent 
or greater. Only individuals retired for longevity qualify for monthly 
benefit.
  This conference report expands the eligibility for these special 
payments to those individuals retired for disability by their service. 
This is not enough, but it is some progress.
  I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), especially 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for their assistance in 
including this provision in the conference report. We must all work 
together towards complete elimination of the offset in the next 
Congress.
  The original law, Mr. Speaker, is 109 years old and discriminates 
against service members who decide to make the military their careers. 
We must encourage personnel to remain on active duty. The old offset 
statute discourages them from doing so, and it is time to change it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 4205.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Science 
subcommittee that oversees the fire administration, I rise in support 
of this legislation, particularly because of the important provisions 
included that will assist our Nation's first defenders, our 
firefighters and emergency service personnel. It incorporates 
provisions of a bill I introduced earlier this year called the Hero 
Act, H.R. 4146.
  Look, this Nation is well served by the 1.2 million men and women who 
work as fire and emergency service personnel in over 32,000 fire 
departments. Local firefighters, 80 percent who are volunteers, put 
their lives on the line every day for their communities and area 
residents. This legislation marks a new beginning. Our firefighting 
volunteers contribute billions of dollars worth of time and they need 
our help now.
  It is important that local, State, and the Federal Government step up 
to the line and give more support and help to our firefighters.
  They play a crucial role protecting and preserving our lives and our 
property . . . a dangerous role--an average of nearly 100 firefighters 
a year lose their lives in the line of duty. 80 percent of those who 
serve do so as volunteers.
  And so I'm pleased that this legislation demonstrates our commitment 
to our first responders by establishing a competitive grant program at 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist volunteer and paid 
fire departments across this country purchase equipment, improve 
training, hire firefighters, fund emergency medical services, and 
establish fire prevention and safety programs.
  In this bill, we're also increasing the authorization for the USDA's 
Volunteer Fire Assistance Program and establishing a grant program to 
help fund burn research and burn recovery. These are two very important 
steps and are two elements of my bipartisan Helping Emergency 
Responders Operate, or HERO, legislation I introduced earlier this 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, we see our firefighters and EMS personnel responding to 
emergencies every day, more than 18 million calls a year. From car 
accidents, to brush fires, to large scale disasters, emergency 
responders are first on scene, first to react, first to provide the 
assistance we've come to take for granted. I'm pleased to support this 
legislation that brings some much needed assistance to those who 
literally put their lives on the line for us each day.
  Today's passage of several fire-related measures is a milestone 
victory for local firefighters. These projects constitute the largest 
and most comprehensive package of legislation to aid the fire service 
in the history of the country.
  Local firefighters, 80% of whom are volunteers, put their lives on 
the line every day for area residents. Increasingly, fire departments 
are having trouble making ends meet--with many departments forced to 
raise money through chicken dinners and other fundraising efforts.
  This legislation marks a new--and well-earned--commitment from the 
federal government to our nation's firefighters. Never before has the 
federal government taken steps even approaching this magnitude to aid 
the fire service. It is about time that America's heroes receive the 
assistance they so desperately need.
  Headlining the package is an unprecedented $460 million authorization 
which would create a grant program to send much needed funds directly 
to local fire departments. This language, dubbed the Domestic Defenders 
Initiative, is attached to the Defense Authorization bill, scheduled to 
be voted on today. Besides the new grant program, the bill also 
includes authorized funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, 
burn research programs, a study of Hepatitis C occurrences in 
firefighters, and a study of Department of Defense spectrum potentially 
available for sharing with local fire and EMS agencies. Additionally, 
there is language that improves the opportunities for fire departments 
to obtain excess Department of Defense property. Finally, a task force 
is created to identify defense technologies that can be put to civilian 
use by local emergency response.
  The House of Representatives is also committed to approving a $100 
million appropriation for fire departments in one of the upcoming 
appropriations bills, most likely VA/HUD. While the authorization 
mentioned above would still be subject to future appropriations, this 
$100 million legislation would constitute immediate relief for needy 
fire departments. It is a similar package to that passed by the

[[Page H9656]]

House on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill in March.
  Finally, the House and Senate both recently passed the conference 
report to the Interior Appropriations bill. This legislation includes 
$2.9 billion in funding for wildfire related activities. This year has 
undoubtedly been one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent years, and 
this funding is critical to helping local fire companies respond.
  In addition, legislation has recently been introduced in Congress 
that would make volunteer firefighters eligible for funding under the 
AmeriCorps program. Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), the sponsor of the 
bill, has spoken with Harris Wofford, president of the Corporation for 
National Service, who has indicated his support for the legislation and 
his intention to work to include volunteer fire companies in 
AmeriCorps.
  Individually, these initiatives represent steps forward for America's 
fire service. Together, they demonstrate that the Republican leadership 
in Congress is committed to reversing the years of neglect endured by 
America's first responders for so long.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time. However, let me 
take this opportunity to, again, compliment the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Chairman Spence). This legislation is properly named for him. 
Thanks to all of those on the committee, those who have worked so hard 
in the bipartisan manner that we have.
  I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a marvelous staff. The 
long hours, the weekends, the days that they put in have helped glue 
together this outstanding piece of legislation. I take this opportunity 
to thank them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that I appreciate the work of 
everyone on both sides of the aisle, especially the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), we have talked about earlier, and also the 
staff. People do not realize how important the staffs are. They do the 
work while we are doing other things. They are involved in details, 
working these things out for us. There is no way one can tell how much 
work they do in this respect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Department of 
Defense authorization bill. Let me first commend the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member. They are examples of what Members of 
Congress should be.
  This legislation is an example of what legislation should be. It goes 
a long ways in helping restore the promise made to our retirees to 
provide permanent health care benefits for our military retirees with 
no deductibles, no copays. We are moving to keep the promise.
  We are taking a very important step of providing a prescription drug 
benefit for all Medicare-eligible military retirees. We are increasing 
the pay by 3.7 percent. We are trying to target economic assistance to 
those young enlisted men and women, our soldiers and sailors who, many 
times, are still on food stamps. We are trying to help keep that from 
happening. It is a travesty that some of our men and women serving have 
to be on food stamps.
  But we are also doing important things in our firefighter legislation 
that will save lives and save properties in our rural communities, our 
small towns and our cities; the expansion of the G.V. Sonny Montgomery 
G.I. bill for educational opportunities; in my State expanding the 
authorization for the T-45s, the new trainer jets that will be at the 
Merridian Naval Air Station; the expansion of the National Guard 
Challenge Program to help troubled youth; the expansion of the 
Counterdrug Initiative, which is an important part of my State's 
contribution.
  This is good legislation. It is a good step. We are doing the right 
thing. I want to commend the committee for their good work.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the FY 2001 National 
Defense Authorization Act, and wish to clarify the rationale for my 
position. I feel it is very important to make my position clear; 
because, while I oppose this legislation, there are a number of 
important provisions within the larger bill that I strongly support. In 
its totality though, I could not support a bill that emphasizes 
procurement disproportionately over the long-term needs of our 
servicemen, women, and military retirees. While I understand why many 
support this bill, because it includes several provisions that are the 
result of hard-fought efforts to improve the living standards of our 
military personnel; I cannot support the indisputable fact that this 
bill continues a trend of prioritizing weapons systems and keeping this 
nation's defense policy on an unwise course.
  I strongly support Military Retiree Health care benefits, which would 
grant lifetime health care for retirees and their families. At a time 
in our country when 44 million people are uninsured, it is our 
responsibility to assure that the men and women who have served our 
country are guaranteed health care benefits. I also support pharmacy 
access to all Medicare-eligible military retirees that was included in 
this legislation. Additionally, I am an ardent supporter of a pay raise 
for our service members who work extremely hard and demonstrate their 
dedication to our nation through their work in deployments throughout 
the world.
  Unfortunately, the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act includes 
excessive spending on military hardware and has led me to oppose the 
overall bill. This measure includes $4.8 billion for ballistic missile 
defense programs. The continuation and expansion of this program not 
only threatens our treaty obligations with other nations, it has the 
potential of sinking billions of more dollars into untested and 
unreliable technology. Neither this legislative body, nor the nation, 
has had the type of extensive debate demanded by such a major shift in 
defense policy. How can we continue to go down a path that will lead to 
a radical shift in our defense posture without a clear debate?
  Moreover, this bill continues a disturbing trend of spending huge 
sums of money on defense programs, while ignoring the needs of families 
in the U.S. This measure, totaling $309.9 billion, represents about 
one-half of total discretionary spending. At a time when no one is 
presenting a significant military threat against our shores, is this 
the time to invest in massive new weapons systems? This bill includes 
$2.5 billion for the F-22 fighter; $689 million for the Joint Strike 
Fighter; and $2.9 billion for the next generation F-18 E/F. I ask my 
colleagues, is this justified given the current or future climate in 
international affairs?
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the House is recognizing the 
important service of the men and women in uniform, as well as veterans, 
and providing them the benefits they need and deserve. I am heartened 
that we have finally shifted at least some of our attention to the 
people who serve our country. It is my hope that in future years, we 
will continue to recognize the value of the service men and women, 
while also recognizing that we should not pour unlimited amounts of 
money into military hardware that we do not need.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express some concerns about 
the Conference Report on the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act, 
H.R. 4205.
  This bill would do many positive things for our nation's veterans and 
defense workers. It would provide a 3.7% pay increase for military 
personnel. It would provide lifetime health care for military retirees 
and their eligible family members beginning in FY2002. It also 
authorizes a compensation plan for personnel made ill by exposure to 
toxic or radioactive materials when working on nuclear weapons 
programs. I fully support these efforts to help the men and women who 
have served our nation.
  There is, however, one provision in this Defense Authorization Act 
that I find extremely troubling. The bill requires the Secretary of 
Defense in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study 
relating to the destruction of hardened and deeply buried targets 
possibly using a low-yield nuclear weapon. This report could be the 
first step in a program to develop a new nuclear weapon, likely 
requiring a new round of nuclear weapon testing.
  I am troubled by the inclusion of this provision for two reasons: (1) 
current law prohibits the research and development of such devices and 
(2) this report could be the precursor to renewed testing of nuclear 
weapons, undermining the United States efforts to halt the spread of 
nuclear weapons. I am not alone in my concerns about this provision. 
Twenty-seven Representatives and myself signed a letter to House Armed 
Services Ranking Member Skelton saying that he should not consider a 
nuclear option because it has far greater implications that would 
undermine our national security.
  The precedent on this issue is clear: the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY1994 (Section 3136 of Public Law 103-160) 
prohibits the Secretary of Energy from conducting research on and 
development for the production of new low-yield warheads. The new 
report language represents the first step toward

[[Page H9657]]

ending that ban on research and development and could ultimately lead 
to efforts to renew nuclear testing. As a hint of the events to come, 
the new provision would authorize ``limited research and development 
that may be necessary to perform those assessments.''
  Furthermore, this language undermines United States' international 
nuclear arms control and nonproliferation efforts. The United States is 
seeking to end nuclear weapons programs in the Democratic People's 
Republic of North Korea, Iran and Iraq, and to restrain Indian and 
Pakistan from further testing and development of nuclear weapons. 
Restricting the ability to test new weapons is an important tool in 
preventing these nations from actually completing work on a new weapon. 
Enforcing this moratorium requires considerable international 
cooperation and pressure spearheaded by the United States government.
  This provision on low-yield nuclear weapons sends a troubling signal 
that not only is the United States unwilling to ratify the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but the U.S. may consider a resumption 
in testing. This will give the green light to nations with fledgling 
nuclear weapons programs to begin openly testing. The implications for 
our national security are far more threatening from this action than 
from the failure to develop such a low-yield nuclear weapon.
  If existing weapons do not provide the United States with the ability 
to deal with hardened targets, conventional, not nuclear munitions 
should be considered. To put it simply: the Secretary of Energy--and 
the nuclear weapons research at his disposal--should not take part in 
this process. Unfortunately, this conference report does not eliminate 
that involvement, but rather requires the Secretary to participate in 
this study. Such an important decision should be made openly and not in 
the guise of a reporting requirement that also happens to authorize 
limited research necessary to conduct the required assessment. This is 
nothing more than a nonproliferation wolf in report's clothing.
  I urge Members to consider carefully the implications of such a 
proposal. Because of this provision and the authorization for continued 
testing of a failed National Missile Defense program, I must oppose 
this conference report.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Authorization Conference 
report contains provisions that I along with a majority of my 
colleagues and the American people strongly support. Those provisions 
would greatly benefit our nation's military personnel and veterans. I 
strongly support measures in the bill that will provide lifetime 
healthcare for military retirees and their families and restore 
pharmacy benefits to Medicare-eligible military retirees. I am also 
pleased that our fighting men and women will receive a well-deserved 
pay raise of 3.7%. In addition, providing our active service personnel 
with additional economic assistance and lowering their out-of-pocket 
housing expenses are critical measures that were included in this bill.
  Unfortunately, the conference report includes billions of dollars for 
costly weapons systems that will not improve our security or military 
readiness. In addition, it includes billions of dollars for a national 
missile defense program that has never been proven effective, and I 
believe would lead to Cold War II. These funds would be better spent to 
heighten our commitment to our military personnel and veterans and to 
better meet their needs, among other things. Extra funding for our 
veterans would guarantee that valuable resources would be available to 
enhance their quality of life and fulfill our obligation to our service 
men and women. It is the least we can do.
  For those reasons, I did not support this year's Department of 
Defense Authorization Conference Report. However, I will continue to 
support our military personnel and veterans and a strong national 
defense based on sound policy.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act, but I do so with mixed emotions.
  This legislation contains a number of very important programs that 
deserve the full support of this Chamber.
  I am pleased that this package contains a new--and long overdue--
entitlement of lifetime health care coverage to our nation's military 
retirees. For decades our recruits to the Armed Forces have been 
promised this benefit, only to have our Federal Government not live up 
to its promise.
  The brave men and women who have dedicated their lives to the defense 
of our nation, who represent our first line of defense, who stared 
communism down and introduced hundreds of millions of people of the 
world to a concept we often take for granted in the United States--
democracy--deserve this important benefit.
  It is also my hope that this Congress will now use this new health 
care entitlement program as a basis to provide a prescription drug 
program for all Americans.
  This Congress has continually refused to provide a drug benefit to 
millions of other Americans who work just as hard as our military 
personnel. Our retired policemen, laborers, secretaries and 
seamstresses should also have the guarantee of a prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare.
  This Conference Report provides a much needed 3.7% increase in pay to 
our nation's Armed Services. This increase will help boost the standard 
of living for our military personnel and their families.
  Similarly, to address the concerns of the people of Puerto Rico, I am 
pleased that this legislation encapsulates the basic agreement worked 
out between the Navy, the People of Puerto Rico and the President.
  I have worked diligently over the past year to see a fair and just 
solution to the live fire testing at Vieques in Puerto Rico. President 
Clinton, Governor Rossello and the U.S. Navy have worked together in 
good faith to resolve this situation.
  I am pleased that the Congress is not trying to stop this progress.
  On the global front, this legislation also lifts any restrictions on 
the United States when protecting our nation's vital interests 
internationally and protecting against genocide in places like Kosovo.
  Our Constitution defines the roles of both the Commander-in-Chief and 
the Congress with respect to our nation's military involvement. It is 
not the role of Congress, in an effort to embarrass this President and 
weaken our nation's resolve in facing down dictators, to try to change 
this Constitutionally defined role in this legislation.
  Our military is the strongest and best trained in the world, and this 
legislation will continue to build on our past successes and ensure 
even greater successes in the future.
  But I must also register my strong disillusionment at the actions of 
the Republican Conferees on this legislation.
  Although strong, bi-partisan majorities in both the Senate and House 
acted to attach language to this bill to expand the definition of hate 
crimes, this Republican Leadership again showed their true colors and 
stripped it from the bill.
  This Congress had the opportunity to make it easier for Federal law 
enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute cases of racial and 
religious violence, and would permit Federal prosecution of violence 
motivated by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation, gender, 
or disability.
  But again the Republicans ignored the will of Congress and the will 
of the American people and again kowtowed to the most extreme elements 
in American politics--people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
  A few weeks ago, 41 Republicans marched to the floor and voted to 
include Hate Crimes language in this bill. Then they all heralded this 
vote in press releases to their local media outlets, hailing their 
celebration of diversity and tolerance.
  Now comes the true test of tolerance and political moderation. Will 
these same members again demonstrate their self-touted moderation and 
stand up to their Republican Leadership and demand a vote on the Hate 
Crimes bill.
  We must continue to pressure the Republican Congressional Leadership 
to understand that bigotry is not acceptable.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of the Fiscal Year 
2001 Defense Authorization bill.
  I am proud to support this legislation because of the long awaited 
health benefits for military retirees that in includes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many military retirees in my district 
of Central New Jersey who were promised lifetime military health 
benefits when they entered the service. For many years, this promise 
has not been kept. Military retirees were only allowed to keep their 
military health care until they turned age 65, after which time the 
only coverage they had was Medicare.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, Medicare is a great program. It has helped to keep 
millions of beneficiaries out of poverty. But we know, Mr. Speaker, 
that many seniors have additional coverage during retirement through 
coverage provided by their employers. For military retirees, who 
sacrificed their lives and careers for military service, their employer 
is the federal government.
  Like many other Members of this chamber, I believe we owe our 
military retirees the lifetime health coverage they were promised, and 
access to the best and broadest health care coverage available.
  This year's defense authorization is an important first step towards 
keeping that promise and providing that coverage.
  For this reason, I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  By taking this action today, Mr. Speaker, we are letting all our 
military personnel--past, present, and future--know that their 
government will keep its promise and provide the health care protection 
they and their families need--for life.

[[Page H9658]]

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report. I support several important provisions of the bill, including a 
Department of Energy (DOE) defense worker compensation program and a 
pay raise and expanded health care choices for our men and women in 
uniform. However, the legislation is so laden with special interest 
pork projects that I fear it will undermine our ability to be fiscally 
responsible and pay down our national debt while, at the same time, 
adequately funding the Nation's highest priorities.
  Where are our priorities in this Congress? The 106th Congress is 
drawing rapidly to a close, yet our Nation's schools are crumbling and 
overcrowded, there are 11 million uninsured children in America, and 
our seniors lack comprehensive prescription drug benefits. We are not 
addressing these today, nor are we authorizing $310 billion--or 
anywhere close to that amount--to address these critical issues facing 
every American family. Instead, Congress will pass a Defense 
Authorization Conference Report that includes $4.5 billion more funding 
than the administration requested and $21.1 billion more than last 
year's funding level. Over half of the additional $4.5 billion tacked 
on in this conference report--$2.6 billion--goes toward procurement. I 
would venture to guess that many of the Members who supported this bill 
today will be surprised as the special interest projects are revealed 
in coming days. Unfortunately, I fear this conference report is a 
reflection of the skewed priorities of the leadership in this House. We 
have failed to address the real issues facing the American people.
  There are good provisions in this conference report. I strongly 
support the establishment of a program that finally recognizes the 
vital contributions of Department of Energy contract workers who risked 
their personal health to help protect our Nation. For too many years, 
the government has denied that these workers were suffering from 
catastrophic and chronic illnesses that resulted from their work at 
defense facilities such as Rocky Flats. Earlier this year, Secretary of 
Energy Bill Richardson announced the Department's intention to 
belatedly remedy this problem and seek to implement a compensation 
program to aid sick workers. Also, a number of my colleagues and I have 
supported legislation required to authorize a compensation program. I 
am a proud cosponsor of Representative Ed Whitfield's (R-KY) bipartisan 
legislation H.R. 4398. I regret that Congress failed to fully consider 
and pass H.R. 4398, which I believe would have been the proper approach 
to address this important issue. I regret that Congress has failed to 
act and to bring this important legislation before us for proper 
consideration and action.
  I am pleased that this conference report includes a 3.7 percent pay 
raise for military personnel. I believe our military forces deserve 
fair compensation for the job they do and for the risks they take on 
behalf of our country. This is why I am a cosponsor of legislation that 
would provide for a 4.8 percent pay increase to members of the Armed 
Forces and open the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to 
active-duty personnel. It is vital that when our armed forces are 
called to duty they can be assured that their families are secure and 
able to pay the bills back home.
  As a cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, I was very 
pleased that this legislation was included in the Senate version of 
this H.R. 4205. I would like to note that the House also passed a 
motion to instruct the conferees to include this provision as part of 
the final conference agreement. However, the leadership blatantly 
ignored the will of the House and stripped the Hate Crimes language out 
of the bill. It is well past time for legislation that makes hate 
crimes against gays and lesbians, women, and people with disabilities a 
Federal crime. Every hate crime that occurs in this country is an 
attack on American values, and it is a disgrace that this language was 
stripped out of the bill.
  I hope that, in the final days of the 106th Congress, we can address 
some of the critical issues facing our Nation today, rather than 
continuing on the current path which has resulted in a rudderless, 
haphazard attempt to legislate for a few special interests.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4205, the Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Conference Report. While Federal 
constitutional authority clearly exists to provide for the national 
defense, global militarism was never contemplated by the founders. 
Misnamed like most everything else in Washington, the ``Defense'' 
Authorization Act thus funds U.N.-directed peacekeeping in Kosovo and 
Bosnia to the tune of $3.1 billion dollars, $443 million in aid to the 
former Soviet Union, $172 million for NATO infrastructure (the formerly 
defensive alliance which recently initiated force against Kosovo), and 
$869 million for drug interdiction efforts by the U.S. military in an 
attempt to take our failed 1920's prohibition experiment worldwide.
  Certainly a bill authorizing use of resources for the national 
defense which also properly compensates those military personnel 
necessary to maintain it would be not only constitutional but most 
appropriate. Contrarily, a bill which continues our elitist and failed 
policy of policing the world all the while creating additional enemies 
of the United States is neither constitutional, justifiable, 
supportable, nor prudent. By avoiding such a police-the-world approach, 
which destroys troop morale by isolating them from their families and 
spreading them dangerously thin, considerably less money could be 
authorized with seriously improved security results.
  Meanwhile, H.R. 3769, my bill to prohibit the destruction during 
fiscal year 2001 of missile silos in the United States, fails to even 
receive so much as a hearing. While I understand that to comply with 
questionable, but ratified, disarmament treaties, certain missiles may 
need to be deactivated, it seems ill-advised to spend money to also 
destroy the missile silos which may be strategically vital to our 
national defense at some date in the not-so-distant future.
  I encourage my colleagues to rethink the United States' 20th century 
role of global policeman and restore instead, a policy of true national 
defense which will better protect their constituents, keep their 
constituent's children safer and out of endless global conflicts, and 
reassume for taxpayers some semblance of fiscal sanity.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the priorities represented in this bill 
are misplaced. It spends $310 billion, over half of our discretionary 
budget. This is $4.5 billion more than the President requested and $21 
billion above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
  We are spending too much in this bill on too many unproven 
technologies, duplicative systems, and, in some cases, congressional 
add-ons that our military leaders don't want. We are spending enough on 
things like environmental remediation of past actions. For example, the 
estimated pricetag for clean-up of the unexploded ordnance that 
contaminates millions of acres of land and internal waterways is over 
$100 billion. The funding in this bill for environmental restoration is 
a mere $1.3 billion, less than half a percent of the total.
  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. We will spend over $300 billion over the 
next 10 to 20 years on the Air Force's F-22, the Navy's F-18 E/F, and 
the Joint Strike Fighter. We are doing this rather than made the hard 
decisions we need to in order to make proving for our national defense 
more cost-effective.
  It is also troubling that the hate crimes provision was not included 
in this bill. The Senate added it to its defense authorization and we 
in the House voted in a bipartisan fashion in favor of a motion to 
instruct conferees to include it in the conference report. This does 
not reflect the will of the Congress.
  For years we made commitments to military retirees that they and 
their families were entitled to lifetime health care. I am pleased that 
we have made good on that promise in this bill by providing lifetime 
health care for military retirees and their eligible family members, as 
well as pharmacy access to all Medicare-eligible military retires. But 
this could have been accomplished within the context of a better bill.
  Because of the many failures of the bill, I was forced to vote 
against it. America has the best-trained, best equipped and best-
prepared military forces in the world. Our forces are ready to defend 
America's interests wherever they are threatened. That will continue 
only if we're careful about the investments we make.
  We need to seek peace from all the threats of the new century. This 
bill spends too much on the wrong things and not enough on cleaning up 
from out past activities and preparing to transition to fight 
tomorrow's wars. This is the key not only to security abroad, but to 
livability at home--to make our men and women in uniform and all our 
families safe, healthy and economically secure.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4205, the FY 01 
Defense Authorization bill. Of particular interest to my constituents 
in southwest Ohio--particularly those in western Hamilton County--is 
the provision based on legislation that I have cosponsored that 
establishes a new Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program.
  This program will assist workers exposed to radiation, beryllium and 
other toxic substances in the course of carrying out their work in the 
U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Many of these workers have become sick 
from illnesses that can be traced to that exposure. The former Fernald 
Feed Materials Production Center, which is located in my district, was 
part of our nuclear weapons production complex for nearly 40 years from 
1951 to 1988. Too often, these workers were not even aware of the 
hazards they faced in their jobs--hazards that have frequently had 
serious health effects.
  What we are considering today will provide covered workers and their 
survivors at Fernald and around the Nation with the compensation they 
deserve that guarantees a specific minimum benefit and medical 
expenses. I urge

[[Page H9659]]

my colleagues to support this important and long overdue program.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I will be unable to vote on rollcall vote 
522 today. Were I present, I would vote ``yea'' on the Defense 
Authorization Conference Report because it provides much needed 
resources to our active duty personnel.
  This bill does many positive things, and I commend the chairman and 
ranking member for their leadership. As my voting record indicates, I 
strongly support the efforts being made to improve the quality of life 
for our active duty military and retirees. I have also supported 
efforts to continue to provide our men and women in the armed services 
with the resources they need to continue to defend our interests with 
the most technologically advanced weapons available.
  Providing a 3.7 percent pay raise, expanding the housing allowance, 
allowing active duty personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings 
Plan (TSP), providing increased subsistence funding, and several 
additional bonuses and benefits, will help in our efforts to recruit 
and retain the most capable military in the world.
  Additionally, this bill provides several important provisions for our 
military retirees. Expanding TRICARE to Medicare eligible retirees, 
expanding the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program, and expanding the 
TRICARE subvention pilot will go a long way in providing relief to our 
veterans and military retirees.
  However, I am greatly concerned about the inadequate provisions 
regarding the issue of ``concurrent receipt.'' I am one of 321 
cosponsors of H.R. 313 which calls for the complete repeal of this 
unfair provision. Many veterans in my state are affected by this unjust 
law and it ought to be repealed. I understand the constraints that the 
Congress is operating under. However, I urge this Congress to do the 
right thing and pass H.R. 313 as stand alone bill and give our veterans 
what is owed to them.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for all 
that this important legislation achieves. It represents a far-reaching 
effort to honor some of the promises made to retired servicemen and 
women, it begins to provide our active and reserve personnel with 
world-class compensation and training, and it continues to keep our 
commitment to providing the equipment and materiel necessary to protect 
the interests of this country. For all these reasons and more, this 
legislation ought to pass with the support of members on both sides of 
the aisle.
  But Mr. Speaker, I do want to mention how disappointed I am that the 
conferees could not negotiate a settlement on the so-called concurrent 
receipt issue, under which military retirees have their monthly 
retirement pay reduced by the amount of any disability payment they may 
have the misfortune to have earned.
  Military retirement pay is earned for length of service, while a 
veteran's disability payment compensation ought to be regarded as a 
payment to a veteran in response to injuries or diseases that happened 
or were aggravated while on active duty. These are not the same thing 
and should not be offset against each other.
  Moreover, a service member who incurs an injury and then goes on to 
work for a private company is not precluded from receiving that 
company's full pension benefit and the full disability payment. In 
essence, the message we send is that servicemen and women are far 
better off going to work for someone other than the United States if 
they receive an injury while performing their duty. It seems to me that 
these people, the very people who have demonstrated their willingness 
to place themselves in danger, ought to be encouraged to continue with 
the military--if their disability allows--not discouraged.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support this legislation because it 
does address several critical aspects of veterans health care and 
because I believe the provisions addressing other critical defense 
needs are too important to reject. Fittingly, I want to note that the 
very veterans, support organizations, and associations that are most 
penalized by the failure to address the dual compensation issue all 
support this legislation because of the security it will provide for 
the current men and women who provide our shield. Hopefully, that 
support--more than my own--will impress my colleagues and will be 
remembered when the next Congress takes up the dual compensation issue.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I support the Defense Authorization bill 
because it includes many important provisions including measures to 
improve health care for our nation's military retirees. However, I rise 
today to criticize the Republican leadership for their removal of hate 
crimes provisions from the conference report. Majorities in both the 
House and the Senate voted to include this language which would have 
added needed protections against hate crimes based on sexual 
orientation, gender, or disability to federal law.
  Tragic murders that grab the nation's attention such as the dragging 
death of James Byrd in Texas and the brutal beating death of Matthew 
Shepard in Wyoming are, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. 
According to statistics kept by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence 
programs, 29 Americans were murdered in 1999 because they were gay or 
lesbian and there were more than 1,960 reports of anti-gay or lesbian 
incidents in the United States, including 704 assaults. And according 
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1996 there were over 8,700 
reported incidents of hate crimes based on race, religion, national 
origin, or sexual orientation. Crimes based on hate are an assault on 
all of us, and we must enact stronger measures to prevent and punish 
these offenses.
  Opponents of this measure have argued that this is an issue that 
should be left to the states. However, Congress has passed over 3,000 
criminal statutes addressing harmful behaviors that affect the nation's 
interests, including organized crime, terrorism, and civil rights 
violations. Thirty-five of these laws have been passed since the 
Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.
  Others have argued that there is no need for federal Hate Crimes 
legislation because assault and murder are already crimes. However, the 
brutality of these crimes speaks to the reality that when a person is 
targeted for violence because of their sexual orientation, race, or 
other group membership, the assailant intends to send a message to all 
members of that community. That message is you are not welcome.
  This effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a 
different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response. 
All Americans have a right to feel safe in their community.
  The hate crimes provisions that were stripped from this conference 
report by the Republican leadership would have countered this message 
of intimidation with a strong statement that our society does not 
condone and will not tolerate hate-based violence.
  In addition to a bipartisan group of 192 House cosponsors, these 
provisions are supported by 175 civil rights, religious, civil and law 
enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriff's 
Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the 
Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, the National Center for 
Women and Policing, and the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives.
  Passage of this bill would not have ended all violence against those 
communities who are targets of hate violence. But it would have allowed 
the federal government to respond and take action by investigating and 
punishing the perpetrators of crimes motivated by hate. The Republican 
leadership has missed an important opportunity. I urge them to 
reconsider their opposition to these protections and pass the Local Law 
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 before the end of the session.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I come here today in support of 
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001. 
This legislation is named for a great American who is second to none in 
supporting our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Under Floyd 
Spence's leadership this is the fifth year out of the last six in which 
Congress has added to the Administration's budget request. Floyd 
Spence--as far as I am concerned--is Mr. National Security. I look 
forward to serving with him for many more years.
  The defense bill before us seeks to address many problems. Serious 
training deficiencies and equipment modernization shortfalls, made 
worse by longer and more frequent deployments away from home, have 
placed increasing strains on our armed forces. Also, the increasing use 
of America's military on missions where vital U.S. national security 
interests are not at stake has reduced readiness, affected recruiting 
and retention, and lowered morale. This bill will not completely fix 
these problems, but it will help.
  Included in this bill is a 3.7% pay raise for our military personnel. 
The bill increases the military procurement accounts by $2.6 billion, 
and the research and development accounts by $1 billion. In critical 
readiness accounts, the Congress has increased authorization funding 
for the sixth consecutive year. There are increases in funding for 
National Missile Defense research and for improving the training and 
readiness of the National Guard and the Reserves. Also, this 
legislation includes--something particularly important to me--
authorization funding for the Crusader program at over $355 million.
  And last, but certainly not least--there is TRICARE health insurance 
for military retirees over 65, including a drug benefit. This revised 
TRICARE program will take effect beginning in FY 2002 and is open to 
military retirees and their eligible family members. Under the plan, 
beneficiaries could keep their current Medicare provider, and use 
TRICARE as their Medicare supplement to pay any costs not covered by 
Medicare. Beneficiaries would pay no co-payments or deductibles. The 
plan also includes no enrollment fees or premiums for all Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries. This Congress continues to work to meet the 
promise that was

[[Page H9660]]

made for health care as an earned benefit for 20 or more years of 
honorable military service.
  The bottom line is--this defense authorization bill will fund the 
Department of Defense at approximately $310 billion--$4.5 billion more 
than requested by the Administration. Again, I want to thank Chairman 
Spence for his leadership of the House Armed Services Committee, and 
the kindness and courtesy he has shown not only to me, but everyone 
associated with this committee including members, staff and those 
appearing before his committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that the Department 
of Defense (DOD) authorization act we have before us today makes a 
number of long awaited, critical improvements to the health care system 
for our nation's military retirees.
  These individuals selflessly sacrificed and served our country in 
order to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. This legislation marks an 
important step toward providing military retirees with the health care 
they earned and were promised.
  However, I am voting against the bill because, as good as the health 
care provisions are, they don't go far enough. In addition, I am 
concerned about the astronomical level of overall spending authorized 
by the bill a decade after we won the Cold War.
  Let me briefly return to the health care provisions I support. I am 
pleased the conference report extends TRICARE to Medicare eligible 
retirees with no co-pays or deductibles. There will also be no 
enrollment fees or premiums for Medicare eligible beneficiaries. This 
is one of the provisions in an important bill I cosponsored, the Keep 
Our Promise to Military Retirees Act.
  The conference report also expands the mail order pharmacy benefit to 
all beneficiaries, including those over 64 years of age. This too is 
similar to legislation I cosponsored, the Retired Military Pharmacy 
Benefits Act. Expanding the mail order pharmacy program will allow 
retirees in Oregon, who don't live close to a military base, easier 
access to necessary prescription drugs.
  I was also pleased the conference report included a number of other 
quality of life improvements such as a 3.7 percent pay raise, an 
accelerated reduction in out-of-pocket housing costs, and targeted 
supplemental food allowances for the most needy personnel.
  However, the conference report left out two improvements I have 
advocated. First, the conference report dropped a provision that was 
included in the Senate version of the bill to repeal the VA disability 
compensation offset. I am cosponsor of legislation, H.R. 303, to repeal 
this offset and contacted members of the conference committee 
encouraging them to retain the Senate provision. Veterans deserve to 
keep all of the benefits they earned. I was disappointed this provision 
was not included in the final version of the bill.
  I was also disappointed that the key component of the Keep Our 
Promise to Military Retirees Act, opening up the Federal Employees 
Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) to military retirees, was not included in 
the conference report. I have heard from many residents of Oregon who 
are having difficulty finding providers who accept TRICARE due to low 
reimbursements rates and burdensome regulations. That may be why 
TRICARE is sometimes derided by retirees in my district as ``try to get 
care.'' Therefore, expanding TRICARE as this bill does, may not benefit 
a number of Oregonians. A more complete option would be offering our 
military retirees the same health care that Members of Congress and our 
staffs have access to, the FEHBP. The FEHBP works well in Oregon and 
would ensure military retirees have the health care security they've 
earned and deserve. I will continue to fight to make this option 
available.
  I am concerned with the overall level of spending authorized by this 
bill. The bill authorizes $309.9 billion for fiscal year 2001, or more 
than half of all federal discretionary spending. This is $4.5 billion 
more than the President requested and $21.1 billion more than last 
year. We are still funding the Pentagon at 90 percent of Cold War 
levels a decade after we won.
  U.S. military spending must also be viewed in the context of what our 
allies and adversaries spend. The U.S. is spending more than all our 
adversaries or potential adversaries combined and more than we spend at 
the end of such Cold War presidents as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and 
Carter.
  Further, as former Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, Larry 
Korb, points out, ``The U.S. share of the world's military spending 
today stands at about 35 percent, substantially higher than during the 
Cold War. In 1985, at the height of the Reagan build-up, the U.S. and 
the Soviet Union spent equal amounts on defense. Today, Russia spends 
only one-sixth of what the U.S. spends on defense. If one adds in the 
spending of U.S. allies, the picture becomes even more favorable to the 
United States.'' In fact, the U.S. and its allies account for 65 
percent of the world's military expenditures.
  Russia today spends 85 percent less on its military than the Soviet 
Union. The combined expenditures of our potential adversaries, as 
identified by U.S. intelligence agencies, is $13.8 billion, or about 
four percent of the U.S. budget.
  In just two days, the Pentagon spends more money than the Iraqi 
military does in an entire year. In just 16 days, the Pentagon spends 
more money combined than Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, 
and Cuba. In 108 days, the Pentagon spends more than all of these 
countries plus Russia and China.
  The U.S. military must remain the highest trained, best skilled, and 
most technology sophisticated military in the world. However, this can 
be done with a smaller budget. To do so requires better management, not 
more money.
  The Pentagon budget needs to be reevaluated in light of our current 
national security threats. Cold War weapons systems that serve no 
national security purpose but merely serve to justify increased budgets 
should be eliminated. Defense experts of all political stripes both 
inside and outside government have suggested eliminating or reforming a 
number of programs like the F-22, the Crusader Artillery system, the 
Comanche helicopter, and others in order to reduce costs and have a 
more efficient and deadly military force.
  Also, as Senator McCain has repeatedly pointed out, the defense 
authorization and appropriations bills often include billions of 
dollars in pork projects that are unrelated to national security 
requirements. This bill is no exception. In this bill, Congress 
provided the Pentagon billions in unrequested funding such as $150 
million for two F-15 aircraft, $125 million for 12 additional Blackhawk 
helicopters, $51 million for two additional F-16s, and $90 million in 
additional funding for the DDG-51 Destroyer program.
  Finally, rather than showering the Pentagon with tens of billions of 
additional dollars for weapons systems of dubious value and quality, it 
would be useful to make a serious commitment to eliminating the tens of 
billions of dollars of waste at the Pentagon. As Representative Kasich, 
Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee, noted in a February 
2000 report titled Reviving the Reform Agenda, the General Accounting 
Office annually uncovers billions of dollars going to waste at the 
Pentagon. It weakens our national defense to have this waste and hurts 
the morale of our men and women in uniform since it steals funds that 
could otherwise be spent to boost their quality of life.
  Mr. Larry Korb, who, as I mentioned was an Assistant Secretary of 
Defense under President Reagan, has developed an alternative defense 
budget that would be sufficient to meet our national security needs 
while not strangling and starving the rest of the federal budget. His 
proposal makes prudent reductions in spending by targeting unneeded 
weapons, unnecessary deployments, and a downsizing of our forces in 
recognition of our victory in the Cold War. Mr. Korb's proposal is a 
serious one that deserves intelligent discussion and consideration in 
Congress.
  Again, I congratulate the conferees for the improvements they made on 
access to health care for military retirees, but I cannot support a 
bill with the unjustifiable level of spending on weapons systems of 
questionable value and quality.
  The Pentagon budget should be based on a realistic assessment of our 
national security needs, not the wishes of powerful defense contractors 
or Pentagon brass. I bet the Secretary of Education and the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services have a funding ``wish list'' too. But, 
Congress scrutinizes their every request and forces them to prioritize. 
The Pentagon should be no different.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4205 and I would like to thank my good friends, Chairman Floyd Spence 
and Senate Chairman John Warner. Section 813 of this bill includes 
legislation that I introduced, H.R. 3582, the Federal Flexibility Act 
of 2000. H.R. 3582 passed the House on May 2 of this year and my good 
friend, Senator Warner attached to the Defense Authorization bill in 
the Senate. H.R. 3582, now Section 813, will provide northern Virginia 
with important relief for its continued information technology worker 
shortage and continue the important procurement reforms this Congress 
began in 1995.
  H.R. 3582, the Federal Flexibility Act of 2000, will address an 
ongoing problem in federal IT contracts. Section 813 of this bill is 
necessary because federal contracting officers frequently write into IT 
contracts minimum personnel requirements that hamper the ability of 
contractors to find qualified personnel to perform the contract. 
Oftentimes this means government contractors can not hire personnel who 
they believe could successfully perform the work but instead search for 
qualified resumes. This is a burden on the IT industry and contributes 
to the chronic worker shortage faced by the technology industry because 
the Federal Government is the largest purchaser

[[Page H9661]]

of IT products in the world--spending about $32 billion on goods and 
services each year.
  The Fed-Flex Act requires Federal agencies to justify the minimum 
personnel requirements frequently written into government contracts. 
Federal agencies have been experiencing ``credential creep'' in the way 
they write contracts. The problem has become so significant that the 
Virginia Secretary of Technology, Don Upson, found in a report issued 
by his office this past September that these minimum personnel 
requirements are the second largest contributor to the IT worker 
shortage in my home state. This report, titled ``A Study of Virginia's 
Information Technology Workforce,'' strongly recommended that both the 
government and private sector companies objectively evaluate 
alternative forms of training, and focus on investments in training 
rather than degrees or resumes. The nationwide shortage of IT workers 
is estimated at 364,000, and it is estimated at over 24,000 for the 
Northern Virginia region alone.
  What these minimum personnel requirements mean for the government is 
that Bill Gates or Michael Dell cannot contract with the federal 
government. Since neither one of them holds a college degree, many 
federal agencies would not allow them to perform IT work for the 
government. When federal agencies write credential creep into 
contracts, they hinder the ability of federal contractors to hire 
qualified personnel who get the job done, and increase the total cost 
of the contract to the government.
  In this era of serious labor shortages in nearly every sector of our 
economy, this practice drives up prices and limits the flexibility of 
offers. The government will get better results if it issues 
performance-based statements of work and leaves it up to the offeror to 
propose how they will satisfy the requirement. The government should 
hold the winning offeror accountable for the quality of the cake, not 
dictate the ingredients that go into the recipe.
  Another recent workforce study released by the Information Technology 
Association of America (ITAA) found that US companies anticipate a 
demand for 1.6 million IT workers in the next year. According to that 
study, about 50% of applicants for those jobs will not have the skills 
required to perform the jobs meaning that up to 850,000 of those slots 
could go unfilled. The private sector knows it must adapt to address 
this shortage and invest in training that will allow them to get the 
job done--let's make sure the federal government is not the stumbling 
block. The Fed Flex Act requires agencies to realize that key skills 
are what matters most to mission accomplishment within agencies not how 
those skills are acquired.
  Recently, there has been ongoing debate about solving the labor 
shortage in the United States and lifting the cap on H1-B visas. I am a 
strong supporter of lifting the visa cap and an original cosponsor of 
my colleague, Representative Dreier's H.R. 3982, the HI-TECH Act, which 
raises the cap to 200,000 for H1-Bs. But we all know this is a short-
term solution. We need to recognize the new types of training employees 
receive and encourage American businesses to hire employees who have 
received less traditional methods of training. We also need to 
encourage our federal government to be a leader in solving the worker 
shortage and not remain behind the curve as is so often the case.
  The Fed-Flex bill I authored recognizes the investment that firms 
make in their employees today. Many IT firms spend a significant amount 
of time and dollars training their employees to be up to speed on the 
latest products and services. The Fed-Flex Act would require agencies 
to justify the use of such minimum mandatory personnel requirements 
before imposing such requirements in a particular solicitation for IT 
services. Where the contracting officer determines that the agency's 
need cannot be met without such requirements, the legislation would not 
preclude such requirements. Moreover, the legislation would not 
preclude agencies from evaluating the advantages that may be associated 
with a particular employee's experience or education, including 
participation in an in-house training and certification program. This 
bill continues the many successes of recent procurement reforms and 
redirects government to focus on products, not process.
  Earlier this year, a study released by the American Association of 
Community Colleges indicated that twenty percent of Community College 
attendees are pursuing degrees to work on technology issues. With the 
worker shortage we face across the nation, it is of great concern to me 
that the federal government could prevent these highly-motivated young 
people from pursuing a technology career. Credential creep is a federal 
government-wide problem. We have fallen behind in recruiting IT workers 
for the federal workforce and training federal workers to take part in 
the information technology revolution. Yet, the government often 
demands college degrees for entry level positions that might be filled 
by individuals who have received another form of job training. I 
believe that Fed-Flex bill is important to address an immediate need 
within the government but I am also committed to working closely with 
my friends in the federal workforce community to look at their 
credential creep problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out the many organizations 
that have supported the inclusion of FED-FLEX in section 813 of H.R. 
4205. It is supported by ITAA, AEA, the Contract Services Association, 
the Professional Services Council, and CapNet. I would like to quote 
from a letter sent over by Harris Miller, the President of ITAA, ``The 
Federal Contractor Flexibility Act is a homerun for practical, 
efficient, and effective government contracting.'' I would also like to 
submit a copy of the ITAA letter for the Record.
  Section 813 of this bill will ensure that contracts are performance-
based rather than process-driven. In my conversations with local 
Chambers of Commerce in northern Virginia, and national procurement 
organizations, I have heard many instances where these personnel 
requirements have hampered companies' ability to work with government. 
I have also been presented with evidence that these minimum personnel 
requirements have been used at various government agencies to favor 
incumbent contractors rather than promote open competition. I have even 
heard of an instance where the contract employees who unpack computers 
at some agencies are required to hold a college degree.
   Mr. Speaker, I have also received contract examples from the 
Departments of Defense and Treasury, and the General Services 
Administration that include minimum personnel requirements. The Defense 
Department includes these cumbersome requirements for entry-level IT 
positions that include such basic tasks as data-entry, and they do not 
give contractors any opportunity to apply for a waiver. The Treasury 
contract includes these requirements but then says a company may apply 
for a waiver after contract award although the waiver requires a 
significant amount of paperwork to get approved. The GSA requirement is 
on an IDIQ contract that would effect several companies that the same 
time and drive-up costs of all of the competing kids.
   Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. The inclusion of H.R. 3582 in this conference report will 
provide important relief to Virginia and government contractors across 
the nation. It will also provide a tremendous cost-savings to the 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition, the conference report for H.R. 4205 
authorizes $309.9 billion for the nation's defense activities for 
FY2001, $4.6 billion more than the President's request. The conference 
report provides significant improvements to the quality of life of 
military personnel, retirees, and their families, military readiness, 
and modernization programs. In particular, the conference report 
provides a much needed 3.7% military pay raise and other important 
bonuses, as well as retention and quality-of-life programs for our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. In addition, the conference 
report establishes a targeted subsistence payment, up to $500 per 
month, to assist the most economically challenged personnel. I believe 
this report includes provisions that are critical to maintaining and 
sustaining our military readiness by focusing on the most important 
feature of our military; the men and women in uniform.
  More importantly, the conference report includes substantial 
improvements in TRICARE benefits for all beneficiaries of the military 
health care system. The conference report authorizes a restructuring of 
the military health care program and provides permanent lifetime 
TRICARE eligibility to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their 
family members beginning in FY2002. The report also provides a 
comprehensive pharmacy benefit to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, 
reduces the maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for all retirees form 
$7,500 to $3,000, eliminates co-payments and deductibles for active 
duty families and their beneficiaries, and eliminates TRICARE 
enrollment fees or premiums for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. 
Additionally, the report authorizes an expansion of the Department of 
Defense's (DOD mail order and network retail pharmacy programs, the 
``TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program'' to allow all beneficiaries to 
participate, including those over the age of 64, without enrollment 
fees. Military retirees over the age of 64 will be able to choose out-
of-network pharmacies, and pay a deductible of $150 per year.
  In addition to these important provisions, the conference report also 
authorizes the development of the United States Marine Corps Heritage 
Center at Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. This report permits 
the Department of the Navy to accept, without compensation, a land 
transfer from the Park Authority of Prince William County. The Marine 
Corps Heritage Center will be developed by a joint venture between the 
Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation. It is 
my strong belief that the Heritage Center represents the kind of 
partnership between federal and local government and the private sector 
which should be encouraged more often.

[[Page H9662]]

  The Marine Corps Heritage Center will be situated on 135 acres in 
Locus Shade Park, presently a county-owned site adjacent to the Marine 
Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. The 460,000-square-foot Heritage 
Center will be used for historical displays for public viewing, 
curation and storage of artifacts, research facilities, classrooms, 
offices, and associated activities consistent with the Marine Corps 
University. In addition, the main building will include a museum, 
visitor center, gift shop, restaurant, exhibits, and possibly a movie 
theater. Funding for the Heritage Center will be provided almost 
entirely by private sources.
  I believe the Heritage Center will provide visitors with valuable 
information and insight about the Marine Corps and its long tradition 
of service to America. Given Virginia's rich history and the Marine 
Corps' legacy, it is only fitting that Virginia will be host to the 
U.S. Marine Corps Heritage Center.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 
4205, as this important legislation will fulfill America's vital 
military needs for FY2001. In addition, I would also like to commend 
the conferees and their staffs, whose hard work and diligence brought 
this conference report to the floor.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. I want to commend the efforts of Chairman Spence for 
accomplishing many important goals in this bill that should have been 
done long ago.
  Since last spring, I have been visited several times by workers who 
got sick working at Oak Ridge. Mack and Ann Orick, Harry Williams, Jan 
Michelle and Janine Voner are representative of thousands of people who 
worked on our nation's nuclear weapons programs at facilities like Oak 
Ridge. They have played a central role in defending the United States 
over the past fifty-plus years. They have rightly been called ``Cold 
War heroes.''
  Like the Oricks, Harry Williams, Jan Michelle and Janine Voner, many 
of these heroes have paid a tragic price for their role in defending 
their country. Thousands have been afflicted with debilitating and 
sometimes deadly diseases due to exposure to hazardous waste and 
radiation.
  These sick workers, and the families left behind by workers who 
contracted terminal illnesses, should be compensated for their 
sacrifice. In fact, compensation is long overdue.
  I was pleased to be appointed to this conference committee to find a 
way to compensate sick workers. The agreement that was worked-out is a 
reasonable start, but is only that--a start.
  The plan that finally emerged is based on legislation written by 
Senator Fred Thompson that passed the Senate. It requires the President 
to send Congress by March 15, 2001 a specific proposal detailing the 
level of compensation and benefits that should be paid. If Congress 
does not act on the proposal by July 31, 2000, a default benefit level 
of $150,000 plus medical benefits will take effect.
  Those who worked for the Department of Energy (DOE) and civilian 
companies with which it contracted suffering from chronic beryllium 
disease, chronic silicosis or a radiogenic cancer which could be linked 
to their service at the DOE site will qualify for compensation.
  I believe this solution is a sound first step and probably the best 
we can get at this time. However, we may be able to do better in the 
next session of Congress. These workers, heroes of the Cold War, 
deserve to be compensated. They provided an invaluable service to their 
country, unaware that their bodies were being exposed to agents that 
would have a devastating impact on their lives.
  With the leadership of Senator Fred Thompson, and along with my 
colleagues in the House like Representatives Zach Wamp, Lindsey Graham 
and Ed Whitfield, progress is finally being made on the tremendous debt 
that is owed to people who worked in our nuclear weapons industry.
  Further, this bill also moves us forward in keeping our promise to 
provide permanent lifetime health care to America's military retirees 
and their eligible family members.
  The program will take effect beginning in fiscal year 2002 and is 
open to military retirees and their eligible family members. Under the 
plan, beneficiaries could keep their current Medicare provider and use 
TRICARE as their Medicare supplement paying any costs not covered by 
Medicare. Beneficiaries would pay no co-pays or deductibles.
  The plan also includes no enrollment fees or premiums for all 
Medicare eligible beneficiaries. The agreement also reduces the maximum 
out of pocket expenses for all military retirees by sixty percent, from 
$7,500 to $3,000.
  In addition to the permanent TRICARE for Life initiative, the 
conference committee also approved and strengthened several military 
health care proposals adopted by the House and Senate earlier this 
year.
  Other benefit improvements include expansion of DOD's mail order and 
retail pharmacy programs to allow participation by all beneficiaries 
and one year extension of the demonstration program ``TRICARE Senior 
Prime,'' which is also known as Medicare subvention.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference will protect our national security and 
take care of those that ensured our protection. I encourage all my 
colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 
4205, the Defense Authorization bill for 2001. This bill includes many 
important provisions that advance this Nation's national security 
interests. The measure properly addresses our Armed Forces' 
modernization efforts, safeguards the military's combat readiness and 
does right by our men and women in uniform and their families.
  The measure authorizes $309.9 billion for defense programs, nearly 
equal to the amount provided in the House and Senate versions of the 
bill. This is $4.5 billion above the Administration's request and $21.1 
billion above the amount appropriated for FY 2000. Specifically, the 
bill authorizes $63.2 billion for weapons procurement, $38.9 billion 
for research and development, $111.0 billion for operations and 
maintenance, $8.8 billion for military construction and family housing, 
and $13.1 billion for defense-related activities of the Department of 
Energy.
  This bill will also allow us to keep the promise of lifetime health 
care to America's veterans and their families. As an original co-
sponsor of the health care provisions of the Defense Authorization 
Conference Report, and as a member of the Defense Conference Committee, 
I am particularly pleased with this legislation. Specifically, the bill 
provides permanent lifetime TRICARE eligibility to Medicare-eligible 
military retirees and their family members; restores pharmacy access 
for all Medicare-eligible military retirees; and authorizes the 
Department of Defense to begin a Thrift Savings Plan. Moreover, the 
bill provides a 3.7 percent pay increase to continue to close the gap 
between civilian and military pay. Indeed, this legislation is a 
victory for the 1.4 million Medicare-eligible military retirees and 
their families. They will not receive what they earned and deserve: 
lifetime medical care, as promised to them when they enlisted in the 
U.S. Armed Services. It has been the intent of many of us to make this 
year the Year of Military Health Care, and through this legislation, we 
have done just that.
  In addition, the bill establishes a compensation plan for personnel 
made ill by exposure to toxic or radioactive materials while working on 
U.S. government nuclear weapons programs, including those who developed 
chronic silicosis and uranium mine workers who are currently covered 
under a less generous compensation program. This is a critical effort 
that I support. The bill also requires the Defense Department to report 
on the progress being made toward developing and implementing a 
comprehensive strategy in the Balkans, and to detail the commitments 
and contributions of European nations and the United Nations to 
peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. This is a proper approach. Finally, 
the bill endorses the thrust of the agreement reached between the U.S. 
Navy and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico earlier this year to address 
the Navy's live-fire training on Vieques Island. I believe that 
agreement is the best way of addressing both the Navy's readiness 
requirements as well as the interests of the Puerto Rican population.
  Lastly, I am very pleased that this bill provides fire departments 
nationwide the resources necessary to hire and train more firefighters, 
purchase and update equipment, and sponsor fire safety education 
programs. I am particularly proud of this legislation because it was 
incorporated from the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement 
(F.I.R.E.) Act, which I sponsored last year. This legislation for which 
I worked hard to include in the Defense Authorization Conference Report 
as a House Armed Services Committee conferee strengthens public safety 
through enhanced emergency services by authorizing $400 million over 
two years in grants to local fire departments. With one out of every 
three firefighters and over 24,000 civilians injured each year, and 
with about 100 firefighters and over 4,000 civilians killed annually in 
fire related emergencies, this legislation will pay significant public 
safety dividends for both firefighters and the families they serve.
  Under provisions of the legislation to assist firefighters, grant 
funds will be used to hire and train new recruits and to buy new 
equipment. The legislation will help career departments hire additional 
personnel to meet coverage needs, while saving local taxpayers the 
added financial burden. Both career and volunteer departments will be 
able to acquire badly needed, but expensive, equipment such as thermal 
imaging cameras. Such cameras can locate people trapped in a smoke 
filled building who might otherwise be killed. Many departments and 
companies have not purchased such equipment because of the unit and 
training costs.
  Firefighter grant funds will pay up to 90% of all project costs for 
local volunteer fire departments that serve 50,000 people or less and 
up

[[Page H9663]]

to 70% of the costs for local career fire departments as well as 
volunteer departments that serve more than 50,000. Matching funds can 
be provided by either state or local governments. At least 5% of the 
funds will be set aside for grants to local programs dedicated to 
prevention and public safety education. Fires cost the nation an 
estimated $100 billion annually. Only $32 million in federal resources 
are available for fire prevention and training, compared to $11 billion 
on law enforcement. We have clearly seen the positive benefits of 
putting more money into law enforcement with the crime rates falling in 
most every category and in most all communities. We will now do the 
same for fire prevention and fire safety by providing the necessary 
resources to help our local fire departments battle their share of the 
nearly 100,000 fires in the United States annually.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to 
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization. This conference 
report is important because it focuses on providing our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and Marines the equipment and other resources necessary 
to accomplish the vital mission of protecting this Nation's vital 
interests.
  There has been considerable debate during this election year about 
the status of our military's readiness. This discussion often focuses 
on a range of topics including pay, facilities, new equipment, size of 
the force and procurement. Well, I'm proud to stand before you and tell 
you that this report does more than debate, pontificate or raise 
additional discussion items. This report funds and places resources 
where the service chiefs feel they are needed. And, in a number of 
cases, provides additional funding to address the service chief's 
unfunded requirements for their procurement, readiness and 
modernization efforts.
  It is also important to acknowledge that this conference report also 
addresses a number of quality of life issues for our military 
personnel. There are a number of important initiatives included in this 
report. Some may see these initiatives as an increase in benefits. 
However, things like increased minimum housing allowances for young 
families, and a 3.7% pay raise and a comprehensive set of improvements 
to the military health care system are not perks or increased benefits. 
They are simply the least we can do for those service members and their 
families who sacrifice every day.
  Beyond all of the campaign rhetoric and posturing, this report 
demonstrates Congress' commitment, our commitment to our Nation's 
military and the men and women who serve in that military. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make clear my opposition 
to a provision originally in the Senate's version of the Defense 
Authorization bill. This provision authorizes a study on a new type of 
weapon, one that many have started to call ``mini-nukes.''
  The purpose of this study is for the government to consider a new 
weapon capable of destroying underground bunkers. Proponents of the 
provision say that the bunkers in question are used by States of 
Concern to protect their leaders in times of crisis, or to store 
stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. They also say the weapons 
are an improvement over prior systems since the release they cause of 
chemical or biological agents into the environment is negligible. 
Therefore, proponents argue, we must have these weapons.
  The problem is that we don't need new nuclear weapons; the Defense 
Department has not even identified a requirement for this type of 
weapon. What is more, I know from top-secret discussions with the 
Pentagon that we have other, non-nuclear ways of destroying and 
disabling the underground bunkers.
  Studying a new weapon only takes us one step closer to manufacturing 
it. And this is one weapon we do not need to manufacture. One of the 
major concerns I have with this study is that it focuses on making a 
``usable'' nuclear weapon, or one that does not harm civilians. But 
that is ridiculous--no nuclear weapon can side-step mass destruction 
and the harming of civilians. By today's nuclear standards, the bomb we 
used on Hiroshima was tiny. But look at the destruction those bombs 
caused--even though the city has been rebuilt, the area still has a 
disproportionate number of children with mental deficiencies.
  Finally, as a supporter of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I want 
to point out that provisions like this one only take us closer to the 
resumption of tests. Those who ``study'' any new weapon not already in 
our stockpile will naturally want to test that particular weapon.
  The fact is, this provision is a bad one. It we are truly interested 
in nuclear nonproliferation and in downsizing our own nuclear 
stockpile, the last thing we should be doing is laying the plans for a 
new weapon.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, I am please to inform the House that this conference report 
authorizes $8.8 billion for the military construction and military 
family housing programs of the Department of Defense, an increase to 
the President's request of $787 million. These funds will be used to 
meet critical shortfalls affecting the qualify of life of military 
personnel and their families and to improve facilities supporting the 
training and readiness of the armed forces. This conference agreement 
is consistent with the bipartisan agreement reached earlier this year 
on the military construction appropriations bill.
  This conference agreement also provides for an extension of the 
military housing privatization initiative that is beginning to show 
some significant successes. Properly implemented, this program will go 
a long way toward resolving the housing crisis confronting military 
families.
  Beyond military construction, Mr. Speaker, this is landmark, 
legislation. I have long been concerned about the quality and 
availability of health care for both retirees and active duty 
personnel. The health care reforms provided in this bill will meet the 
promises made to earlier generations of servicemen and women and will 
guarantee that those promises will be kept to those in uniform now and 
those volunteers who will come after them.
  I urge all members to join me in support of this important bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 
for fiscal year 2001.
  Several of the provisions included in this agreement are under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and I am 
pleased that we were able to come to an agreement.
  First, I am pleased that the Department of Defense authorization bill 
includes a provision that further amends the Women, Infants and 
Children's (WIC) program for military personnel stationed overseas. In 
last year's Department of Defense bill, the conference committee 
adopted provisions of a bill I introduced, H.R. 1779, requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to fund and operate a nutritional assistance 
program for families of military personnel overseas. That law also 
included a provision that required the housing allowance received by 
military personnel to be taken into consideration when calculating 
eligibility for the overseas WIC program.
  Consistent with my original bill, H.R. 1779, this year's conference 
agreement eliminates that requirement and allows more overseas military 
personnel to benefit from the program.
  Second, I would especially like to thank the conferees for agreeing 
to include the Impact Aid program as a part of the conference 
agreement. Impact Aid is one of our Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act programs. It provides important financial assistance to schools 
impacted by a federal presence such as military installations and 
Indian lands. Earlier this year the House passed H.R. 3616, which 
continued the authorization of the Impact Aid program. However, no 
further action has taken place and given the lateness of this session 
it is most important that we get these changes enacted into law this 
year. We have worked with House and Senate members in coming up with 
compromise language and I am pleased that the conferees have agreed to 
include this language in the conference agreement.
  Some of the specific provisions included in the Impact Aid part of 
the conference report would: change the formula for heavily impacted 
school districts to speed up the distribution of funds; protect against 
any large decreases in payments for children due to Department of 
Defense housing and transfer privitization efforts; address the needs 
of school districts impacted by housing units built under the ``Build 
to Lease'' program; continue to provide schools with a higher level of 
payments for children who move off base for a period of time when their 
homes are being rebuilt; and modify the current construction program in 
order to provide for a competitive grant program for school districts 
highly impacted by a military presence.
  Mr. Speaker, the Impact Aid program has been a valuable source of 
assistance to heavily impacted schools and school districts over the 
years. Without this program, many school districts would be without the 
full complement of resources they need for providing a high quality 
education to their students. I greatly appreciate the willingness of 
House and Senate conferees to include this important legislation in the 
Department of Defense conference report.
  A third issue of interest to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce deals with military recruiters on high school campuses. In 
some parts of our nation, military recruiters are denied access to 
recruit on secondary school campuses, even though the same schools give 
access to prospective employers

[[Page H9664]]

and colleges and universities. The conferees have included language 
that will give recruiters the same access that prospective employers 
and higher education institutions enjoy.
  The conferees have also included protections for those that do not 
wish to allow military recruiters on campus. If a school board, by 
majority vote, indicates that it does not want military recruiters on 
campus, then that decision would be respected under the legislation. In 
addition, the conferees have included a provision that makes clear that 
private secondary schools with religious objections to military service 
do not have to provide access to recruiters. Finally, I wish to thank 
the conferees for making several technical changes in this section and 
for adding the Education and Workforce Committee as one of the 
committees to which reports on recruiting access will be provided.
  The legislation also contains a provision establishing a pilot 
program to reengineer the equal employment opportunity complaint 
process for Department of Defense civilian employees. This will allow 
the continuation of a successful alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 
program already begun by the Navy--which has reduced the average wait 
for a determination on the merits from 781 to just 111 days. The bill 
permits the expansion of this model to other defense agencies. This 
complements our committee's successful efforts to have the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission expand use of ADR to expedite the 
processing of charges of discrimination in the private sector.
  Finally, this legislation establishes the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program. This provision will 
establish a compensation program for those workers who helped build the 
nation's nuclear program and who have suffered illness and disease 
because of their work. I worked to ensure that this provision will 
require some further assessment and enacting legislation before full 
implementation. As a cautionary note, I point out that as we have 
certainly learned from our committee's experience with other similar 
programs, it is especially important that Congress keep a watchful eye 
on what happens down the road. Congress should work to ensure that the 
program remains targeted to help only Department of Energy employees 
with specific occupational illnesses, rather than evolving into a 
bloated, over-broad and open-ended entitlement program. I recognize 
this has been a difficult provision to work through, but I commend the 
conferees on giving this provision the Congressional review necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, on balance, I believe the conferees have done an 
excellent job of reaching agreement on some very difficult issues. I 
once again want to thank them for working with the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce to resolve issues under our jurisdiction. -
I would urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I support and urge my colleagues to support 
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002 (H.R. 4205) which contains an important provision to the friends, 
relatives, and military colleagues of William H. Pitsenbarger. The 
provision permits the Medal of Honor to be awarded posthumously to 
Airman First Class William H. Pitsenbarger, a pararescue crew member 
from Piqua, a town in my district. He was killed in a military 
operation assisting in the rescue of Army personnel who were severely 
out numbered and surrounded by Vietcong troops near Cam My, Republic of 
Vietnam on April 11, 1966.
  I have included a short article describing his heroic action from the 
Air Force Association magazine, Valor, published in October 1983.

                         `That Others May Live'

                          (By John L. Frisbee)

       A1C Bill Pitsenbarger knew the risks involved when he 
     volunteered to drop into the midst of a jungle firefight.
       By April 1966, 21-year-old A1C William H. Pitsenbarger, 
     then in the final months of his enlistment, had seen more 
     action than many a 30-year veteran. Young Pitsenbarger had 
     gone through long and arduous training for duty as a 
     pararescue medic with the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery 
     Service and had completed more than 300 rescue missions in 
     Vietnam, many of them under heavy enemy fire. He wore the Air 
     Medal with five oak leaf clusters; recommendations for four 
     more were pending. A few days earlier, he had ridden a 
     chopper winch line into a minefield to save a wounded ARVN 
     soldier.
       His service with ARRS convinced Pitsenbarger that he wanted 
     a career as a medical technician. He had applied to Arizona 
     State University for admission in the fall. But that was 
     months away. He had a job to do in Vietnam and, as rescue 
     pilot Capt. Dale Potter said, Pitsenbarger ``was always 
     willing to get into the thick of the action where he could be 
     the most help.''
       On April 11 at 3 p.m., while Pitsenbarger was off duty, a 
     call for help came into his unit, Detachment 6, 38th ARR 
     Squadron at Bien Hoa. elements of the Army's 1st Infantry 
     Division were surrounded by enemy of forces near Cam My, a 
     few miles east of Saigon, in thick jungle with the tree 
     canopies reaching up to 150 feet. The only way to get the 
     wounded out was with hoist-quipped helicopters. Pitsenbarger 
     asked to go with one of the two HH-43 Huskies scrambled on 
     this hazardous mission.
       Half an hour later, both choppers found an area where they 
     could hover and lower a winch line to the surrounded troops. 
     Pitsenbarger volunteered to go down the line, administer 
     emergency treatment to the most seriously wounded, and 
     explain how to use the Stokes litter that would hoist 
     casualties up to the chopper.
       It was standard procedure for a pararescue medic to stay 
     down only long enough to organize the rescue effort 
     Pitsenbarger decided, on his own, to remain with the wounded. 
     In the next hour and a half, the HH-43s came in five times, 
     evacuating nine wounded soldiers. On the sixth attempt, 
     Pitsenbarger's Huskie was hit hard, forced to cut the hoist 
     line, and pull out for an emergency landing at the nearest 
     strip. Intense enemy fire and friendly artillery called in by 
     the Army made it impossible for the second chopper to return.
       Heavy automatic weapons and mortar fire was coming in one 
     the Army defenders from all sides while Pitsenbarger 
     continued to care for the wounded. In case one of the Huskies 
     made it in again, he climbed a tree to recover the Stokes 
     litter that his pilot had jettisoned. When the C Company 
     commander, the unit Pitsenbarger was with, decided to move to 
     another area, Pitsenbarger cut saplings to make stretchers 
     for the wounded. As they started to move out, the company was 
     attacked and overrun by a large enemy formation.
       By this time, the few Army troops able to return fire were 
     running out of ammunition. Pitsenbarger gave his pistol to a 
     soldier who was unable to hold a rifle. With complete 
     disregard for his own safety, he scrambled around the 
     defended area, collecting rifles and ammunition from the dead 
     and distributing them to the men still able to fight.
       It had been about two hours since the HH-43s were driven 
     off. Pitsenbarger had done all he could to treat the wounded, 
     prepare for a retreat to safer ground, and rearm his Army 
     comrades. He then gathered several magazines of ammunition, 
     lay down beside wounded Army Sgt. Fred Navarro, one of the C 
     Company survivors who later described Pitsenbarger's heroic 
     actions, and begin firing at the enemy. Fifteen minutes 
     later, as an eerie darkness fell beneath the triple-canopy 
     jungle, Pitsenbarger was hit and mortally wounded. The next 
     morning, when Army reinforcements reached the C Company 
     survivors, a helicopter crew brought Pitsenbarger's body out 
     of the jungle. Of the 180 men with whom he fought his last 
     battle, only 14 were uninjured.
       William H. Pitsenbarger was the first airman to be awarded 
     the Air Force Cross posthumously. The Air Force Sergeants 
     Association presents an annual award for valor in his honor.
       The Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service is legendary for 
     heroism in peace and war. No one better exemplifies its 
     motto. ``That Others May Live.'' tan Bill Pitsenbarger. He 
     descended voluntarily into the hell of a jungle firefight 
     with valor as his only shield--and valor was his epitaph.

  Bill Pitsenbarger showed honor in a time of tremendous pressure. He 
put other lives before his own. He put his country before his self-
interest and he proved that America would remain the land of the free 
and fight for the freedom of others by showing it was still the land of 
the brave.
  The town of Piqua still holds enormous pride for Bill Pitsenbarger 
and the community as well as Pitsenbarger's colleagues and friends 
wholeheartedly join me in supporting the award of the Medical of Honor. 
Pitsenbarger's heroism is well known in the Air Force. In fact, the Air 
Force Sergeants Association has named its award for heroism after him. 
More than a dozen other military and civilian buildings, organizations 
and monuments around the world that have been named in his honor.
  I have worked with numerous organizations and individuals in 
researching and investigating the Pitsenbarger record. On behalf of 
these supporters, I submitted to Air Force Secretary Whitten Peters in 
March 1999 a package of materials to upgrade Pitsenbarger's award to 
the Medal of Honor. In the past 18 months. Pitsenbarger's file has been 
reviewed by Pentagon officials including the Secretary of the Air 
Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Deputy Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretary of Defense. They have recommended posthumously awarding 
him the Medal of Honor.
  I believe this Medal of Honor is long overdue. My fellow Ohioans, 
Pitsenbarger's colleagues and Air Force enlisted personnel join me in 
the belief that this finally corrects the injustice and gives Mr. 
Pitsenbarger the recognition that he so deeply deserves.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from 
California, Mrs. Tauscher, and I are proud to support H.R. 4205, the 
Defense Authorization bill for 2001. Among its many important 
provisions with regard to both people and equipment, the bill addresses 
several especially notable policy issues: the bill provides permanent 
lifetime TRICARE eligibility to Medicare-eligible military retirees and

[[Page H9665]]

their family members; restores pharmacy access for all Medicare-
eligible military retirees; and authorizes the Department of Defense to 
begin a Thrift Savings Plan. Moreover, the bill provides a 3.7 percent 
pay increase to continue to close the gap between civilian and military 
pay.
  However, as members of the Conference Committee that negotiated the 
final details for this bill, we cannot overlook the fact that one 
important provision has been left out. Recent acts of hate violence 
have opened many people's eyes to the brutal reality of bias motivated 
violence and the urgent need to do something to prevent it.
  Because hate violence affects where people live and travel and 
terrorizes entire communities, the federal government has a unique 
obligation to prevent hate violence against any group. Current federal 
law only covers race, religion, national origin and color. The Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act would give federal agencies the authority to 
investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on a victim's real or 
perceived sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate and the House each voted separately to 
include language in the bill addressing hate crimes. We are 
disappointed that the leadership in Congress has seen fit to ignore the 
will of both bodies by removing this provision from the Fiscal Year 
2001 Defense Authorization bill. For the will of the powerful 
leadership in Congress to prevail over the will of the majority in both 
Houses is not only an affront to us, but also to the democratic 
principles that govern us.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my dismay this 
afternoon that the Conference Report for the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 4205, does not contain 
language which would have expanded federal hate crimes laws. Despite 
this disappointment, as a member of the House Committee on Armed 
Services, I have no choice but to support the Conference Report and 
will vote for it.
  As we all know, Mr. Speaker, a majority of members in both the House 
and the Senate voted to include the hate crimes provisions in this 
bill. The Senate voted in favor of an amendment adding the hate crimes 
provisions to the Senate version of the bill on June 20th by a vote of 
57 to 42. On September 13th, I was eager to join the majority of my 
colleagues in the House in voting in favor of the Conyers motion to 
instruct conferees to include these provisions in the final version of 
this bill. It is truly shameful, however, that the Republican 
Leadership in Congress was able to prevent the inclusion of these 
provisions in the conference report despite the fact that majorities in 
both Chambers voted in favor of them.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1082, was one of the first bills 
I co-sponsored upon becoming a Member of Congress. I believe that this 
legislation is a common sense effort to combat the heinous crimes that 
are being committed against members of our society simply because they 
are a member of a specific group. Some have argued that hate crimes 
laws are not needed because all crimes are hate crimes. Of course all 
crimes are wrong and should be punished. What makes this legislation so 
important, however, is that hate crimes are intended to intimidate and 
punish a whole class of people. Whether it is a lynching in Texas, a 
crucifixion in Wyoming, or spraying bullets in a bar in Virginia, these 
horrific acts are intended to terrorize entire groups of people and 
should be punished accordingly. It is a centuries old part of our 
common law system to weigh the element of intent in evaluating the 
severity of a crime and the hate crime law do just that.
  It is tragic that the Republic Leadership in Congress has been able 
to disregard the clear majority of both Chambers and prevent the hate 
crimes provisions from being included in this bill. I will join the 
President in his fight to include them in another piece of ``must 
pass'' legislation so that we can do our part before adjournment to 
combat these horrific crimes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382, 
nays 31, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 522]

                               YEAS--382

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     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)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     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
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     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
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--31

     Baldwin
     Blumenauer
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Ehlers
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Campbell
     Cannon
     Danner
     Eshoo
     Franks (NJ)
     Hutchinson

[[Page H9666]]


     Klink
     Largent
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Neal
     Shuster
     Talent
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1252

  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, DELAHUNT and TIERNEY changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately delayed away from the 
Capitol during the vote on the Defense Authorization legislation, H.R. 
4205. However, had I been here, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________