[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16479-16483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Armed 
Services and pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, I offer a privileged 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Spence moves that the House take from the Speaker's 
     table the bill H.R. 4205, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
     requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to going to conference with the Senate 
and bringing back an agreement that can be supported by all of my House 
colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  The motion was agreed to.


   Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Taylor moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4205 be instructed 
     to insist upon the provisions contained in section 725, 
     relating to the Medicare subvention project for military 
     retirees and dependents, of the House bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees would instruct the 
House

[[Page 16480]]

conferees to retain the House-passed provisions of the bill that make 
Medicare subvention for our Nation's military retirees permanent and 
nationwide.
  I think in May when the House voted on this we finally took a 
historic step in fulfilling a promise that has been made by recruiters 
across our country for decades, those recruiters were wearing the 
uniforms of the United States of America; they were in Federal 
buildings. They promised young, unsuspecting 17-year-olds, 18-year-
olds, and 19-year-olds that if they enlisted in our country, if they 
served their country honorably for 20 years, they would be given 
lifetime health care in a military installation.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Defense drawdown and as a result of 
shrinking Defense budgets, the Department of Defense was unfortunately 
left with no other choice but to start asking military retirees who 
have attained the age of 65 to go out and see a private sector doctor 
and have Medicare pay the bill.
  After going to the same hospital since they were 18 years old or 19 
years old, you can imagine how angry they were, because they had kept 
their promise to our Nation, and our Nation did not keep its promise to 
them.
  It is said when a politician breaks his word, shame on him; but when 
a Nation breaks its word, shame on all of us.
  In May, the House took what I thought was the unprecedented step of 
making lifetime health care for military retirees, for the first time 
it will be treated the same as Medicare and Medicaid and that that 
money will be there every year and not subject to an annual 
appropriation.
  Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to have a number of people helping on 
that, Democrats and Republicans from all parts of our country, in an 
united effort that just passed the House by 400 votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), one of the Members that helped make this 
possible.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) for granting me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the motion to instruct conferees that has been offered by the 
gentleman.
  The motion directs the House conferees to maintain the House position 
in conference on expanding and making TRICARE Senior Prime permanent.

                              {time}  1645

  As you may recall, on May 18 during consideration of H.R. 4205, the 
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2001, the House overwhelmingly voted 406 to 10 to make permanent 
TRICARE Senior Prime, more commonly known as Medicare Subvention. The 
House sent a clear signal that Medicare Subvention should continue to 
be available to our Medicare-eligible military retirees and their 
families. Expansion of permanent authority for Medicare Subvention is a 
vital step toward fulfillment of the commitment made to our career men 
and women in uniform who were promised access to health care services 
for life.
  We made a promise to take care of those who served their Nation with 
distinction for 20 years or more. We must keep that promise. The motion 
to instruct conferees to retain the House position will help to ensure 
access to medical care for Medicare-eligible military retirees.
  By spreading TRICARE Senior Prime to military hospitals and making 
the program permanent, we will begin to meet our promise. Medicare 
Subvention is an important step toward ensuring access to care for 
retirees and their dependents over the age of 65 who live near military 
facilities. Military retirees and their dependents that participate in 
the program are very satisfied with the quality of health care they 
receive. In fact, there are many retirees and their family members in 
the current test areas that have been placed on a waiting list because 
military treatment facilities cannot take more patients at this time.
  As I have stated before, this is the year of military health care. As 
the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I focused 
on the need to improve access to health care services for men and women 
in uniform, particularly for our Medicare-eligible retirees. Retention 
of TRICARE's Senior Prime is the first important step in meeting our 
moral obligation to provide access to quality health care for our 
military retirees and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion by the gentleman speaks to a provision that 
passed this House by an overwhelming vote of 406 to 10 on May 18. I 
supported the provision at the time, reflecting my strong support for 
addressing the health care crisis afflicting our over-65 military 
retiree population.
  Since that vote, the Senate, the other body, adopted a differing 
proposal to accomplish the same objective that in turn will form the 
basis for negotiating between our two bodies. Given the strong support 
in both Chambers for each of these provisions, it is clear to me that 
the conference will bring back an agreement that goes a long way toward 
addressing this legitimate and pressing priority.
  Accordingly, I will support and urge my colleagues to support the 
gentleman's motion as a further affirmation of the bipartisan and 
bicameral commitment to address the unacceptable situation facing our 
military retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I certainly welcome the support of the 
gentleman from South Carolina, a person who has served our country all 
the way from a paratrooper to the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. Speaker, in the bipartisan spirit in which we passed this 
amendment and hope to keep this amendment in the bill in the final 
form, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in 
strong support of the Taylor motion to instruct the conferees.
  I have seen the recruitment brochures from a number of years ago when 
those who are now our seniors were recruited. The recruitment brochures 
promised them and their family lifetime care in a military facility. We 
have broken that promise, and we are paying a heavy price for having 
broken that promise.
  Three of the services are now unable to meet their recruitment goals, 
and that is partly because when prospective enlistees confer with their 
father or their uncle or their grandfather, they frequently get the 
advice that ``I am not sure that you can believe what they are telling 
you, because they did not keep their promise to me.''
  We are having problems with retention for exactly the same reason, 
because our young men and women in the military are not sure that what 
we have now promised them is going to be there after they retire 
because we have broken our promise to their elders.
  What Medicare Subvention does is to permit our retired military 
people, who either with great difficulty or not at all, can now get 
health care in a military facility. For those who have not been in the 
military or worked for the military and lived in a military community, 
they cannot understand the sense of community that these people have, 
how important it is that they continue to get health care where they 
have gotten it all their life, in a military facility.
  We have had a demonstration project which has been very successful, 
and what the legislation now in conference does is simply to make this 
universal and permanent. It is the right thing to do, and the benefits 
we are going to accrue from this are enormous compared to the modest 
cost, because the cost should be very, very modest, because Medicare 
Subvention assures that the money is going to be there.
  What this does is to help us in recruitment and help us in retention.

[[Page 16481]]

Even if there were a meaningful cost, I think that that cost should be 
more than justified by the benefits that we are going to have in 
recruiting and keeping our young people in the military.
  This is the right thing to do. My only regret is that we did not do 
it years ago. But we are doing it now. So let us make sure that our 
conferees understand that we want them to hold with the position that 
we voted so overwhelmingly here in the House.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
for his commitment to this cause.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the promise for veterans health care has 
been 58 years, 58 years. The subvention bill was not written by Duke 
Cunningham; it was written by my constituents in San Diego, California.
  I was the originator of this subvention bill. Why? Because nothing 
was being done for our veterans. TRICARE, if you live in a rural area, 
is a Band-aid and does not serve. Subvention, if you live in a rural 
area, my bill is a Band-aid if it is not controlled.
  I am going to support this. Even though it was in my bill, I have 
concern. Subvention, TRICARE, FEHBP, like civilians have, if you take a 
civilian secretary that works alongside a major or lieutenant 
commander, when they retire they get a government health care plan that 
supplements their Medicare. The military worker does not.
  There is a board already formed looking at what is the most universal 
way that we can provide this health care; and whatever that is, I would 
hope that this House and the other body will come together to provide 
whatever is needed, whether it is a combination of TRICARE, a 
combination of subvention, or FEHBP. I do not feel that subvention is 
an end-all for our veterans, and I would hope that we come together on 
that.
  I would also tell my colleagues there was another promise. My 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), is working on 
it, as I am. A promise was made to our Filipinos in World War II on 
that health care. It has not been completed, and I would hope that this 
body and the other body would act on that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for what he has done. I 
still have concern that it may in some way, down the line, if we do not 
come together, negate what we could do in totality for our veterans. I 
would like to work with the gentleman to make sure that that comes to 
fruition.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) for his assistance on this. As the gentleman pointed out 
during the previous debate, he was truly one of the founding fathers of 
the idea of subvention. And I do not claim to have invented it; I just 
think it is a heck of a good idea.
  For the public who may not quite understand what we are trying to do, 
we are trying to fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to our 
Nation's military retirees, a promise made to them. We are trying to do 
it in a way they are comfortable with. They have been going to military 
treatment facilities for most of their lives, and they are justifiably 
angry that upon hitting the age of 65 they are being turned away from 
those treatment facilities, when they have been promised they could use 
that facility, they and their spouse, for the rest of their lives.
  It is also something that we did not point out in the first debate, 
but if you look on the pay stub of the people who serve in our Nation, 
on their tax form they pay into the Medicare Trust Fund, just like 
every other American. So the question is, should not they be allowed to 
take that Medicare that they have contributed to and use it in the 
hospital that they wish to go to? That is the hospital on a military 
installation.
  Let us give them the choice that every other American has been 
having, to go to the private sector. Let us let them go to the hospital 
that they want to go to. We know that we can save money.
  The Treasury report that came out just a couple of days ago showed 
that the Nation, despite the talk of unprecedented surpluses, really 
had to borrow $11 billion from other trust funds thus far this year. 
There is not a lot of money laying around. But we know that with 
Medicare Subvention, that we can treat these same people for 95 cents 
on the dollar of what we would have paid a private sector doctor for 
the exact same treatment. So we are going to let them go to the 
hospital they want to go to. They have not only paid into the system 
with their taxes, but paid into the system with at least 20 years of 
dedicated service to their Nation. They deserve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi for yielding time, as I thank the chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  This is an important motion to recommit, to make sure that those who 
serve on the conference understand that the House, as the chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services said, almost 100 percent said that we 
want to make sure that our retirees who are 65 years and older will 
have adequate health care.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, because I know he has 
been fighting this issue for a couple of years, and I was delighted 
along with other Members from the Republican Party as well as the 
Democratic Party to be part of his amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I have 77,000 retired veterans in my district. I have 
about 13,000 retired military retirees. I have three military bases: 
two Marine, Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine Air Station; and 
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Since I have been in Congress, for 
approximately 6 years, I can tell you from day one, the biggest issue 
has been health care for our veterans and our military retirees.
  I think we have made some great progress in the last 6 years to speak 
to this issue, because as has been said by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and by the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) and others, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), those men 
and women who have served this Nation, whether it be wartime or 
peacetime, certain promises were made to them, and if you cannot look 
to your government who made that promise to keep that promise, then 
there is a big problem; and in the eyes of many of our men and women 
who have served this Nation, the Government has not kept its promise.
  I want to thank again the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), because we are keeping 
that promise now; and this amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) was certainly a great step forward, as it deals with those 
who are reaching the age of 65.
  Many of our veterans and retirees are like all of us, with the better 
quality of life and health care, we are living to be in the seventies 
and eighties, and these men and women were made a promise, and the 
promise should be kept.
  So I strongly support this motion to instruct conferees as it relates 
to the Taylor amendment, because this issue of Medicare Subvention is 
with us, and we have to do what is right for those men and women who 
have served this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, as I start closing down on my comments, it is always 
brought to my attention back home that we seem to find the monies to 
send our troops to Bosnia, or we seem to find the money to go to 
Yugoslovia. I think Bosnia and Yugoslovia both have probably cost the 
American people about 10 or 11 billion, and yet we have got men and 
women who have served this Nation that do not have adequate health 
care.

                              {time}  1700

  That is what this bill is doing and that is what this amendment by 
the

[[Page 16482]]

gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is doing. We are finally saying 
to those who have served we are not going to make them wait any longer. 
We are going to start addressing this issue of them having adequate 
health care and we are going to make sure that they have it.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote Abraham Lincoln because he said it better 
than I could ever say it. He said, ``Let us care for him who shall have 
borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.''
  I think that should always be a reminder to those of us in Congress 
that men and women who have served this Nation in wartime or peacetime, 
that we made a promise to give them the very best of health care and I 
want to say to them today that we are taking giant steps to keep that 
promise.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his 
effort. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
who has been fighting to help those men and women to have the very best 
health care possible.
  I am pleased to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the last point I would like to make is that since the 
passage of this amendment I have had the opportunity to visit with the 
surgeon general of the United States Air Force, and I had some concerns 
that quite possibly the services, if they were not in favor of this 
idea, could administratively poison it.
  I asked him, I said if we can find the money for this will he make it 
work?
  I am not smart enough to remember his exact words, but his sentiments 
were that he was extremely excited about the idea of being compensated 
for taking care of 65 and older retirees, something that he has been 
doing basically out of hide.
  The second thing that he was extremely excited about is the variety 
of health care cases that his doctors will now be able to see and be 
compensated for because, as he said, and I will never say it as well as 
he did, cardiologists do not stay very busy when all they are taking 
care of is 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds; but in order to have them well 
trained for mobilization, it is important that some of the older 
retirees are included in this mix so that those people can hone their 
skills that they are going to need in the event of a national 
emergency.
  So for so many reasons, I think this is a good idea for our Nation. 
Number one, it is the right thing to do. We are going to keep our 
promise to those people who kept their promise to us.
  Number two, we are going to do it in a fiscally responsible manner.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am most pleased that in the 
history of this committee we have tried to do things in a bipartisan 
manner. I am most pleased that we are going to keep that promise in a 
bipartisan manner. I very much welcome the remarks of the chairman of 
the committee. I very much welcome the remarks of gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. The Congressional Budget Office 
has estimated that this national missile defense system, which is part 
of this report, will cost $60 billion to build and deploy. Congress 
intends to spend $12 billion in the next 6 years. The SDI Star Wars 
system has cost the taxpayer more than $60 billion, and it is estimated 
that this system though less far-reaching than Star Wars will cost 
more. We have spent more than $122 billion on various missile defense 
systems. We need to reorganize our priorities and look at how we could 
better use these funds for programs that benefit the poor, seniors, and 
our Nation's children.
  Before the decision is made, three exo-atmospheric intercept tests 
have been scheduled to determine the system's success rate and 
reliability to deploy the system, but one of two tests failed. The 
third test failed miserably as well. Three tests cannot define the 
technical readiness of the system and serve the basis for deploying a 
national missile defense.
  According to the Union for Concerned Scientists, countermeasures 
could be deployed more rapidly and would be available to potential 
attackers before the United States could deploy even the much less 
capable first phase of the system.
  A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists details how easily 
countermeasures could be used against this system and would not have to 
use new technology or new materials.
  We are the only superpower in the world. The deterrent that we 
currently have is sufficient. We have thousands of missiles on hand 
that act as a deterrent. Any attack by another state would not be 
massive and would not be able to completely destroy our country or our 
nuclear arsenals. So any attack would leave the United States and its 
Armed Forces intact.
  Our deterrent is impaired only if another state had enough missiles 
to knock off ours before they launched.
  The national missile defense system will simply line the pockets of 
weapons contractors, spending billions of dollars for a system that 
does not work and does not protect against real threats. We will 
undermine our legitimate military expenditures and erode the readiness 
of our forces.
  So who is benefiting from having a national missile defense system? 
According to The Washington Post, Boeing in 1998 already obtained a 3-
year contract for $1.6 billion to assemble a basic system before the 
President even decided to deploy the system. The Post states that TRW 
has contracts for virtually every type of missile defense program. The 
military industry has the most to gain from a national defense system. 
According to The Washington Post, Lockheed Martin is the major 
contractor on theater missile defense with its upgraded version of the 
Patriot missile and the Army's $14 billion Theater High Altitude Area 
Defense system.
  Deploying a national missile defense system could politically succeed 
in setting the stage for a worldwide arms race and dismantle past arms 
treaties.
  The NMD violates the central principle of the ABM treaty, which is a 
ban on deployment of strategic missile defenses. It will undermine the 
nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It will frustrate SALT II and SALT 
III. It will lead directly to proliferation by the nuclear nations. It 
will lead to transitions toward nuclear arms by the non-nuclear 
nations. It will make the world less safe. It will lead to the 
impoverishment of the people of many nations as budgets are refashioned 
for nuclear arms expenditures.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the lessons I had to teach myself was that almost 
every Member of Congress represents about 600,000 people. Even those 
people I disagree with, everybody in this floor was elected by a 
majority of the voters and I am going to respect their ability to say 
what they want to say.
  I would like to remind the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that 
the matter at hand is health care for our Nation's military retirees. 
This is a motion to instruct the conferees to stick to the House-passed 
provisions of the bill, provisions that I think greatly improve health 
care for our Nation's military retirees; a much better package than the 
other body.
  At this moment we are instructing our conferees to stick to what I 
think is the better language of the two. It really has nothing to do 
with missile defense.
  Mr. Speaker, again, it is always to be a position to be envied when 
one has their chairman and ranking member with them and most of their 
subcommittee chairmen with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.

[[Page 16483]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________