[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.''

____________________