LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document
Back to Document View

LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional


Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. 
(f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.)  
FDCH Political Transcripts

 View Related Topics 

May 16, 2000, Tuesday

TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING

LENGTH: 31361 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE

HEADLINE: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DREIER (R-CA) HOLDS HEARING ON FLOOR DEBATE OF H.R. 4205

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES HOLDS HEARING ON H.R. 4205, THE

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2001


MAY 16, 2000


SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DREIER (R-CA), CHAIRMAN

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER J. GOSS (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINDER (R-GA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DEBORAH PRYCE (R-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS (R-WA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SUE MYRICK (R-NC)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETE SESSIONS (R-TX)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS REYNOLDS (R-NY)


U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY (D-MA),

RANKING MEMBER

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN FROST (D-TX)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TONY P. HALL (D-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER (D-NY)


U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FLOYD SPENCE (R-SC)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IKE SKELTON (D-MO)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KASICH (R-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANK (D-MA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GARY CONDIT (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR. (D-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOEL HEFLEY (R-CO)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM RYUN (R-KS)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM GIBBONS (R-NV)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BLILEY (R-VA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER COX (R-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF STEARNS (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVE CAMP (R-MI)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SPENCER BACHUS (R-AL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ED BRYANT (R-TN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE LARGENT (R-OK)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARK SANFORD (R-SC)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ZACH WAMP (R-TN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVE WELDON (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ED WHITFIELD (R-KY)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN THUNE (R-SD)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID VITTER (R-LA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GENE TAYLOR (D-MS)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NEIL ABERCROMBIE (D-HI)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT UNDERWOOD (D-GU)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM ALLEN (D-ME)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LORETTA SANCHEZ (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CIRO RODRIGUEZ (D-TX)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELLEN TAUSCHER (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT ANDREWS (D-NJ)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD MARKEY (D-MA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES STENHOLM (D-TX)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD BERMAN (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL KANJORSKI (D-PA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE COLLIN PETERSON (D-MN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHERROD BROWN (D-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN MCCARTHY (D-NY)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NYDIA VELAZQUEZ (D-NY)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TED STRICKLAND (D-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL LUTHER (D-MN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D-IL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RONNIE SHOWS (D-MS)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL (D-CO)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOE BACA (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY BERKLEY (D-NV)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARON HILL (D-IN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JANICE SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL)

*** Elapsed Time 00:00, Eastern Time 11:03 ***


*

DREIER: The Rules Committee will come to order.


We are hoping to have a quorum, but we don't have one quite yet. But we (OFF-MIKE) of the committee here with Mr. Moakley, and that occurred when he walked into the room. And it didn't exist before he walked into the room, I should say.


We're here for consideration of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001.


And we're very happy to welcome the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Spence, and he's going to be joined by the ranking minority member, Mr. Skelton.


And we're happy to welcome both of you gentlemen, and congratulations on a fine work product. And we look forward to your testimony and we'll enter into the record any prepared remarks that you have.


And we will certainly -- you see the microphones in front of you. The world very much wants to hear it over the World Wide Web, which is carrying this. And so, we can encourage you to push the button and turn those things on, and we will look forward to your testimony.


Thank you very much.


SPENCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I'm pleased to appear before you again this morning in support of our bill, H.R. 4205. I look forward to working with you and Mr. Moakley and other members as we go through this difficult process.


I want to thank you, first of all, for what you both have done in the past, and other members of the Rules Committee, too. I know our bill presents (inaudible) difficult issues year in and year out. But you've always managed to find the proper balance and we work through them and it comes out all right.


The Armed Services Committee reported the bill this year with a strong bipartisan vote of 56 to 1, improving on last year's vote of 55 to 1.


UNKNOWN: Mr. Chairman, who is the one?


SPENCE: Well...


UNKNOWN: The subject just walked in by mistake?


SPENCE: Mr. Gibbons had a personal issue out there in his state, and he had to vote against it. But that's just the only reason he had to do it.


UNKNOWN: (OFF-MIKE)

This is the first year the president has brought in an increase in the defense budget. And we are pleased with that. It's not enough, of course. We've gotten ourselves into a hole we're trying to dig out of, and it takes more than one year to do that.


We have added -- through the regular process, a budget with bipartisan support on the floor -- an amendment to increase that $4.5billion above what the president asked for.


You know, all too often when we discuss these issues, we talk about dollars and cents, and it's convenient to measure political action and commitment by the level of cuts or increases in the overall defense budget. But the real story of what is happening to our military lies beyond the budget numbers. To the men and women in uniform, today's chronic shortage of personnel, modern equipment, safe facilities and operating resources all add up to a decrease in morale, effectiveness and overall combat capability.


So I think it's important as we debate this bill and its many recommendations. We look beyond the mere numbers and focus on this debate, what it's really about: Are we willing to continue to increase the risk of our national security? Or are we prepared to commit to a long-term rebuilding of our military forces to a level more in keeping with our superpower responsibilities?


Mr. Chairman, I understand we have about 101 amendments which have been filed with the Rules Committee. Accordingly, and in keeping with the traditional approach to manage this complex legislation on the floor, I request the following rule: Provide for at least one hour of general debate, authorize the en bloc adoption of noncontroversial amendments, either as filed or as modified, and waive points of order against the committee substitute and against its consideration, including germaneness legislation bearing appropriations in violation of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The committee has provided you with examples of provisions in the bill that would require waivers of these points of order.


Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for your -- for this...


(CROSSTALK)


DREIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Spence. We appreciate your very helpful testimony.


And as I welcome Mr. Skelton, let me state that we now have a rapidly growing quorum present of the committee, and so you have -- as well as the World Wide Web audience, Mr. Skelton, you have members of the Rules Committee who are now happy to hear your testimony.


SKELTON: That, of course, is -- the latter is very, very important.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Moakley. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee to consider the rule that will govern H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001.

Let me say at the outset, I note that in recognition of Mr. Spence's leadership over the past six years as our committee chairman, we adopted a bipartisan, unanimous amendment in the committee naming the bill after him, and it's certainly...


(CROSSTALK)


(UNKNOWN): ... voted for that?


SKELTON: Everybody voted for it. And it's certainly very, very appropriate to do so. We're proud of him as a leader, as our chairman, and of course as a friend.


This is a good bill. It deserves the support of the members of the House. Mr. Spence did an excellent job of putting the legislation together, and the 51 -- pardon me -- the 56-to-1 vote reflects the bipartisan nature of the work product that we had before us.


The bill would authorize $310 billion for defense programs for fiscal year 2001, which includes $13 billion for the Department of Energy defense-related programs. The bill makes vital readiness and modernization improvements which will keep our forces the best trained and best equipped in the world.


The bill also addresses important quality-of-life issues that are at the top of the agenda for service members and their families. In addition to a much needed 3.7 percent pay raise, the bill makes a number of key improvements in military health care system that will benefit service members, their families and military retirees.


In terms of the rule, Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Spence's request for a structured rule similar to those that have governed the consideration of the defense authorization bill for several years. Mr. Spence and I have a good working relationship and the rule provides sufficient time to debate major issues but also allows us the flexibility to consider miscellaneous amendments en bloc will permit the House to consider the bill in a fair, efficient and hopefully relatively rapid manner.


My principal reservation with this legislation concerns provisions relating to the Navy training range on the island of Vieques off the coast of Puerto Rico. Live-fire training on the island ceased when a Viequan worker was inadvertently killed during a training exercise. The president reached an agreement with the governor of Puerto Rico that could lead to the resumption of live-fire training.


However, the provisions now in the bill which condition the transfer of land and receipt of economic development funds on the resumption of live-fire training would negate the agreement and I believe retard, if not preclude, the resumption of all training activities there. Therefore, I ask that my amendment on Vieques that would strike the bill's provision and insert the land transfer associated with the president's agreement be made an order in this rule.

Other amendments which I would ask the committee to make an order, because they are of so much importance to a good number of members, include an amendment submitted by Mr. Taylor that would expand the Medicare subvention demonstration program, an amendment by Mr. Allen relating to arms control, Ms. McCarthy's amendment striking section 810 of the bill regarding gun control, Mr. Rodriguez' amendment relating to grants for the repair of certain Department of Defense schools, and Ms. Sanchez' amendment concerning private funding for abortions at overseas military hospitals. I ask that all these be made an order for full debate.


All these amendment concern important issues which deserve the House floor's full debate. And, Mr. Chairman, be happy to respond to any questions you may have, and I thank you for this opportunity to appear.


DREIER: Well, thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Skelton, for that very thoughtful testimony and your request on the amendments. I should tell you, by the way, we -- last night you asked me about a member submitting a late amendment. We never got that amendment.


SKELTON: I couldn't find him.


DREIER: You couldn't find him. OK. I just wanted to...


(CROSSTALK)


SKELTON: Thank you for the opportunity, but I couldn't find him. He'd already left the floor.


DREIER: Yes, because we were on alert up here waiting for that amendment...


SKELTON: Thank you.


DREIER: ... even though it was late.


Congratulations, Mr. Spence, on having your name on what is obviously an extraordinarily important piece of legislation, and it's very deserving, and I suspect that the vote would even be unanimous here in the Rules Committee on that one too. And so I congratulate you.


I'd like to just pose one question. That is, in light of the request that the two of you have made to waive legislative, budget and appropriations points of order, I just wondered if there's any opposition from any other committee to your request on that, if you're aware of any opposition.


SPENCE: (OFF-MIKE)


DREIER: May want to turn your microphone on there so our...


SPENCE: Been working with our Budget Committee mainly on some just small differences we have, and we hope to be able to work those out.

DREIER: But they have not voiced opposition to your request?


(CROSSTALK)


DREIER: OK.


SPENCE: Just routine kind...


(CROSSTALK)


DREIER: Well, thank you very much. And as I say, we appreciate your request for a structured rule, because, as you said, I know our staff worked here well into the night with yours on the over 100 amendments that were submitted, and we're hoping to have what we like to refer to as a full and hard-hitting and wholesome debate, and I think that we'll have a rule that will do that.


Mr. Goss?


GOSS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to celebrate the recognition of Chairman Spence for the work he's done. But I also would like to celebrate the recognition of Mr. Skelton as well, because he has also, I think, been a fabulous leader in these matters for a long time in many different guises, and I think back to his days on the Intelligence Committee.


And I also want to thank Chairman Spence for the leadership and assistance that he has given the Intelligence Committee, close working relationships and cooperation between our staffs. I think that has made a huge difference. I think we're able to proceed in a nonpartisan and noncompetitive way trying to deal with the national security needs. And I thank you much for bringing the product before us today.


I hope that we have balance when we get through all of these amendments that balances out what I will call the national security needs versus the -- sort of the social side -- the social issues that affect the military, which are obviously very important. And I'm not suggesting they're not, I'm merely suggesting that mission one, in my view, is making sure that we have the national security taken care of and we do it in a way that accommodates the social needs that Mr. Skelton has asked that we have these debates.


So I want to make sure we have the full range, but I want to not lose sight of the fact that this is a critical bill at a time when we are trying to rebuild, reorganize our capabilities for the world as it is today, which I think is dangerous in a different way than it was before, and I think we all understand that and agree with it.


The only other point I would make is that I know on some of these amendments that we are having some objection from other committees, which is not surprising, and we realize that's not necessarily your concern at this point. Maybe on the floor, but it isn't yet. We will be hearing that and I may come back and share with you some of that and get your views if you don't mind, especially as it involves the intelligence side of it.


GOSS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


DREIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Goss.


Mr. Moakley?


MOAKLEY: I just want to congratulate Mr. Spence on having the bill named after him. And I agree with everything that's been said. These two gentlemen are probably the hardest working chairman and ranking member in the Congress. And in having such a convoluted and very, very tough bill to get through, to have one vote cast against it I think is a testament to both you gentlemen. So I just want to congratulate you.


DREIER: Mr. Hastings?


HASTINGS: I just want to congratulate both of you for the work that you've been doing on this. As you know, that because of something that happened in my area there's been some concern. I think we've got that worked out very well and I appreciate the work that you have done and your staff on this and I think we've got the thing resolved. So thank you for that.


DREIER: Mr. Frost?


FROST: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I have several questions. Let me start with Mr. Spence.


Are you asking a structured rule as we have had in the past where there are only certain amendments that will be made in order?


SPENCE: Yes. It's about the same thing we've done in the past.


FROST: Have you -- have you provided us yet a list of those amendments that you are asking be made in order or that you have no objection to being made in order?


SPENCE: Staff informs me we are working with the Rules Committee now to get those to you. We haven't done it so far.


FROST: All right, I would ask the chairman of the committee -- of our committee, Dr. Dreier -- is it anticipated that we will follow the two-rule procedure that we have done in the past, where we hear testimony, grant a rule for general debate, and then come back and grant a second rule for the amendments?

DREIER: The committee has yet to make that decision, but it is -- it's a possibility, but especially in light of the tragic death of our colleague Mr. Stupak's son, which creates a challenge for us scheduling-wise for those members who want to go to the service in Michigan. So that decision has not yet been made, but the gentleman's correct in stating that in the past we have had a two-rule structure.


FROST: Does the gentleman know how late we will come back this evening to act on at least one of those rules?


DREIER: Well, I think it depends on the testimony and how long you and I engage in discussion here, which, you know, clearly cuts into that time. So I don't know, I can't say at this point.


Mr. Moakley I know will be raring to go in the middle of the night, as usual, but we're hoping to have it as early as possible. And I don't mean early tomorrow morning.


FROST: And it's my understanding that plans are being made for members to be able to take a flight to Michigan for Congressman Stupak's son's funeral, perhaps leaving at 4 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, returning at midnight, so that members -- some members will not be available during that time block, including presumably some members of this committee who may want to go out to attend that funeral.


DREIER: Well, as I said, we're taking all of that into consideration as we proceed with trying to manage the House and deal with that tragic circumstance. So we will clearly consider that.


FROST: I thank the chairman.


Mr. Spence, you've heard Mr. Skelton's testimony in terms of Vieques. Do you have any objection to Mr. Skelton being able to offer an amendment on the floor that would amend the committee's provision on Vieques?


SPENCE: No, I don't have one.


FROST: So it's perfectly fine with you for him to have that right to offer that amendment.


SPENCE: We're going to have that debate. We've had that debate a good bit already, as you know, in the committee, but we'll willing to debate it again.


FROST: Also, Mr. Chairman, there is at least one member who would like the opportunity to amend your provisions on -- relating to retirees' health benefits. Mr. Shows would like that opportunity, and perhaps others, to amend the provision that you have on military retirees' health benefits. Do you have any objection to their being able -- to Mr. Shows or others being able to offer amendments on that subject?


SPENCE: That's going to be a big problem, because we have other committees involved in that decision, and so that would probably present a problem.

FROST: I would ask Mr. Skelton.


SKELTON: Could I -- could I (inaudible). My understanding is that Mr. Taylor's amendment does not have the budget problem that other amendments might have. And you will note in my testimony, Mr. Frost, that I recommend that Mr. Taylor's amendment be made in order. He is a member of this committee.


FROST: Of course, it's my understanding that Mr. Spence has asked waivers of various rules for the basic bill itself, so the fact that the -- that Mr. Shows amendment might require a waiver would not in and of itself be an impediment because the committee is asking for waivers on other provisions.


SPENCE: But a budget provision also, it would -- it would carry a price tag of about $4 billion. And...


FROST: Mr. Chairman, it's a little hard to hear in the room.


DREIER: I'm sorry. Mr. Goss was talking to me.


(CROSSTALK)


FROST: It's a little hard to hear in the room.


SPENCE: That amendment would carry a price tag of about $4 billion that's not in the budget right now.


FROST: Mr. Chairman, you realize that the whole issue of health care for military retirees is a very big issue right now...


DREIER: Absolutely.


FROST: ... because of the closure of a number of bases and the intended closure of hospitals at those bases, so that many military retirees do not have the type of health care that they were promised at the time they entered active duty.


DREIER: I agree, and we're working on it as fast as we can, but we just can't do all of it at one time.


FROST: Mr. Skelton wanted to speak on that.


SKELTON: I -- in relation to the Taylor amendment, to which I referred a few moments ago, the budget resolution, 401, establishes a reserve fund to make improvements to health care for military retirees and their dependents in order to fulfill promises made to them, and the fund reserves up to $50 million. In addition thereto is a total of $400 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2004. So I bring that to your attention regarding the Taylor amendment specifically.


DREIER: There again, if I can respond, Mr. Frost. The bill does a lot in the way of helping in this area. We've -- pharmacy benefits and all these things have -- we've done a whole lot. And the service organizations support this bill and they understand that.

FROST: OK. I would urge the committee to continue to try and address that issue, because I can tell you that is a major issue. I have a large number of military retirees in my immediate area, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and of course, we have a large number in the state of Texas. And that is an issue that they are very concerned about, they raise with me all the time.


DREIER: I do personally. I know myself, I do personally. Incidentally, I'm a co-sponsor of that Shows bill, but we just can't do it in this way.


FROST: I would ask you also -- I noticed that you have a provision regarding the Thrift Savings Plan...


(UNKNOWN): Will the gentleman yield for just a second?


We're very happy to welcome staff here, But we have a number of members who are looking for seats here on the front row, which are for members only.


And Mr. Allen, we welcome you. We've got a seat for you up here.


Thank you for yielding.


FROST: I notice that you have a provision relating to the -- authorizing active duty and Reserve members of the uniformed services to deposit up to 5 percent of their basic pay before tax each month in the Thrift Savings Plan. Is any of that to be matched by the government or is that simply that they can deposit it in a Thrift Savings Plan without a match?


DREIER: I think it's just for them to participate and no match.


FROST: No match.


Whereas other federal employees -- federal civilian employees do have the opportunity to have some of their money matched by the federal government...


DREIER: Right.


FROST: ... under the FURS (ph) plan.


The other question I would ask you is that, I had the opportunity recently during the Easter break, to visit our troops in Kosovo along with a number of other members. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas led a delegation made up of Democratic and Republican members from the state of Texas. Could you elaborate on the committee's provision as it relates to Kosovo, and what the committee's intention is by this?


DREIER: You mean the provision about withdrawing our support of...


FROST: Yes.

DREIER: Yes. Well, the bill doesn't take up too much on that. The -- Kasich proposed amendment will decide that question, I think, on the floor.


FROST: I'm sorry, I didn't understand.


DREIER: We haven't done too much in the bill about it, just supportive kind of things, but the Kasich proposed amendment will take up most of that on the floor, if it's approved.


FROST: What you have provided in the bill, you've required the president to establish certain benchmarks.


DREIER: Right.


FROST: ... and -- to facilitate the withdrawal of troops from Kosovo, but you haven't set a time or anything of that nature.


And Kasich, of course -- Kasich, Shays, Frank, others...


DREIER: That's right.


FROST: ... require a certification process by our European allies. Are you asking that the Kasich amendment be made an order? Do you have any objection to that being made an order?


DREIER: I don't. I don't. As a matter of fact, the Senate bill also includes a similar provision to the Kasich.


FROST: Mr. Skelton do you have any...


(CROSSTALK)


DREIER: We tried to work that out with Kasich. And might can included in the en bloc. I don't know.


FROST: Mr. Skelton do you have any view on that?


SKELTON: It will be a lively debate. Of course, we'll have a vote for it, but it'll be a lively debate.


FROST: I'm sorry. You -- what would you...


SKELTON: It will be a lively debate.


FROST: And what was your position?


SKELTON: I would be against it.


FROST: Be against it?


SKELTON: Absolutely.


FROST: And why would you be opposed to it?


SKELTON: Because I think an awful lot more thought needs to be given as to the future of our troops, NATO, the progress made toward the future of Kosovo. I think this might be rushing to judgment.


However, we should have the debate.


FROST: Well, I can tell you, based on my trip to Kosovo, that this is still somewhat of a tense situation there. And it appeared to this member, that if we were to withdraw precipitously, that you would have a resumption of violence almost immediately in that area.


SKELTON: I think that's absolutely true.


On the one hand, you would have the Albanians, who have been restrained, probably rearming. You would have Milosevic encouraging violence and an attempt for the Serbs for you to come back and take over. You would have potential massacres, holocaust all over again. And our being there has stopped that. It's a very sad part of the world.


In contrast, Bosnia is more of a military and slowly becoming a political success, although not as fast as we like, and this is just down the road from Bosnia.



FROST: I would agree with the member because our delegation visited Bosnia, also. The Texas National Guard is deployed in Bosnia for six months in a peacekeeping mission. We had the opportunity to visit with them. We also had the opportunity to go to Sarajevo and meet with various governmental officials. And it appears that the situation in Bosnia has stabilized.


SKELTON: That's correct. You still have a good number of the old warhorses politically around, but sooner or later, I think they will be replaced and your political situation will be even better.


FROST: I have no further questions. Thank you.


DREIER: Thank you very much, Mr. Frost.


Mr. Diaz-Balart?


MR. DIAZ-BALART: No questions. Thank you very much.


DREIER: Mr. Hastings?


HASTINGS: No questions.


DREIER: Mrs. Myrick?


MYRICK: No questions. I just want to thank the gentleman for the good job you do for the good of the country. I know this is not an easy bill and you have lots of requests and not enough resources. So thank you.


(UNKNOWN): Thank you.


DREIER: Mr. Sessions?


SESSIONS: I would like to concur with all the comments that have been made -- Republican and Democrat today and thank the gentlemen for their hard work.


DREIER: Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. And congratulations once again, Mr. Spence on having your name on this important piece of legislation.


As those in the room may have inferred, we're going to try and keep the hearing going. And Mr. Goss is going to be presiding when I go downstairs to vote. And the next panel of witnesses we're expecting will, I hope be back. And so, it looks like they're here now, so thank you very much.


And I'll call our next panel which consist of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich; the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank; the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays; and the gentleman from California, Mr. Condit.


Gentlemen, please come forward and we...


(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman...


DREIER: Oh, I'm sorry.


(UNKNOWN): I just wanted to say (OFF-MIKE) left for a vote. (OFF-MIKE)?


DREIER: Yes, you are right, he is back. We're happy to have you and if you want to begin, welcome and congratulations.


KASICH: On what?


DREIER: On making it down to the vote and back up here to allow us to keep this hearing going. That's a great accomplishment. We...


KASICH: If it hadn't have been for the...


DREIER: We mark accomplishments up here. We want to compliment the...


KASICH: You know I want to compliment the committee for having such an effective control, because if it wasn't for all those beepers going off, I might have missed that vote.


DREIER: Listen, I would not have known it either.


So, welcome and any prepared remarks that you have will be entered into the record, without objection.


KASICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


DREIER: And we welcome the summary.


KASICH: You might remember, Mr. Chairman, that we had an amendment on the floor offered by Mr. Franks, Shays, Condit and myself to try to get the Europeans to live up to their commitment on Kosovo -- the commitments that they made to support a variety of different activity -- humanitarian aid, reconstruction aid, and the police activity and civil administration. And all we tried to propose on the House floor is that they needed to live up to the commitment that they made, and if they didn't, that we would withdraw.


We got tied up in a variety of ways including the fact that we were dealing with 2000 money and people were very up tight about it, and the fact that there was no presidential waiver.


So we sat down with the people who really, who count the votes and who are sympathetic to what we were trying to do, and we rewrote our amendment and we believe that we now have a winner. And this amendment would maintain the essence of the call for the Europeans to live up to their -- the commitments that they made in the rebuilding and policing of Kosovo.


But we do, in fact, include a presidential waiver that could apply in two cases. And then, if the president would attempt to waiver it a third time, it would force a vote of the Congress. And in addition, the money would be effective only in April 1, 2001. So there would be additional time for this to be able to be complied to.


We think it's got enough teeth and it maintains the spirit and provides the flexibility that the House requested. The last vote was very, very close. We believe that this amendment should be made an order. And we think that, with the changes that we've made, we think it's very possible that we will pass this amendment and would ask the committee to make it an order.


DREIER: I recognize Mr. Frank.


FRANK: (inaudible) put it off.


Obviously, this is a very important issue, and I think that's essentially the point we're addressing here and not so much the merits, we could deal with those on the floor. But there has been, among those concerned about America's military, which is all of us, concern about our being overextended. And it has seemed to me for some time that one way to deal with the problem of our military forces being overextended, without sacrificing vital interest, is to ask our European allies to do significantly more, particularly within Europe.


We worry about the stresses and strains and costs of Americans being sent thousands of miles away from their family. Well, it's thousands of miles away from the U.S., but it's only hundreds of miles away from our major European allies.


We have a situation here where they made promises which they have not been keeping. And it seems to us clear -- and by the way, this is not a resolution, an amendment to withdraw from Kosovo. If people wanted to do that, they could offer a separate one. This is one which says withdraw only if our allies do not live up to the promises they have made.


And it's very hard for me to understand why we wouldn't want to say that. It is very hard for me to understand why the administration opposes this as -- when they ought to be asking for this to help with negotiating. And if we are at all serious about asking the allies to do things, this ought to be it.


No one believes that the allies, by themselves, or even substantially more than we did, could have done the -- could have provided the air power that was used to such an advantage in Kosovo. No one is suggesting they can replace the 6th Fleet. But when it comes to putting ground troops in this kind of basic peacekeeping and policing operation, then there just is no good reason why this shouldn't be done.

SHAYS: Thank you. We thought we had a good amendment last time. We think it's better now. Unlike our previous proposal, our revised amendment does not withhold any funding for Kosovo. This change was made to address concerns raised by members that withholding funding would diminish our military readiness and prevent the Department of Defense from reimbursed -- from money already spent on the mission of Kosovo.


Second, our amendment includes a national security waiver -- a presidential waiver that allows the president to waive the requirement for withdrawal for up to 180 days. This section was added specifically to address concerns raised by members during consideration.


And third, our amendment provides the president with additional time to meet its certification requirement. While our previous amendment required the certification to be met by June 1, 2000, the amendment we intend to offer, Mr. Kasich's amendment, 4205, moves this date up to April 1, 2001, thus providing an additional 10 months for our European allies to meet their obligations.


These are three changes that resulted based on the debate. And we hope that our amendment is made an order. We do believe that a majority will support it.


GOSS: Thank you, Mr. Shays.


Mr. Bachus?


BACHUS: Thank you. I want to hand out to the two of you all, some...


GOSS: We'll make sure these get spread around.


(UNKNOWN): Mr. Bachus, would you yield to me? I'd just like to point out for the record that I've been coming to this Rules Committee for 18 years. And Mr. Moakley, I want to congratulate you that the Red Sox have finally made it into first place for about two days.


MOAKLEY: I consider that a provocative statement. Let's get back to the subject.


(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, point of order.


FRANK: We're actually more concerned about Mr. Moakley making it to first place in the Rules Committee.


MOAKLEY: Thank you.


GOSS: Mr. Bachus, please continue.


BACHUS: Yes, I thought they tore down their stadium. I didn't even know they still played.


MOAKLEY: Well, we'll get television down the (inaudible), one of these days.

(UNKNOWN): It's re-runs, you're saying.


BACHUS: Let me just -- I've given you all three sheets there. The first one shows our deployments, between 1940 and 1990, of military forces. And you'll see there that we've had about 10 or 11 deployments. Since 1991, over on the right, you see over about 25 deployments. So, basically, Kosovo just fits in a larger picture of us sending our military all over the world.


Now, how long are we going to be in Kosovo? The next quote is the quote of the NATO commander, and he says, I'm talking five years and it could be 10 years. And he says that how long it will be, will be contingent on how soon the European allies supply their promised commitment. So basically, we're talking about whether our guys, or our men and women are over there three years, five years or 10 years, based on waiting on the Europeans to deliver.


Now, the last graph I've given you -- now bear in mind that the NATO commander says we're going to be there from five to 10 years. Let's look at some other deployments of U.S. troops.


World War II, we talk about the greatest generation. You know, our grandfathers and our fathers went over and they served four years, World War II. We're talking about being deployed from five to 10 years. World War I lasted two years. And I mean, these -- World War I and World War II, we've all heard, this took four years out of people's lives, two years out of people's lives. We're talking about a deployment that -- Korea was three years. The Civil War was four years.



BACHUS: We're talking about a deployment that's going to be twice as long as any other deployment of U.S. troops in the history of this country, if our European allies don't get off the nickel.


So I'll just end with that. I just want to throw that in: Do you want to commit our troops to a conflict that's two and a half times longer than World War II, is five times longer than World War I, is three and a half times longer than the Korean War? It's going to depend on whether we take action on this amendment.


GOSS: Thank you.


Well, my understanding is that Mr. Condit was also on this panel and I don't see him, but we'll...


(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: And he is in agreement with the remarks of the panel.


This is a subject that obviously is of interest to everybody in the country and it's a policy issue, in part, and a capability issue, in part, and I believe that it is very appropriate to discuss it.


My question that I would have for you is, beyond the burden- sharing aspect of this, does your amendment also get into the distinction between peacekeeping and operational readiness?


SHAYS: The answer is it's just combat troops that it impacts. All other personnel can stay there, CIA, whomever.


FRANK: We should say with regard to the reliance of European allies, it does make a distinction between the police forces and the troops. It does separately hold them to what they promised with regard to civilian police forces and troops.


GOSS: I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear, that we understand that there is a distinction between combat troops and the other things that were promised...


FRANK: Other things -- yes.


GOSS: ... and that the burden-sharing applies in that area that's where your focus...


SHAYS: Just combat.


GOSS: Yes. You affect combat, but the burden-sharing is...


FRANK: ... is police and...


GOSS: ... police and combat.


SHAYS: Right.


(UNKNOWN): Although, Mr. Goss, quite frankly, it probably ought to include both of them because they made a promise, they ought to keep their promise. But because they haven't kept their promise, our troops are in the field exposed to danger and could be there five to 10 years.


GOSS: Well, the combat issue is a separate issue, in part, and you're right, if things hot up there, that issue, I think, will come to the forefront very quickly. Let's hope that doesn't happen.


FRANK: Mr. Goss, could I just...


GOSS: (OFF-MIKE).


FRANK: ... because I did want to note to Mr. Baucus that, while it was for many of us the fathers and the grandfathers who went to World War II, in Mr. Moakley's case, his father saw him off as he went over personally, so.


(UNKNOWN): And Joe, the...


FRANK: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to start a World War II discussion.


I just would say briefly, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I had two other members. If I could just say a word about both of them right now, I could save you an appearance later.


GOSS: Before I do that, could I have the members go through just on the panel, please?


FRANK: Sure.


GOSS: Mr. Moakley, questions on the issue?


MOAKLEY: No, I think they're right on point. I think this amendment should be debated on the floor. I mean many people on the floor have strong feelings on both sides.


GOSS: Mr. Linder?


Ms. Myrick?


Mr. Sessions?


SESSIONS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.


GOSS: Thank you.


Now, Mr. Frank, you have another amendment that...


FRANK: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, one's that related to this...


(CROSSTALK)


GOSS: Thank you, Mr. Kasich. Thank you, Mr. Shays.


FRANK: ... related to this which -- there was a related one where the European allies have been talking about forming their own military force. I was somewhat disappointed to see the reaction of the administration, the State and Defense Departments, to be somewhat negative about that. I think it's inconsistent for us to ask them to do more and then express opposition when they get ready to do that.


So I have an amendment that would express the sense of Congress that a European military force, which is probably a prerequisite for them doing more, be approved, that would be a sense of Congress.


And secondly, we are talking about a very significant budgetary amount here overall, and I and Mr. Luther have a 1 percent reduction amendment. It does seem to me that we are talking not just about military policy but about a level of expenditure that really does affect the overall expenditure of the federal government. So I would hope that the membership would get a chance to vote on a budgetary amendment as well.


SHAYS: Mr. Chairman, if I could just that I support Mister -- I support the first amendment to express Congress' encouragement that Europe have its own force and hope you would make that an order.


GOSS: The issue there, I think, again, is a very important issue, how it's drawn, and I think debate would be useful on that personally. The ESDI is, I think, a good idea. The question of whether there is a serious commitment to it or it is just a shadow organization or a hollow organization is going to be the essence.


FRANK: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I agree with that and -- but what I dislike was the initial reaction of the State and Defense Departments which was, we don't want them to do any of it at all. I'd be certainly willing to work with people who have an amendable or have, you know, additional language to make that point. But I do think that the general principle ought to be established.


GOSS: I think their concern was properly to make sure that this was not going to be at the expense of the NATO muscle and that will probably come up in the debate in...


FRANK: Well, although as Kosovo showed, being at the expense of NATO muscle ain't much expense these days when you're talking about the non-American NATO.


GOSS: Well, the issue is whether you can take something that's weak and make it weaker, I guess. I don't know. We don't want to do that, but the point is well taken. Thank you.


FRANK: Thank you.

GOSS: Questions for either of the gentlemen on their amendments?


Mr. Moakley?


MOAKLEY: No, I agree with that.


FRANK: And I apologize to Ms. Myrick for spilling a glass of water on her.


GOSS: Ms. Myrick?


MYRICK: I told him the next time he thinks I need a bath, just tell me.


GOSS: Mr. Sessions, did you have any questions for Mr. Frank on his other amendments?


SESSIONS: (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: Thank you.


Mr. Baucus, who is a member of the panel, would you like to expedite your request for your other amendment in the interest of efficiencies?


(AUDIO GAP)


GOSS: Mr. Moakley?


MOAKLEY: (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: No, no. (OFF-MIKE)


MOAKLEY: What we basically did because of a problem there, there was a question of whether the FDA approved it for efficacy. We basically swept away, in one section, every right our military has to informed consent.


And now, basically, they're sitting out there. They're lab rats.


What we want to avoid is what happened in Tuskegee, what happened with the experiments that we heard 40 and 50 years ago. And we've basically thrown open that gate.


And I'd just simply say, how many of us would have voted on a stand-up vote to take these rights against -- away from our military. Now we know about it, it's time to address it.


GOSS: Thank you very much. I think you articulated it very clearly.


Mr. Linder.


LINDER: No questions.


GOSS: Ms. Myrick.

MYRICK: It's a good amendment. I appreciate it.


GOSS: Mr. Sessions.


SESSIONS: I thank the gentleman also. (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: Thank you...


(CROSSTALK)


BACHUS: Joe, I want to just take a point of personal privilege. You were in World War II. The reason I -- I served there in Vietnam for just two years. But even two years is a lot time out of somebody's life or four years. And that is basically what I was pointing out about a deployment could last five years.


MOAKLEY: I think Mr. Frank was just pulling your leg, there. That's all.


BACHUS: I understand. But I...


(CROSSTALK)


MOAKLEY: He was just jibing. All right.


BACHUS: I understand, but I do apologize for that.


GOSS: Thank you very much, Mr. Bachus.


At this time, the committee calls the Honorable Gene Taylor, gentleman from Mississippi.


Mr. Taylor, the floor is yours. You have prepared statements? Accepted without objection for the record. We look forward to your remarks on your amendment.


TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman...


(CROSSTALK)


GOSS: I understand Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Jones are also involved in this. Is that an amendment?


TAYLOR: That's correct.


GOSS: Are they here? Any of those gentleman here?


TAYLOR: (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: But you'll speak for all of them.


TAYLOR: (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: Please proceed.


TAYLOR: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I believe that overall we have a very good defense authorization bill with one glaring fault. And that is, that it failed to adequately to address the problem of the health care of our nation's military retirees.


Mr. Chairman, I'm certain on the day that you enlisted, I know that on the day that I enlisted and on the day that just about every American who ever served in the armed forces enlisted, someone wearing the uniform of the United States of America, in a federal building, told an unsuspecting 17-, 18-, 19- or 20-year-old that if they served honorably for 20 years that there'd be free lifetime health care for they and their spouse for the rest of their lives at a military facility.


I know that I have spoken to any number of veterans over the years, people who have invested their money in what they thought was going to be their last home near a military facility for the purpose of getting health care for the rest of their lives.


Because of the Defense Department cutbacks starting around 1990, continuing all the way up until this year, the Department of Defense trying to deal with limited dollars has chosen not to honor that promise.



TAYLOR: What they're basically telling retirees is that when they turn 65 years old that they're now Medicare-eligible, and they expect these people who served our nation honorably for 20 years or more, to go out and find a private-sector doctor and have Medicare pay for it. The retirees are justifiably angry at this.


What I would like to do, and what Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Jones and Congressman Hefley has expressed interest in, Congressman Scarborough has expressed interest in, although they are not co-sponsors at the moment, would be to make, on a national permanent basis, Medicare subvention. Medicare subvention is a demonstration program at the moment, where Medicare-eligible military retirees at six sites across the country are able to continue to go to the base hospital and then HCFA reimburses the Department of Defense 95 percent of the cost of that treatment.


To date, it's been an overwhelming success. The biggest problem is a long waiting list of people who want to get into the demonstration sites. People who are 64 are enrolling just so they can make sure that they're on the list when they hit 65. And in short, the military retirees feel like this program, for the first time in many years, is giving them what they were promised.


I remind you that, as Congressman Bachus mentioned, we do have a recruiting and retention problem. And I can tell you in south Mississippi, the largest item to appear in the daily letters to the editor are military retirees writing letters encouraging the 18-, 19- year olds not to join the services.


In south Mississippi alone, there are 12,000 military retirees. In south Mississippi there are 100 professional recruiters. And even though this is one of the most patriotic parts of the country, where it is just considered something that you're supposed to do is to enlist, at least for awhile, it just doesn't work when 12,000 people are telling young people not to join, versus 100 people telling them to join.


It has had a horrible effect on morale. I can tell you about two years ago, I was visiting the jungle school down in Panama. And I ran everybody above the rank of E-5 off, so that the young people would speak to me frankly. Absolutely amazed when a young 19-year-old covered with sweat, been through no telling how many days without sleep, and the one question he had of me is, and I'm quoting, "Are you going to screw me out of my medical benefits the way you did my uncle?"

It does affect retention. And if this is the only thing on that young man's mind that he has to say to a Congressman coming to visit, then it obviously is influencing his decision as to whether or not to make a career of the armed forces.


Mr. Frost asked an excellent question, and that is, what is the cost of this program and can we afford it?


CBO estimates that the cost of implementing this program for year '01 would be $20 million in direct spending, with no discretionary cost. No discretionary offset is necessary, because Section 218 of the H. Congress 290, the budget resolution for '01, establishes a reserve fund to, and I'm quoting, "make improvements to health care for military retirees and their dependents in order to fulfill the promises made to them," end of quote.


The fund reserves up to $50 million in '01 and up to $400 million for the fiscal years '01 through '05. The CBO estimates that the direct spending impact of the health care provisions in H.R. 4205, the budget resolution, total about $165 million over 2001-2005.


According to CBO, contained in -- to extend Medicare subvention to 2003 would cost $20 million in '01 and $95 million over the 2001- to-2005 time period. CBO has scored a similar bill to my amendment, introduced by Senator Warner, as $20 million in '01 through 2005.


So basically for -- the long and short of it is -- there is, in this year's budget resolution, more than adequate funding to pay for this measure.


I'm asking for the House of Representatives to have the opportunity to make good on a promise that has been made by every recruiter since 1950, to honor the wishes and the promises made to those people who served our nation honorably for 20 years.


GOSS: Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.


I know that you're correct when you say other members are interested. Mr. Scarborough in Florida has been a champion of this for a long time. We've had many debates about subvention.


TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, if I may -- just one last -- is that the Military Coalition, which is a group of I believe 24 organizations that represent military retirees, everyone from the Retired Enlisted to the Retired Officers' Association, the Air Force Sergeants' Association, Veterans of Foreign War and the American Legion have all endorsed this measure.


And, again, I would hope the members of the House would have an opportunity to vote for it.


GOSS: Thank you.


Mr. Moakley?


MOAKLEY: No questions.

GOSS: Mr. Linder?


LINDER: I'm just curious why it would cost anything, if we're already paying it through Medicare, and we're going to pay 95 percent of the costs of it?


TAYLOR: Mr. Linder, I also find that strange. What we are told by the budget analysis is that a military retiree, probably because of the proximity that he's had all of his life to military health care, has a greater propensity to use that health care than an average citizen.


And that accounts for the difference in cost.


LINDER: I think it's a great amendment. It's a huge problem.


TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.


FROST: You may have mentioned this before I came in. Would you explain how your amendment differs from what's in the bill itself, and how your amendment differs from Mr. Shows' amendment?


TAYLOR: Mr. Frost, the bill earlier in the year, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Skelton and I introduced, H.R. 3655, which did several things: a prescription drug benefit for active duty and retirees; money to help those people who are in remote duty, like recruiters, to pay for their health care, since they're not near a military facility; covering the cost of people traveling to get health care if it's not available locally. And most of those provisions were included by the Personnel Subcommittee and therefore are in the bill.


The one part of the bill -- of that amendment -- that was not included, is Medicare subvention. Medicare subvention, in a nutshell, allows a military retiree to go to a base hospital who is Medicare- eligible. And when he goes to that military hospital, he is -- Medicare reimburses the hospital for his treatment, just as they would reimburse Dr. Jones or Dr. Smith. The only difference is it is done on a slightly reduced payment schedule; they'd get 95 percent of what a private sector doctor would get. The difference being that we have already invested in that doctor's salary, since he's with the DOD, we've already paid for that building, since it's what DOD paid for, and therefore it should not need as high a reimbursement.


FROST: This just deals with those retirees who are Medicare- eligible.


TAYLOR: That's correct.


FROST: Have you attempted in your amendment to deal with those retirees who are not yet 65?


TAYLOR: Mr. Frost, from what -- and, again, I represent about 12,000 military retirees. What I am seeing is that the biggest disappointment comes when they reach the age 65. The bases have been seeing these people on a space-available basis all the way up until their 65th birthday. On their 65th birthday, they are more or less told by the base administration to go find you a private sector doctor; you're Medicare-eligible; we're not going to see you anymore.


Quite frankly, for someone who has spent their life being called sergeant or chief or colonel, it's an incredible disappointment at the most vulnerable time in their life. And so this is why we're trying to change it.


You asked the differences between the Shows' bill -- this is not as far-reaching as the Shows' bill. It does not include FEHBP. But I can also tell you...


FROST: No federal employees benefit program...


TAYLOR: That's correct. But I can also tell you...


FROST: As an option...


TAYLOR: As an option...


FROST: For going to a military hospital.


TAYLOR: But subvention has proven to be more popular than the demonstration sites can handle. There are more people asking for it than we have funded.


In the case of FEHBP, it is actually funded about 65,000 slots, but only 3,000 of those slots have been filled, because, Mr. Frost, as you probably know from your town meetings, people think -- when they talk to us, they say, I want your health care plan. What they don't realize is that we have a significant co-pay. In my case, through Blue Cross, it's about $1,700 a year.


So all those people who wanted FEHBP thinking that it was free, when they saw the co-pay, said, "This isn't as good a deal as I thought it was," and they have not been participating.


But, again, in the case of subvention, we actually are having more people ask for the program than we have funding right now.


FROST: And your provision does address prescription drugs also, you said.


TAYLOR: It would leave intact the committee report which already has a significant prescription drug improvement.


FROST: The situation that we have in Texas, in my area, and this is the reason I'm pursuing this line of questioning, is the only military hospital in the Dallas-Fort Worth area was at Carswell Air Force Base, and when Carswell was closed, under the base closing, that hospital closed. And so there is no military hospital immediately available for thousands and thousands of retirees in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.


And our situation is not that unusual. And the question is what happens to people who are -- under your legislation, people who are not near a military hospital. What do they do -- retirees -- who are over 65?

TAYLOR: Mr. Frost, like all of us, I wish I had a magic wand, but I don't. The Shows bill would cover people in more circumstances, but it also has a substantial price tag attached to it. I've heard anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion. For approximately $20 million, we can fulfill the promise that was made to me.


In speaking to a number of veteran's organization, when I say that -- you know, guys I wasn't there when you enlisted, but I was there when I enlisted, and the promise to me was lifetime health care for myself and my spouse if I served honorably for 20 years at a military facility. And you can see the heads nodding all through the room -- they pretty -- the people who enlisted, who are retired now, those were the rules then. I'm trying to fulfill that promise. And we're doing it in a way that does not wreck the Department of Defense budget.


Again, it's not everything for everybody, but it's going to do a heck of lot of good for those people who have earned this benefit.


FROST: Yes. Well, what do we do with the people who are over 65, but who don't live near a military hospital?


TAYLOR: If the Shows bill's on the floor, I'll vote for it.


FROST: No, but under yours, but it may not...


TAYLOR: But it may not...


FROST: But if Shows does not become -- if it is not admitted...


TAYLOR: Then I think this is by far the next best thing that we can do, and it really does fulfill the promise that was made to me back in 1971.



FROST: I understand, but it doesn't help the people who aren't close to them.


And I'm for your provision, obviously. I'm for the Shows provision also. But the question is, if yours is the only one that is offered -- made in order by this committee, and that's certainly a possibility, and if yours is the only we have the opportunity to vote on, the people who don't live near a military hospital aren't covered by yours. How do we help those people?


TAYLOR: My staff reminds me, that is a provision of base closure.


FROST: I'm sorry.


TAYLOR: My staff reminds me, that is a provision of the base closure rules. Those people who live near a hospital that was closed, get an extended DOD pharmacy benefit, that is above and beyond what other retirees would get. It's sort of trying to make up for.


FROST: All right. But we're not just talking about pharmacy benefit, here. Of course, we're talking about being able to go to a military hospital or going -- get health care.


And they would -- these people would just have to find the closest military hospital and go to that one, even if it may be 100 miles away?


TAYLOR: There's also, under existing law, a demonstration program extending FEHBP. It -- I believe eight sites around the nation.


FROST: For people over 65?


TAYLOR: For people over 65. Again, it has not had the participation that any one envisioned, but it is out there.


And again, Mr. Frost, I wish we could do everything for everybody. If the Shows bill is on the floor, I'm a co-sponsor, and I'm going to vote for it. I'm just not so sure I'm going to see it on the floor.


I think this goes a long way to fulfilling that promise. And for future retirees, they now know this makes it permanent. We're not going to yank them around anymore.

This says, for now on we're going to have Medicare subvention, we're going to fulfill. So when you go to select a retirement home, if you choose to select one near your base hospital, you know that these are going to be the rules for the rest of your life, instead of this on again-off again. Because right now subvention is just a demonstration project that ends at the end of this year.


FROST: Unless, Congress in it's wisdom closes the base that you've selected to live near.


TAYLOR: Mr. Frost, I'm not going to vote for any rounds of base closure. And I would hope that 218 people vote the same way that I do.


FROST: I just -- the reason I'm asking all these questions is, this is an enormous issue, as the gentleman knows. And we have a -- it's a very significant problem in terms of recruiting and retention for the armed services. And that people who we are recruiting and that we are trying to get to re-up, to stay in, to do their 20 years, have to know that there is a real commitment for military -- for medical care at the end of that 20 years. And it is a problem for us, as we all recognize. And we have to find ways to resolve this.


Your provision goes part of the way.


I would hope that this committee would also permit a vote on the Shows provision in addition to making your amendment an order. That may not be the result.


TAYLOR: OK. We don't...


FROST: On our side we don't control the votes, of course, on what's made an order. But I would hope that we would have a full range of options available on the floor.


TAYLOR: Again, by way of reminder, because you've pointed out what the bill doesn't do, let me remind you what it does.


Every base hospital in America becomes available for military retirees.


FROST: Over the age of 65.


TAYLOR: There are no restrictions, as far as how far you live from that hospital, which the present demonstration program has. There is no limitation of the number of retirees that can participate.


They will be reimbursed, by HCFA 95 percent, and quite frankly, if you pump an additional $2 billion worth of HCFA money into the military health care system, it's going to help everyone, from the youngest enlistee, whose wife is getting ready to have a baby to the 65-year-old retiree, because many of this has been coming out of hide for military health care under the existing situation, and this would be a way of increasing that budget.


FROST: And there is a separate unrelated issue, though comparable issue, for Medicare subvention at veterans hospitals. And your amendment does not attempt to address that.


TAYLOR: That's right. This is the defense authorization bill. I would hope that Mr. Stump and Mr. Evans would try to do the same thing for the veterans hospitals.


FROST: And of course, people at veterans hospitals are people who have served honorably and are eligible, but may not have served their 20 years.


TAYLOR: That's correct.


FROST: So they're not eligible for treatment at a military hospital.


TAYLOR: That's correct.


FROST: So it's a tremendous issue that we'd better pay attention to -- Congress better focus on, because as long as we continue with an all-volunteer force we've got to do the type things to permit us to attract and retain the people we need to for those forces.


TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Frost, I have come here today, begging for an opportunity for 435 members of Congress to vote on this issue.


FROST: Thank you.


GOSS: Ms. Myrick?


MYRICK: Mr. Frost asked several questions concerning VA hospitals and the clarification between the two, and you did say -- but I couldn't hear -- but you did say that the military retiree with 20 years services can travel to a base hospital if they do not live close to one.


TAYLOR: Under the demonstration program that is going on right now, but it expires at the end of this fiscal year.


MYRICK: So your bill only applies...


(CROSSTALK)


TAYLOR: If I may, Ms. Myrick. There's a limit as to how far...


(CROSSTALK)


MYRICK: Yes, what is the radius on that?


TAYLOR: I believe it's only about 60 miles.


The bill -- the amendment that I'm asking that members can vote on would remove that limitation.


MYRICK: OK. So they can...


(CROSSTALK)


TAYLOR: So they can come from anywhere.


MYRICK: They can go 300 miles, if they have to.


TAYLOR: They can come from anywhere, show up at a base hospital, be taken care of in unlimited numbers, reimbursed by Medicare just as if they went to a private sector doctor. Except they're going to the base hospital that they were promised when they enlisted.


MYRICK: Thank you.


GOSS: Thank you very much.


TAYLOR: Thank you.


GOSS: The Honorable Jim Talent is here, thank you.


Welcome you to the committee table.


Your prepared remarks will be accepted without objection. Comments will be welcome.


(AUDIO GAP)


GOSS: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize to the gentleman.


RYUN: A contract bundle occurs when an agency takes a number of contracts that have traditionally been bid on separately, so that small business people are able to bid on them, and then bundles them all together. So, for example, you take a -- all the military bases in a region, and instead of bidding them out separately when they buy fresh fruit or vegetables, you bundle them all together. An obvious effect of it is that small business people are unable to compete for the larger contracts.


The department in particular has done this a lot, and we even encountered this in the Small Business Committee a lot, and on the theory, which has never appealed to me, that if you have a procedure where you have fewer competitors, you're going to end up with better quality and lower prices, and our experience on the committee has been that that simply isn't true.


We've encountered a number of instances where, even on its own terms, these bundles have resulted in poor quality services and higher prices over time, and increasingly the small business community is concerned about them, and we in the committee are very concerned about them. And that's why Ms. Velazquez has offered this amendment -- these two amendments, which I support.


One of them would require a study by the Department of Defense on the contract bundling in its agency. The other is a pilot project that would give the SBA administrator -- that's the Small Business Administration administrator -- the power of approval on bundled specs and bundled contracts before they bid them out.


I like both amendments. I particularly like the latter. I have struggled with this, as a member of the Armed Services Committee and as chairman of the Small Business Committee, for several years, and I have about given up on getting the department to do the appropriate due diligence before it does this bundling.


This idea of long term for best value appeals so much to the Pentagon, and what they do is they just -- they bundle these contracts out, whether it's telecommunications contract for particular bases, household goods, moving contracts, cook and chill -- the latest thing is that they think it's better for the Marines if they have one central kitchen cooking up a bunch of food, and then they chill it down and send it back out to the bases, and then they heat it up for the men. Well, it's obviously poorer quality food than having the food prepared on site by people who have traditionally been doing it.


And what happens when they do this, you bundle up these contracts -- you give them for long term, two or three years, and then what happens is the small businesses who had been involved in bidding on this work either go out of business or lose interest in the government business. So then when you recompete the thing after two or three years there aren't many competitors, and you end up paying more anyway. And we've found this over and over again.


I think it's a fit subject for the House to vote on, and I think unless the House votes on it and sends a message, we're not going to get the kind of response we ought to get out of the department. So I'd urge the committee to commit a vote on the amendments, and I'd be willing to answer any questions.


GOSS: Thank you. Very well explained, Mr. Talent.


Mr. Frost, any questions?


FROST: No questions.


GOSS: Ms. Myrick?


MYRICK: No questions.


GOSS: Ms. Velazquez I believe will be testifying. And since it's your amendment -- her amendment you're testifying to.


Thank you.


I apologize.


We're trying to make this work as best we can. Fair play and who's here and who's not. We have a list. We're going down it, and we'll try and give you ample notification of where you are on the list.


Ms. Sanchez, your prepared remarks will be accepted without objection. We welcome your comments.


SANCHEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I have submitted an amendment for the committee's consideration to the Department of Defense authorization bill. Many of you will recognize it as the Harman amendment. This amendment, which I offered during last year's consideration of DOD authorization, repeals a provision of the 1996 defense bill that bars military women and dependents stationed overseas in the U.S. military from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military facilities.


This amendment has received bipartisan support from both the House Armed Services Committee and the Personnel Subcommittee, and I believe it will help keep our soldiers and their families safe and healthy.


Women who volunteer to serve in our armed forces already give up many freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. And I am sure you'll agree that these military personnel should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health, and their basic constitutional rights because of a policy with no valid military purpose.


The amendment is widely supported by women's health care professionals. The free-standing bill this amendment is based on has nearly 100 co-sponsors from both parties, and my amendment is supported by the Department of Defense.


The professionals who are responsible for our nation's armed services support this policy change, and I ask that the House be given the opportunity to consider this as well. And I'll look forward to any of the questions you might have.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


GOSS: Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. That is very clear. It's an issue we are very familiar with indeed.


Questions, Mr. Frost?


FROST: I would just urge that the gentlelady's amendment be made in order. We ought to vote on this.


GOSS: Seems to me we do that about every year, don't we?


Ms. Myrick?


Mr. Sessions?


SANCHEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


GOSS: I understand that Ms. Morella and Ms. Lowey are also with you on this according to my amendments...


(CROSSTALK)


Mr. Thornberry?


The gentleman from Texas.


The congresswoman from California on the...


THORNBERRY: She's with me, Mr. Chairman.

GOSS: Thank you very much.


THORNBERRY: Mr. Chairman, as the committee will remember, last year's defense authorization bill included a substantial reorganization of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons program, in part because of the security concerns, which you are very much aware, and in part because we have had study after study which have said that the management of those facilities has been a mess, including the president's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.


Last October, Chairman Spence and Mr. Skelton appointed a special oversight panel to oversee the reorganization of the Department of Energy and asked me to be chairman and Ms. Tauscher to be the ranking member. We visited all of the sites in the nuclear weapons complex over the last few months. We have had hearings. We have had countless meetings and informal discussions with the Department of Energy and outside folks, as we have tried to see how this major reorganization was going.


The three amendments that I have offered essentially are some fine-tuning of that law that was passed last year.


One of them deals with the dual-hatting provision which has been certainly the most controversial of the issues involved in the way the department has implemented the law; and the second one deals with giving the first administrator a fixed term of years so that he would have the chance to get off the ground with some stability.


The Senate bill includes provisions dealing with both issues by the way.


The other one is simply a study -- or requires the department to come back and tell us how things are going -- an implementation report.


At the request of the committee, we also filed amendment number 94, which is the first three all put together in one. It's the exact same text; it's just a combination.


Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line is that in all of our work, we do not believe that the law at this time needs some sort of major overhaul or some sort of complete rewriting. There are these relatively small provisions which I think can be improved.


And I would point in particular to the fixed term of years. The president has nominated General Gordon, deputy director of the CIA. He has asked for this fixed term to be the head of the NNSA. The president and General Gordon have asked for this fixed term of years. I think there's widespread support on both sides for it. And it certainly makes sense.


I'd yield to my colleague for anything that she'd like to add in addition on these amendments.


TAUSCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thornberry is right and the minority concurs that we are looking for these seasoning, curing pieces of the act passed in 1999. We actually are very supportive of the nomination of General Gordon. We believe that it is very important for the future stability of the new NNSA, coming off these very rocky times, that we have an administrator that comes in for a set period of time, and that subsequently we would get from General Gordon exactly what we would do over the next few years to make sure that implementing language from Title 32 is going to give him the best chance of having a very strong NNSA.


So we concur, and we urge the Rules Committee to let us put forth this amendment to the floor.


GOSS: Thank you very much. Obviously, this is a subject of great concern to me as well, and I appreciate you taking this initiative. I know that not everybody sees this as exactly the same light these days, but the security at the labs is still very much on my mind, so I appreciate this.


Mr. Moakley?


Mr. Sessions, nothing? Thank you.


Ms. Tauscher, you had an amendment with Ms. Lofgren also which is not on this subject. While you're here, would you like to finish that?


Thank you very much.


Ms. Lofgren, welcome.


TAUSCHER: Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to testify today on this very important amendment to the Defense authorization bill.


The amendment that Congresswoman Lofgren and I are offering will change the law with regard to computer export controls and cut the red tape that currently hinders competition and bogs down American businesses.


I know that you support this legislation -- Mr. Dreier does -- as our amendment is identical to the bill that he introduced earlier this Congress. Furthermore, as many members of this committee know, this legislation has already passed by the House International Relations Committee.


I raised the subject last week during the House Armed Services Committee's markup of the Defense authorization bill, but I decided to withdraw the amendment because of issues of sequential referral.


This amendment would reduce the congressional review period on changes in computer export controls from 180 days to 30 days. The current law of 180 days is outmoded and overly bureaucratic. In the constantly evolving world of computer technology, 180 days is an excessive and unworkable amount of time. And perhaps most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it is simply unnecessary. While it is critical that we continue to monitor the export of technology, we must also make sure that the current law keeps pace with the environment in which we are operating. Right now, it does not.


The current rules are so antiquated that they are unnecessarily causing American companies to lose business while bureaucrats review the liability of technology which is already being exported by numerous countries and competitor countries.


As we all know, our national security and economic security are inextricably linked. Just as our economy cannot flourish without a strong national defense, our nation's military will not be prepared for the challenges of the next century unless U.S. industry continues to develop state-of-the-art, cutting-edge technology.


We must ensure that our export controls do not infringe on the ability of our companies -- our export control laws do not infringe on the ability of our companies to develop these new and innovative technologies that will protect our nation's security and keep our economy strong.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I'd like to yield to Ms. Lofgren.


GOSS: Ms. Lofgren. Welcome.


LOFGREN: (OFF-MIKE) concept of a 30-day review has had broad bipartisan support in the past. I think it's worth noting that last year, the Sony PlayStation exceeded the export limitations for super- computers. And we were not able to change that in a rapid fashion because of the 180 day limit.


The computing power that is readily available changes swiftly, and so it is important that when we agree on the changes, they can be implemented in a timely fashion.


That's not to say that we don't also have broad bipartisan agreement that there are some super-computers that we should not export; that are a risk. No one questions that, but when we -- when we can buy it at Fryes (ph), it's too late. It's already out in the marketplace and we ought to be able to adjust that situation in a timely fashion.


So I urge the committee to make this amendment in order, and thank you for allowing me to speak in support.


GOSS: Thank you very much. I think the issue's very clear. At least it certainly is to me.


Mr. Moakley?


Mr. Hastings?


Ms. Myrick?


Mr. Sessions?


Mr. Reynolds?


Thank you, ladies, very much.


At this -- Mr. Ryun of Kansas -- was here, is here.


Thank you.


And then, Mr. Allen of Maine I see has come back, so it'll be after Mr. Ryun, Mr. Allen.


Mr. Ryun, we welcome you. Your prepared remarks will be accepted without objection for the record. We welcome your comments.


RYUN: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on -- in favor of an amendment to the fiscal year 2001 defense authorization bill to be ruled in order.


My amendment would enable the secretary of Army and the Kansas Commission on Veterans' Affairs to agree on a transfer at Fort Riley, Kansas, for the purpose of establishing a state-operated and maintained veterans' cemetery.


The communities surrounding Fort Riley are highly populated with military retirees eager to see their fellow servicemembers honored with a veterans' cemetery on the grounds of historic Fort Riley. The Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Kansas Commission on Veterans' Affairs will be responsible for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the cemetery.


The current leadership at Fort Riley wholeheartedly supports the transfer of the property for the purpose of a veteran's cemetery. The property transfer legislation has been through extensive negotiations with the Department of Army, the House and Senate Armed Services Committee and myself and Senator Roberts' offices.


Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment would produce a positive outcome for the veterans of Fort Riley, Kansas, and community, and ask it to be ordered -- ruled in order for the debate on the floor.


GOSS: Thank you. Obviously, the people in your district are well served in this matter and for your interests in it.


Mr. Moakley?


MOAKLEY: No questions.


GOSS: Mr. Hastings?


HASTINGS: No questions.


GOSS: Mr. Sessions?


SESSIONS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.


GOSS: Mr. Reynolds?


REYNOLDS: No questions.


RYUN: All right, thank you very much.


GOSS: You explained it clearly. Thanks very much, Mr. Ryun.


Mr. Allen of Maine, we welcome you back. Your remarks will be accepted without objection for the record and your comments will be appreciated.


ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for stepping out, but it's a great story. Some high school students in Windham have brought a Vietnam veteran down here to see the Vietnam memorial. They've raised funds for him and that's what (OFF-MIKE)


GOSS: I'm sorry, I inadvertently turned off your microphone because I pushed the wrong button, not you. But the reason I pushed the button was because I have indication that Mr. McGovern and Mr. Gejdenson might have an interest in this same matter and they represent you.


ALLEN: They do.


GOSS: And they're not here but you speak for them, I presume.


ALLEN: That's correct.


GOSS: Please proceed.


ALLEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Rules Committee to request that an amendment to H.R. 4205, the defense authorization bill, be made in order, and this is amendment that I have submitted with Mr. McGovern and Mr. Gejdenson so that the full House can have an opportunity to vote on the issue on U.S. strategic forces.


This amendment gives the Pentagon the flexibility to retire or dismantle strategic nuclear delivery systems that are in excess of military requirements, contingent on a presidential certification that such reductions do not undermine our nuclear deterrent or continued Russian dismantlement. Last year, this Congress provided flexibility to reduce the number of Trident ballistic missile submarines from 18 to 14 pursuant to the START II Treaty. Now our amendment today simply extends this flexibility to other delivery systems such as the Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile.


The decision that the House made last year on the Tridents will save $5 billion to $6 billion. Likewise, granting flexibility for the planned retirement of this 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs will save approximately $722 million, which is the cost to maintain these missiles at the START I level through 2007 when START II is designed to go into effect.


And I hope, and I believe, the committee would agree there are higher military priorities for the use of this money, because the way we're going to comply with START II is to eliminate these 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs.


Mr. Chairman, I offered a similar amendment during the committee process which was not approved, and what I've done is to revise my amendment to address the concerns raised by the members of the committee.


First, unlike my amendment in committee to repeal the entire limitation, this amendment retains the underlying law, including the prohibition on retirement or dismantlement of strategic delivery systems. It requires the president to submit a certification to Congress on any further reductions to ensure that such a decision is consistent with the nuclear posture and national security of the U.S..


Second, the amendment addresses concerns that this approach would lead to unilateral disarmament. We've added section E on line 16, which will require the president to certify that U.S. strategic force levels do not drop below Russian levels. And the point here is that the Russians are not able to -- the Russians are not able to maintain even their START II levels because of financial considerations. This would -- this amendment would give the president flexibility. It doesn't mandate the dismantlement of any one single missile.



ALLEN: Now, three years ago when we -- when Congress acted to prohibit reductions below START I levels, the purpose was to encourage Congress to ratify START II. And that's exactly what Bob Smith said on the Senate floor. He said the overall intent of the provision is to send a signal to Russia that if they want the benefits of START II, then they ought to ratify the treaty. Well, last month they ratified the treaty.


There are two additional protocols that need to go -- be approved over here. That's not likely to happen soon. In the meantime, we're likely to spend at least $722 million to keep in operation missiles we've agreed to dismantle.


And so, I would simply ask the committee to give us the opportunity to bring the Allen-McGovern-Gejdenson amendment to the floor so the entire House can have a vote on this particular issue.


And I thank the chairman.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. It's certainly a timely subject.


ALLEN: Yes.


HASTINGS: Mr. Moakley, questions?


Ms. Myrick?


Mr. Reynolds?


OK. Thank you. Thank you very much.


ALLEN: Thank you very much.


HASTINGS: At this time I'm advised we have a panel that is only one short of a full baseball team, led by Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Wamp, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Brown, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Udall and Ms. Kaptur.


Any and all of those present? Please come to the table. We'll try and keep the hearing going through the vote. And so as you finish your testimony, you're certainly excused to go vote as you wish.


Mr. Gibbons, I -- Mr. Whitfield?


WHITFIELD: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity. We're here to request the committee's approval of an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. I, along with Mr. Strickland, Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Kaptur, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Udall, introduced this -- are asking to introduce this amendment.


Just last week, Congressman Strickland and I, along with others mentioned, introduced legislation to establish a comprehensive federal compensation program for Department of Defense -- I mean, for Department of Energy contract and vendor employees who have contracted illnesses resulting from exposure to beryllium, radiation, silica and other hazardous materials.


If you are a federal employee working in a DOE facility and you contract these illnesses, you are covered under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. If you are an employee of a contractor at these sites or vendor, you're not covered.


Therefore, the amendment we are asking for approval today is very simple and straightforward. It is simply a sense of Congress resolution that states that contract and vendor employees at DOE nuclear weapons facilities were exposed to hazardous materials without their knowledge, and those same workers are now experiencing increased incidences of illness and death resulting from that exposure.


The amendment simply states that Congress should enact a comprehensive compensation program this year to compensate workers for those illnesses and to remove the disparity.


Thank you.


HASTINGS: Mr. Gibbons?


GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me join in the comments of my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield and say that I agree with him completely on this issue.


Mr. Chairman, it's been five decades -- nearly six decades now that we've had Americans who have dedicated their knowledge, their skills, their time, their effort and now some even their lives, to this country in their efforts to promote strength through weapons developments and through the nuclear age.


We cannot give these great Americans a Purple Heart for the injuries they've received. However, we can do a lot more than the big nothing that we have done for them so far. This effort, this sense of Congress, recognizes our immediate concerns and, you know, presses for a resolution of their needs, which would go to allowing for these injured workers to have a route of right of access to some remedy other than what they've gotten today.


If they are under the Workers' Compensation -- State Compensation Program, too many times they have been automatically denied in their claims simply because they cannot prove the connection, because of the secrecy of the programs they were working on, to the illnesses that they've received. Also, there is a long latency period for some of these illnesses. These are workers who deserve more than the current program denials that other workers have been receiving.


So that we are here to urge this committee to approve of this resolution, which is simply a sense of Congress. I think -- when we have an opportunity, we will take up a full, detailed hearing on this issue to make sure that these workers have the correct program to support any injury that they may caused through their dedication and service to America.


And I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of my full written statement...


(AUDIO GAP)


HASTINGS: I see Mr. Wamp is joining us at table. But we'll first go to Mr. Strickland who got here first.


Mr. Strickland?


STRICKLAND: Well, I would just like to say that this legislation is absolutely, totally bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats from across this country, who have workers who have been injured, are together on this matter. It is the right thing to do. And I just strongly urge the committee to give us a positive vote on this.


Thank you.


HASTINGS: If you have a statement for the record, Mr. Strickland, it'll be without objection entered into the record.


STRICKLAND: Yes, sir.


HASTINGS: Mr. Wamp?


WAMP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just add that this is really just a small first step. It's a very complicated issue and it really requires much more than we're able to do at this time, in this place, with this amendment.


We really need to attach workman's compensation benefits for these veterans of the Cold War on a permanent basis because it is unequivocal now that workers have been adversely affected. They are indeed, then, Cold War veterans. And from beryllium to radiation to other causes, there are clearly workers that have experienced significant health problems as a result of their dedication and service to our country as we built up the nuclear legacy.


Because there's four committees of jurisdiction, because this is late in the process in terms of the bill already passing the full committee and now we're appearing before Rules, doing the best we can at this time -- but it's not enough. It's not anywhere near enough -- we've got to persevere. We've got to continue to work. And we frankly, have got to build more support in this institution for honoring these people as veterans, not just workers, and recognizing that some of them are seriously ill and that time is of the essence because their health is in jeopardy.

And so we need to do much more than this. So at least give us this for now. Later we're going to need a whole lot more. And we hope to enlist the leadership of both parties in both bodies at the highest level to support a benefits package that will honor this service to our country for these Cold War veterans.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: The one question I have -- and let me say that I am certainly sympathetic to what you're trying to do, obviously, with the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district. And I -- in fact, I have met with workers that have been affected by beryllium. But my question -- and Zach you touched on it briefly, that there is so much jurisdiction. Have you -- have you started the process, or working through the process of getting the other committees to buy off on this? Or -- I'll allow any of you to respond to that.


WAMP: Well, let me just say that, through at least the bill being on the floor in the next two days, we hope to bring together these committees of jurisdiction and their leaders to engage in a colloquy. We would hope that they would agree to cooperate as quick as possible to bring this about because we have seen too many times bills get caught up in this multi-jurisdictional quagmire. And we've got to break through it. And it's going to take leadership from the top.


I think if the speaker and others would help, we could work through this. But that's our biggest conflict right now. Otherwise, we'd be offering an amendment today to attach the benefits package to the authorization bill. But because of this jurisdictional problem, we can only offer this resolution today.


HASTINGS: Let me ask specifically ...


GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just a ...


HASTINGS: Yes, let -- and maybe you know the answer, let me ask this follow-up question. Specifically the Judiciary Committee, have you talked to them on this one? If you want to -- any of you want to respond. Jim?


GIBBONS: No, we have not made an overall effort at this time to go out to each committee.


We started -- or I started this process within the House, the House Armed Services Committee. bringing a specific amendment to the authorization bill of 2001 for us to deal with this issue. However, because of the vastness of the scope of the problem that we have to deal with and the intricate procedures and policies, as well as the concurrent jurisdiction with this matter with four separate subcommittees, that would have submarined the bill itself. And it was withdrawn in an effort to allow for the authorization bill to go through, with an effort to look at this in detail, bringing in the four committees, as Mr. Wamp has said, to discuss and show this.


So we have started with one committee, and that would be the Armed Services Committee. But -- and they are very familiar with it, very supportive and very understanding. We now have to approach the other jurisdictional committees.


HASTINGS: We are now joined by Mr. Udall of New Mexico. And so, without objection, your full statement will appear in the record, but you are recognized.


UDALL: I thank the chairman. I just wanted to be here with my colleagues to also echo their comments on this important piece of legislation. And as you know, we have a real obligation to these workers who, as my colleague from Tennessee so articulately put it, fought the Cold War while a lot of other people were fighting the hot war. And they were no less impacted by their tour of duty.


So I'm here to put my word in support as well.


HASTINGS: Good. Well, as I had mentioned just before you came in, I am acutely aware of this also because of my area. And I think that the way Mr. Wamp put it, we take care of our veterans and obviously these are veterans, probably in a different sense, but nevertheless, they are veterans that we need to be responsive to.


So, thank you very much for your testimony.


UDALL: Mr. Chairman, if I might ...


HASTINGS: Please.


UDALL: If it would fit your schedule, I have an additional amendment. If I could take two minutes to talk about it.


HASTINGS: Anything to speed up the process here we are 100 percent in favor of, so you're recognized.


UDALL: That would be great. And if I could ask unanimous consent to include my remarks.


I'd like just to ask the Rules Committee to make in order my amendment to the defense authorization bill. And it's identical language that's already been included in the Senate version of the bill. And it would give the Department of Energy authority that they have requested for use of the facilities that are scheduled for accelerated cleanup and closure.


So, it would apply to the site in my district, Rocky Flats. It would also apply to the Ohio sites of Fernald (ph), Columbus, Miamisburg and Ashtabula. And what -- the DOE wants this authority so they can meet the challenge of downsizing the federal workforces in ways that will facilitate an accelerated cleanup and also assist the employees to transition to successful careers.


I think one of the most important things to point out is that -- I'll leave these tables -- is that the DOE suggests that by doing this we would save approximately $9 million, because if you do it in the old style way, reduction in force, it would cost $20 million, and they believe they could do this for about $11 million. And at the Ohio sites, traditional downsizing would cost about $17 million, and the requested legislation would cut that down to $13 million.


And I think, on top of that -- according to the DOE, the most important thing is that they would be able to keep the people they need to oversee the successful completion of the accelerated closure of these sites. And for example, Rocky Flats -- the DOE says the government will save four years and $1.3 billion by continuing this accelerated closure program.


So when we've got a chance to save $13 million, not to mention $1.3 billion, I think we should seize the opportunity. So I don't think it'd be a controversial amendment. I would ask that the House be given an opportunity to consider it.


I thank your indulgence.


HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. Udall. We are -- the original panel now has been joined by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio and Mr. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania. And since I'm running this, you came first, Ms. Kaptur, you get to speak first on the amendment that I believe Mr. Whitfield is sponsoring.


KAPTUR: Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Congresswoman Myrick and members of the committee.


I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this sense of Congress resolution, and I understand the pain of this set of illnesses, and I'm speaking today, actually, in memory of the first man I ever met from my community who was stricken with berylliosis, chronic beryllium disease. And his name was Galen Lemke (ph) and he died last year. I first met him in 1994 when a plant came into my district after redistricting in 1992 called the Brush Wellman Corporation.


I am here in support of this amendment -- of this sense of Congress resolution, which covers, as it states, Department of Energy facilities, their vendors and their subcontractors. But I'm here today with a special plea, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to not ignore those workers who worked in Department of Defense facilities and contractors to the Department of Defense as 100 percent defense contractors, such as the plant in my district.


I actually had two. They were the only private beryllium processing facilities in the country. One of them currently functions until today. And my concern about this sense of Congress resolution is it's not totally complete. And I don't want to cause them any difficulty in what is trying to be achieved here because I really support them.


But -- and I must state this for the record, because I have dozens of people in my district, probably not over 200, but at least 75, who have contracted this horrendous illness, which results -- as you breath over time, if you're sensitive to the illness in the -- your lungs, slowly crystallizing over a period of years, and beginning to strangle you, suffocate you and it's only a question of time, eight years, 10 years, 12 years, 15, it depends on the person. It is absolutely cruel.

And I truly ask your indulgence and I will give you an amendment that I have offered -- a bill actually, that I have offered to the full House dealing with beryllium workers who were so injured in Department of Defense companies that were on contract or vendors or contractors that worked in these plants.


I have a man in my district who went into Brush Wellman, which is in my district, and he cleaned the big furnaces. He worked for Rudolph Libby (ph), which is a big contractor firm. And he cleaned those furnaces out and he contracted that illness. That man served the nation's interests, served the defense of this country. And to me he's as much a veteran as any other person that served at any Department of Energy facility or any Army base around this country or around the world.


So my only plea to you today is to try to be inclusive. You must know the pain that these families are suffering and have suffered and will suffer. And just because they worked for one agency of the government as opposed to being on contract to another shouldn't make any difference. We should -- the government of the United States should take responsibility for these workers. And I'm just concerned about the fact that Department of Defense is not mentioned, even though this is a defense authorizing bill.


So I want to be supportive of my colleagues, but I'm just pleading with you, don't leave anyone out. And in northern Ohio, our firms were largely -- in fact, are on contract to the Department of Defense and through mainly the end of the 1980s. They have become -- as we have transitioned them more to the commercial marketplace now, almost two-thirds of their production is commercially oriented as opposed to defense oriented. But the material from our plants was used inside the cruise missiles, inside our guided weapons systems. That's how our beryllium material was used.


So, I just appreciate your listening. And I say to my colleagues, they have all of my support. I wish this were not just a sense of Congress resolution, but an actual bill or an amendment. And perhaps by the end of the year we'll have a chance to do that. But please don't leave our workers out.


I believe that Congressman Hansen, though he isn't here today, because the beryllium mines exist in his district, may have a situation. I don't know. And I know that Congressman Holden, from Pennsylvania, also has processing of beryllium that was used in our war arsenal. So I would just ask for completeness.


And I thank you very much for your indulgence in listening to me today.


HASTINGS: Thank you.


Mr. Kanjorski?


KANJORSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am in sympathy with the position Ms. Kaptur's taken. And I'm probably disappointed that in fact we're only asking for a resolution of the sense of Congress embodying certain points that we want to make.


What basically we're doing here is making up for over 50 years of neglect. We've exposed certain individuals in the United States, under contractual arrangements or as employees of the United States government, either through the Department of Energy of the Department of Defense, to horrendous risks in their workplace, unbeknownst, sometimes to the manufacturer, the contractor or the government at the time. But now some 50 years later, the evidence of the risk has been very well documented and identified, and particularly as to beryllium. I mean, the tests on beryllium now are in the accuracy count of around 99 percent, 98 percent.


But beryllium is not the only disease. Clearly, radiation exposure is an important part. We have actually people that worked in the original Manhattan Project that are dying of a horrendous cancer as a result of their exposures.


And over the last several months since this issue really has come to the forefront of last -- late last year, bills have been introduced; the administration, Department of Energy on board; the president's on board. We have not had a hearing. And I guess that's why we're here for a sense of the Congress resolution on this bill, hoping that this will be another step in encouraging the appropriate committees with jurisdiction to hold a hearing on this, so Ms. Kaptur can show the equity of including all these people and force the Department of Defense to come up here and disclose what the exposures were and how they were, and then to determine what that cost is.


Originally my bill, when we put it in, had a cost of around $12 million per year. A very minimal bill. Involved really only 6 percent of the exposed beryllium workers, which are about 20,000 through the course of the last 50 years. There are obviously additional Cold War warriors in radiation exposure, both in the Department of Energy and workers for the Department of Defense, or their subcontractors. So it's a larger amount.


I think it's rational and reasonable, one, to allow this resolution to at least put our colleagues on the floor on notice that we have a very legitimate project that should be undertaken by this Congress. I know the appropriators are anxiously setting aside some monies in the defense bill particularly to accomplish this, through Ms. Kaptur's efforts. But we have to get it to a head.


I'd hope we could have put this amendment that we had prepared right into this bill. Not being able to do that, maybe we can put it in in conference as we work on it over the next several weeks, or we can have our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee or other committees of the House hold hearings so that we can structure a comprehensive response to this problem.


It's over 50 years. It's sinful that these people that have given up their health and their life in some instances, have no methodology of compensation. It's up to this government to compensate them just no differently than we would a actual warrior in the combat of the United States.


So I urge the committee to allow this sense of the Congress resolution to be offered on the floor.


HASTINGS: Thank you. And thank you all for your testimony.


Ms. Kaptur?


KAPTUR: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask for the record, could I submit our bill (OFF-MIKE)


HASTINGS: Press the button there.


KAPTUR: Sorry. May I ask, for purposes of the record, I would like to submit the bill that we did put in last year, H.R. 3478, which also has a listing of which firms did this around the United States. That might be helpful to the committee as it deliberates.


And I thank you very much.


HASTINGS: Without objection, it will be. Thank you very much.


The next witness, waiting very patiently, I noted as I've been in and out, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez, you're welcome to come forward.


Mr. Rodriguez, you're recognized.


RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Let me just quickly indicate that I have an -- the amendment before you is an amendment as a result of the last three years having some difficulty both with the Department of Education and the Department of Defense being scapegoated to one another.


One of the things that I found that we have about 30 school districts throughout the country where I have had a chance to visit, and it's appalling conditions of some of our school districts within the military bases. The classrooms contain asbestos which should have been removed in the 1970s; roofs that were leaking; classrooms that were crowded; teachers that were using the same desk; science labs that are 30 to 40 years old, Mr. Chairman.


And what this particular amendment allows is an opportunity for -- just language, it doesn't allocate resources -- for the Department of Defense to be able to allocate some resources for this area, in terms of renovation of some of these facilities. And it's embarrassing.


Let me just also add that 70 percent of the people now in the military personnel are married. And in addition to that, we're working real hard in terms of expanding the quality-of-life issues when it looks to housing, with that has also -- the results of that has been an increase in these schools. And so we have a serious situation before us.


The money that comes in through impact aid is usually for curriculum and construction -- instruction. Only $10 million from the Department of Education is used for improvement of facilities. And so, to give you an example, seven of those school districts that I'm talking about are totally within the base, which means they have no tax base whatsoever, no bonding capability at all. The others also are the most highly impacted.


You see, also, that it's a bipartisan effort on the part of Congressman Ryun and several other congressmen. There's about six congressmen in the Armed Services Committee that also get impacted. So I wanted to ask for your help and your support and be able to make this happen. There's no doubt that it's an issue of a quality-of-life issue, it's an issue of readiness, and it's an issue in also in terms of making sure that our youngsters are well-prepared.


And when I visited one of the schools back home -- it's not even in my district -- I was appalled to see some of those conditions. I served on the school board for 12 years in the '70s. We were told back then by parents and even sued us because we had kids with asbestos. Well, we're doing that to our military kids. And that's not right, it's not fair, and we need to do whatever we can to make it happen.


So I want to ask for your support to be able to have this amendment and hopefully be accepted as a non-controversial amendment.


HASTINGS: Mr. Rodriguez, did you offer this amendment in committee?


RODRIGUEZ: I did, but I withdrew it because of sequential referral issue.


HASTINGS: OK. Good. Thank you very much.


Thank you very much.


RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: The next witness is a member of the committee, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey.


ANDREWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Thank you for the good work that you and your colleagues do on this very important committee.



ANDREWS: My amendment is offered with Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, who is the chairman of the Research and Development and Technologies Subcommittee. It has the full support of the Department of Defense.


Its purpose is to empower the Department of Defense to become involved in a constitutionally appropriate but forceful way in cyber- terrorism. The experience that many of us had in our own offices 10 days ago with the e-mail virus was annoying and expensive. We're fortunate in a way though that that was not an attack on the public safety and defense infrastructure of the country.


The Department of Defense, I believe, under present law is handcuffed and hamstrung in responding quickly. In working with the secretary of defense and with Chairman Weldon, we have created a bipartisan amendment here that I believe would, within the balance of appropriate constitutional limitation, empower the Department of Defense to do what needs to be done.


Now, Mr. Chairman, I anticipate that there will be issues of jurisdiction raised by the Judiciary Committee with respect to this amendment. I would respectfully offer the following response: This is not a new problem, but the Judiciary Committee has not acted on it.


Secondly, if there's a difference in approach as to how to deal with this, the proper place to argue that is the floor of the House where we can either prevail or not prevail on the terms of this amendment.


And finally, should the Judiciary Committee have an alternative way to accomplish this, I might respectfully request that the committee consider making in order a secondary amendment that would permit the Judiciary Committee to have its day in court on this.


I think this is imperative. And the fact that the Department of Defense supports this; it's a bipartisan amendment -- along with Mr. Weldon and I, I would ask the committee make it in order.


HASTINGS: Mr. Andrews, you've made your case very well, and this committee is frequently -- frequently have to make a judgment between committees. So that's not something that's unusual with us.


So thank you very much for testifying.


ANDREWS: I would also just, with...


HASTINGS: Go ahead.


ANDREWS: Yes, I'm sorry.


HASTINGS: I was just going to say without objection your full statement, if you have a full statement, will appear in the record.


ANDREWS: I would just add one point, and it is that certainly the authors of the amendment are willing to work with the Judiciary Committee leadership in crafting a product that might be added to the manager's amendment, if that would be a better way to pursue this.


HASTINGS: Good. Thank you very much.


ANDREWS: Thank you.


HASTINGS: The next witness is also a member of the committee, Mr. Hill, from Indiana.


HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I have an amendment that I think is a simple matter of fairness. Under current law, some communities that lose military installations are treated differently than others. This amendment levels the playing field. It would let communities that use old military bases as engines of economic growth.


Last year, the Defense Authorization bill conference report included language to forgive debts and allow communities to reclaim their property, free of cost. Unfortunately, that only applied to communities with installations closed under the Base Realignment and Closure processes.


This amendment would allow sites closed outside of BRAC to reap the same kinds of benefits. I've got a site in my district. It's called the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant. In southern Indiana, we call it INAAP (ph).


Although there are currently 80 rent-paying tenants at INAAP (ph), it is not yet a profitable venture. Treating INAAP (ph) like a BRAC facility would free up much-needed funds to help the people of Clark County, which is smack dab in the middle of the district, and push ahead with economic development and make the facility more attractive to private industry.


This is one example, but I want all -- this is just one example, but I want all former military communities to be able to benefit from the fair deal we have already given to BRAC communities.


I respectfully request that this committee make my amendment in order under the rule, and allow me to offer it on the House floor.


HASTINGS: Mr. Hill, thank you very much for your testimony.


And without objection, your full statement will appear in the record.


Thank you.


The next witness is the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp.


CAMP: I thank the chairman.


Two and a half years ago, one of my constituents was mortally wounded during a training exercise at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And because of the nature of his injuries, he was taken off-base and treated at a nearby civilian hospital. And unfortunately, he did not survive.


But what also occurred which was equally bad, was that he was declared dead by civilian doctors. And because of that, the Army could not quote/unquote "medically retire" him as they normally would. And the result was that his wife did not receive full death benefits as would normally have been the case.


My amendment allows the Department of Defense to medically retire a member of the Armed Forces even when a civilian hospital, following state law, declares that person officially dead.


This language was included in the base bill last year. Chairman Spence did include that. It has not been included this year. I would ask this committee to make this amendment in order so that I might pursue some justice for similarly situated people.


HASTINGS: Mr. Camp, thank you very much. And again if you have a full statement, without objection, it'll appear in the record.


CAMP: I thank the chairman.


HASTINGS: Thank you.


Next witness is the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.


MARKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.


I have one amendment which I'm asking to be put in order, and it's something that deals with the reality that within a one-week period, we're going to be debating national missile defense, basically a Star Wars system, that will be deployed in a way that could be used to knock down all of the Chinese ballistic missiles, and at the same time, we're talking about the deployment -- or the accession of China to the World Trade Organization.


What my amendment says is that we should not have a national missile defense system deployed against someone who is a member of the World Trade Organization that we have granted full trading partnership to.


Otherwise, it seems to me, that within one week, we're going to contradict ourselves. We're saying on the one hand, if we have stronger trading relations with them, that it will improve our relationship and we will have a much more peaceful and ultimately democratic nation.

Simultaneously, we're voting this week to increase the likelihood that we will deploy an anti-ballistic missile system which will be able to knock down not only North Korea's limited arsenal, but also, since China's ballistic missile arsenal is so small, all of China's, forcing them as they have promised, to rapidly and dramatically increase the number of nuclear weapons on ballistic weapons which they deploy -- up from 20 to 50 or 100 or 200 or 300 -- whatever it takes, they say, in order to overcome an American system.


And so, in other words, we can't have it both ways. We can't say that we're going to trade to improve relations and then deal with the very fundamental security of their nation.


So my amendment is a simple one and it just is a way for us to basically go on record as saying that we're going to move down this trade path, we're not going to engage China in a rapidly escalating arms race the way we did with the Soviet Union, and that we're just going to head in a second direction.


There are two other amendments that are before you. One is by Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox is arguing that there should be a prohibition on any tax-financed indemnification of contractors who provide nuclear facilities to America. I think it is absolutely inappropriate for American taxpayers to pay if there's an accident in North Korea with a nuclear power plant. It is not something that our taxpayers should be asked to do. I hope that Mr. Cox's amendment is put in order.


And secondly, Mr. Largent has an amendment which would prevent the Defense Department -- which would make it possible for the Defense Department rather -- to seek competitive bidding for electricity services.


Right now, there's a special interest provision in the bill which will prohibit, believe it or not, the Defense Department from finding the cheapest electricity to ensure that all of our military installations across the country are given the proper electric power which they need. And it seems to me it's crazy for us to be paying extra money for something which is out on the open market, just because there might be some special relationship between the Defense Department and some defense contractor now providing high-priced electricity.


So I thank you for allowing me to testify before you, Mr. Chairman. And I would ask favorable consideration, again, of my amendment which I am propounding here today.


HASTINGS: Mr. Markey, thank you once again for your testimony.


Whenever you come to this committee, your testimony is always very lively, I guess, and you didn't disappoint again today.


MARKEY: Thank you, sir.


HASTINGS: Thank you.


The next witness is the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.

BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I have a statement -- full statement -- I will submit for the record and I will...


HASTINGS: Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record.


BRYANT: ... very quickly then, summarize.


As a former JAG officer, I have worked with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and by the amendment, I would ask -- the amendment that I would ask be made in order is one that would amend the UCMJ, again, apply only to the military code.


Basically, there had been only two punishments available in a particularly egregious murder case: a life sentence or a death sentence. What we were finding and particularly in a case that I had in my district where someone received life is they were getting out on parole very quickly, even without notice to the victim's family.


We brought in, in the defense authorization bill two years ago. a third punishment, called life without parole, which most state jurisdictions have as an option. We had life, life without parole -- which meant life without parole -- and death.


What has happened over that period of time, however, is that the Defense Department is construing that life without parole as still allowing a convicted murderer to be given clemency and even as early as 10 years be considered for clemency. And I think that's a misconstruction, something -- I intended that actually life without parole meant they didn't get out of jail unless they actually received a presidential pardon.


So my amendment simply fixes this so that does not occur. I would like to thank the full chairman and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Spence, Mr. Buyer, for working with me. They attempted and in fact have a longer period of time in there than the 10 years before they can first be considered for clemency, but I really did intend that life without parole meant life without parole, life without clemency, again unless there's a presidential pardon.


And that's what my amendment does. And I would simply ask that it be made in order.


HASTINGS: Thank you. Mr. Bryant, thank you very much for your testimony.


Next, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm.


STENHOLM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


The amendment I offer is on behalf of Mr. Thune and myself. A similar amendment was offered last year. And basically, our amendment seeks to eliminate non-availability statements in pre-authorization requirements for TRICARE standard beneficiaries.

In summarizing, the TRICARE standard is a fee-for-service where the beneficiary bears the overwhelming majority of cost out-of-pocket. Although a NAS or a pre-authorization could serve to reduce expenses in a normal HMO, this merely adds an additional burden on military retirees who already pay more for their health care.


Last year, this language was accepted in an amendment offered by Mr. Thune and myself to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2000. In conference, the language amended to direct the secretary to generally reduce pre-authorization and NAS requirements, with a report due March 31, 2000. To date, the department has not produced the report.


So I urge the committee to permit consideration of this amendment again this year.


HASTINGS: Mr. Stenholm, thank you very much.


Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record.


The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.


BERMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


My amendment would authorize $1 million to support the continuation of informal Middle East arms control and regional security dialogues for Arab, Israeli, and U.S. officials and experts. These are sometimes known as the track 2 talks


Because official Middle East multilateral arms control and regional security talks have been on hold since 1995, these informal track 2 dialogues are the only forum for military officials from throughout the region and the U.S. to meet together, exchange views, establish personal relationships. They are high-level military-to- military contacts. They contribute to U.S. efforts to combat terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and they would be invaluable in the event of a future regional conflict.


Last year, we appropriated $1 million in the defense appropriations act to support these dialogues. Now we're coming before you and before the House, hopefully, to seek an authorization to continue this program. We have an offset in the bill from the overseas humanitarian, disaster and civil aid programs.


And I can only tell you that what is not done -- sometimes there are things in these unofficial gatherings -- you can bring high-level Saudi and Gulf country and Arab officials together with Israeli military, with generals and American defense officials in ways that, in a formal process -- which has been suspended in any event -- you are not able to do and get a much wider range of participation.


And I think it's a small but important step in trying to deter conflict in that region. And I urge the committee to allow me to offer this amendment.


HASTINGS: Good. Thank you, Mr. Berman, for your testimony.

And without objection, your full statement will appear in the record.


BERMAN: Thank you very much.


HASTINGS: Mr. Sanford, from South Carolina.


SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I have two amendments related to the defense authorization bill that I would appreciate your consideration on.


One deals with the authorization of a new BRAC, and the other one deals specifically with military surplus property.


I don't know what your list looks like overall. If I'm only able to have one of the two amendments, I would sure appreciate your consideration on the military surplus property amendment taking priority.


I would first mention the BRAC amendment. I offer this amendment simply because I taught a class at the Army War College and what was consistently said to me by young colonels there who were on their way to becoming generals was that we need another BRAC.


These folks had no political axe to grind. I've had that thought validated with people in my district, wherein we've got a whole lot of military, particularly retired military. And what they basically say is that, you know, we've cut troop force, we've cut dollars to the military, but the one thing we haven't cut on a proportionate basis is the infrastructure. And it's hurting us. We'd rather see that money going to men and equipment or into new technology. It's hurting us.


So I have no illusions as to something like this passing in an election year, but I do think it's a worthy debate that this Congress ought to have.


This particular provision would specify that the commissioners for this new BRAC would be authorized by the next president, not the current one.


The second amendment that I would offer would be simply one tied to military surplus property. Right now, the way the disposal of surplus military property works is in essence all federal agencies, state and local governments have a crack at it first, for free, and then if they don't get rid of equipment that way, then it's sold through what they call DRMO process.


And what this means is that -- I've seen a number of different budget estimates, but in the order of over $1 billion over the last couple years has gone to state and local agencies, for instance, for the war on drugs, for a number of other uses.


The uses themselves are very valid, but what this provision allows for is very faulty accounting, because what it does effectively is it overstates the price of the defense budget and it understates the price of local and state government.


And so I think this is simply an amendment about good government and about good budgeting, because for us to make rational decisions in Washington, they have to rest on valid budgets. And what we have right now is a budgeting process that creates confusion in that from the back end of the military budget, a lot of stuff gets given away and yet it's counted as an expense that we've used on an annual basis, which it's not.


So, it's come to my attention -- this one a little bit differently in that I was actually at a campaign event for Senator McCain when he was running for president in a very small county in South Carolina. Ran into the sheriff there.


Where you been?


Oh, I've been out taking helicopter lessons.


Taking helicopter lessons?


Yes. We do a lab. All of our guys learning how to fly a helicopter. We got a helicopter for $500 from the Department of Defense. Turns out they've gotten multiple sets of helicopter blades and other things through this program.


And in fact I have here a list -- I'll just -- I won't belabor the point, but, for instance, the city of Jasper, Florida, has a seven-member police force, yet they've received M-16 automatic rifles, 23 helicopters, an armored personnel carrier, and two C-12 planes.


And, you know, A, is it necessary would have to be a question, but, B, most significantly, you know, that stuff could be sold on the open marketplace and bring many more dollars back into defense where it's currently needed.


HASTINGS: Mr. Sanford, thank you very much for your testimony.


Mr. Sessions, any questions?


SESSIONS: No questions, Chairman, thank you.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much.


SANFORD: Thank you, appreciate it.


HASTINGS: The next witness is Mr. Vitter from Louisiana. Mr. Vitter?


VITTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two amendments. I don't know which one you want to take up first.


HASTINGS: Whichever you want to take up first.


VITTER: OK. Why don't we start with amendment 92, the revised version? We submitted a revised version today. This is submitted by me as well as Mr. Sessions on the committee, and I thank him for his work on this, and as well as Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.


The idea behind this bill really began in a free -- behind this amendment, really began in a free-standing bill that I submitted several months ago, H.R. 2596, the Realistic Test for Realistic Threats National Security Act of 1999. That bill mandated certain tests of some of our theater missile defense systems against the threats that are actually out there. Right now we're developing these theater systems but are only testing below the level of the threats that are out there.


This amendment furthers that same goal of testing one of our theater defense systems in particular, the Navy Theater-Wide System, against the theater threat which is actually out there, and not testing -- dumbing it down, or testing below that threat.


Specifically, there are two threats of real concern: one posed by North Korea in the area of Asia against our troops and allies in Asia. North Korea is developing a series of Taepo Dong missiles; and the second posed by Iran, the Shahab missiles, which are a real threat to our troops and allies not only in the Middle East, but reaching to Europe.


And so, this amendment is a greatly revised version of my free- standing bill, which would simply mandate that the Pentagon build into its testing and development of the Navy Theater-Wide System, testing against this intermediate range ballistic missile threat, which is a present and continuing threat to our troops and allies in Asia and Europe.


It has the support, obviously, of Mr. Weldon, who's really the leading congressional expert on the issue. I've worked closely with the leadership and the Armed Services chairman. The chairman is a co- sponsor of my original bill, as is Mr. Armey and Mr. DeLay and many members of the leadership.


HASTINGS: OK. Do you want to speak on your first amendment also?


VITTER: Sure.


The other amendment I have is amendment number 91. It's submitted on behalf of Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Jefferson, as well as myself. This amendment would move $5 million in Navy funding to an account associated with the Navy Information Technology Center at UNO. That's a program initiated by Bob Livingston, which has been doing great work for the Navy and the DOD on a more widespread basis in terms of information technology, and has never been adequately represented or acknowledged in the authorization bill.


This money -- this shift is with the consent and acquiescence and cooperation of the Navy. They specifically identified this account as an appropriate account to shift for purposes of authorizing this worthwhile program. And we did this in conjunction with leading folks at the Navy in terms of this part of their budget.


And it is submitted on behalf of not only myself, but Messrs Tauzin and Jefferson as well.


HASTINGS: Mr. Vitter, I just wondered, in the description of the amendment I have here, you have an expenditure of $13 million. How do you offset that?


VITTER: I believe that is the old version. The new version is $5 million.


HASTINGS: OK.


VITTER: And it is specifically offset with a corresponding reduction in procurement funds for program element 0321500 Satellite Communications Systems.


HASTINGS: So you do have...


(CROSSTALK)


VITTER: And that was identified by the Navy as an appropriate offset. That's the revised amendment.


HASTINGS: OK. Yes. My information here. So you do have an offset for that.


VITTER: Right.


HASTINGS: OK. Very good. Questions?


Mr. Sessions?


SESSIONS: Chairman, thank you. I really would like to just thank Congressman Vitter for, not only his leadership on this issue, but also his insistence to make sure that this important testing is done.


In summary, as he stated, this directs the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to conduct an intercept test of the Navy Theater- Wide System against intermediate-range ballistic missiles currently in the arsenal of North Korea and Iran.


I could think of nothing more important for us to face up against and understand the capabilities that our adversaries have against not only United States, Unites States interests, but also our allies around the globe, than what exists today from two belligerent nations. And the ability that America has not only to conduct these tests but also to make appropriate changes as a result of what they learn is critical to every member of the military and our allies.


And I support not only what the gentleman's doing, but would ask that the Rules Committee seriously, not only give consideration to this, but make this an order for the important nature that has been discussed.


And I thank the chairman.


HASTINGS: Good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Vitter. And without objection, if you have a full statement, it will appear in the record.


VITTER: Thank you very much.


HASTINGS: Thank you.


Next witness will be Ms. McCarthy from New York.


MCCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm here to have an amendment against 4205 as reported.


The reason I'm offering this, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and why I want you to make the McCarthy amendment in order, my amendment would strike section 810 of the defense authorization bill. This section singles out firearms and ammunition manufacturers, but it may extend to other contractors. It says that Department of Defense can not do business with companies that enter into agreements with the federal government.


Currently, one firearms manufacturer has entered into an agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development that establishes a code of conduct. This is a precedent-setting language that would prevent the armed services from getting the best equipment. This language says to Smith & Wesson and to other contractors, that if you have an agreement that seeks to accomplish one goal, then that automatically stops you from doing business with the Department of Defense.


This language sets a bad precedent. What if a company had an agreement to hire more veterans? What if a company has an agreement to use more subcontractors? The Congress should not micro-manage how procurement is conducted. The result will be substandard products for our men and women who have defended our nation.


I strongly support the agreement that Smith & Wesson has reached with HUD. The code of conduct will reduce gun violence in our communities. It contains many provisions that are under review by the House and the Senate, child safety locks, background checks on all sales, safe storage for all guns, establishing a DNA ballistics network that aids the ATF in solving crimes.


We should do the right thing and enable the Department of Defense to select the best products without attaching strings to procurement. I urge you to make the McCarthy amendment in order.


With that being said, whatever your feeling is on the gun issue, I think this is a very dangerous procedure that we're going through. I think that it's going to tie the hands of the Defense Department on other issues that might come across this Congress.


I also feel very strongly that why this -- why my amendment should be made in order is so that I can defend my views, but also to allow the other members that are in Appropriations and all the other committees, that this is setting a very different precedent on what we're trying to do here.


So I ask you if you would consider ...

HASTINGS: Good. Ms. McCarthy, thank you very much. You've certainly made your position very clear. And I suspect that there will be a great deal more debate and discussion on this issue. Thank you very much for your testimony.


MCCARTHY: Thank you.


HASTINGS: Next witness is the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox.



COX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I'm offering an amendment, together with Mr. Markey, that is very short and to the point.


It would prevent the Clinton administration from taking action that has been reported to be under consideration to reinterpret an obscure law in a novel way for the purpose of avoiding Congress and extending billions of dollars in loan guarantees or liability, I should say, guarantees to the government of North Korea.


Presently, North Korea is constructing two light water nuclear reactors. The Clinton administration is seeking to issue insurance backed by the full faith and credit of the United States to any U.S. supplier -- specifically General Electric has requested this relief -- in case of a nuclear accident in North Korea.


Now, the taxpayers ought not to face this risk for a variety of reasons. First of all, the size of it. Second, the fact that we have very little access to North Korea and their people lack the training in this sophisticated processes involved here. They have no experience whatsoever operating these advanced light water nuclear reactors. And third, if the U.S. taxpayer is going to be put on the hook for such large potential amounts, then the proper means of doing that is through an act of Congress, not through executive fiat.


And for all of those good reasons, we are seeking to include a one paragraph amendment that prohibits the United States government from assuming liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea.


HASTINGS: Mr. Markey testified earlier on this amendment so...


COX: Well, if that is the case, you've heard about it twice. And I hope that my presentation was half as interesting as his.


HASTINGS: Yours is a bit longer. I'm not making a judgment, I'm just stating a fact. That's all.


COX: I will take that advice and say absolutely nothing else.


HASTINGS: OK.


Now, without objection, your full statement on both amendments will appear in the record.


COX: OK.

HASTINGS: Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.


Next witness is the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant.


TRAFICANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I have three amendments.


First, is standard buy American amendment. I ask you make it an order.


Second one is an amendment that deals with buy American. It calls for an audit and it directs the inspector general, Department of Defense to conduct an audit of fiscal year '99 of military closing by four installations of each division of our armed services.


The reason for this is the findings of an inspector general audit of 12 military installations, completed in the fall of '98, which found widespread of violations buy American act.


Chairman, that's an important amendment. People may not want to deal with that, but that is very important.


The last one is very significant, the trafficking amendment that deals with the border issue. I don't believe there can be any national security bill that leaves out debate on our borders.


The trafficking amendment does not deal with illegal immigration. It deals with terrorists, narcoterrorists and the possibility of importing into America a nuclear warhead, literally assembling it in Arizona and firing it in an American city. This is how ridiculous the border is.


This amendment has been made an order. It is watered down in the other body, but they are studying it now. The trafficking amendment would again keep the pressure on for the scrutiny of the importance in our national security plan.


I don't want to take a lot of your time, but I'd like for you to make these three an order.


HASTINGS: Jim, thank you very much for your testimony.


Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record. And I would just state, also for the record, that you have been -- in the time that I've been here -- you have been absolutely consistent on these three issues. And I congratulate you for that.


TRAFICANT: Thank you.


HASTINGS: Thank you.


Next witness is the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon.


WELDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

The amendment I have before the committee is an amendment calling for the creation of a commission on the future of American aerospace industries.


I think it's common knowledge that our leadership in the field of battle for decades, has been possible because of the technology that we employ, particularly the space and the air defense and air power technology that we've employed.


It's also commonly recognized that we have not been keeping pace with the level of investment funding in this sector over the past 10 years since we've wrestled with tremendous problems of budget deficits and keeping the budget balanced, as well as addressing social programs.


It is generally believed by most leaders in this industry that this issue is not only an export issue. And I would put out to you that the aerospace exports are the leading export in the manufacturing sector of $37 billion. And much of that ability for us to be successful in exporting our aerospace products is because of the technological sophistication of the products that we're selling.


So it's not only a national security issue, it's a balance of payment issue, it's an American leadership issue.


My amendment is a bipartisan amendment. Mr. Dicks of Washington state is supporting the amendment along with me.


It has been requested on the part of the Aerospace Industries Association, which is made up of the leadership of virtually every major defense and aerospace corporation.


I would also like to point out to the committee that I would not anticipate this commission being a very expensive commission, in that much of the input would be garnered from CEOs of major corporations who would undoubtedly provide their input at no cost to the government. And that this commission could be -- could complete its tasks with a modest level of funding, and that it certainly is very appropriate for us to pursue this agenda at this time. And I would encourage the committee and all of its members to support the amendment, that it be considered on the floor. And I would personally expect that it would get a unanimous level of support in the House.


HASTINGS: Mr. Weldon, thank you very much. And without objection, your full statement will also appear in the record.


WELDON: Thank you, sir.


HASTINGS: Next witness, Mr. Luther from Minnesota.


LUTHER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the amendment my colleagues, Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Frank, and I would like to offer to H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001.


Mr. Chairman, this amendment, simply put, would end production of the Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile.


Currently, H.R. 4205 includes $472 million for the purchase of 12 Trident II D-5 missiles. Currently, the Navy operates a ballistic missile submarine force of 18 Ohio class submarines. Ten of these submarines are already equipped with the modern Trident II D-5 missiles. The eight other submarines carry Trident I C-4 missiles. Each submarine has 24 missiles.


To comply with the standards imposed by START II, the Navy plans to retire four of the C-4 submarines and convert the other two to the updated D-5 levels. This plan would force us to maintain an expensive and artificially high submarine fleet of 14 modernized submarines equipped with 24 D-5 missiles each.


Currently, the Navy has an inventory of 372 missiles. We submit that we do not need 12 more at that expense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment would save the taxpayers $2.7 billion through the year 2007, funds that could easily be made available for our other pressing military priorities.


I believe the amendment gives us an important opportunity on the floor to debate the priorities within our defense budget. I ask that you make it an order so that we can have a public debate about this important issue this year. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. Luther, for your testimony. And without objection, your full statement will appear in the record.


Mr. Moakley, any questions?


MOAKLEY: No, thank you.


HASTINGS: OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Luther.


The next witness, back again for a second run, is the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.


LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I come before the Rules Committee today to ask that my amendment be made an order when the House considers the Defense Authorization Act. The amendment's straightforward; it seeks to correct one of the, I believe, unintended consequences of our 1998 decision to transfer export licensing authority for commercial satellites from Commerce to the Department of State. The -- I would ask that my full statement be put in the record.


But we have a situation where noncitizen scientists must be recused from discussion of space projects that are later published. And what my amendment would do, it would not overturn the export control licensing scheme, but make a very narrow exception where the research being undertaken is going to be published that the rule relative to noncitizen scientists not apply.


This has actually become a problem for a number of universities who -- some of whom have contacted me, including Stanford, Cal-Tech, University of California at Berkeley, MIT, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Maryland. And I don't think, if it's going to be published in Scientific American, we're going to really solve a problem for the country by asking noncitizen scientists to be recused from material that will later be published.


So I hope that this very narrow exception can be made an order, and I have made a copy of a very interesting article from Space, the space newspaper, about the problem that I'll make available for the committee.


HASTINGS: Good. Thank you very much. And without objection, your full statement will appear in the record.


Mr. Moakley.


MOAKLEY: No questions.


HASTINGS: Thank you.


The next witness is the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Blagojevich.


BLAGOJEVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moakley.


I'm asking this committee for the appropriate waivers for me to offer an amendment to House bill 4205, the fiscal -- for fiscal year 2001, National Defense Authorization Act. My amendment would convey the land currently owned by the Navy on the island of Vieques to the government of Puerto Rico and end the half-century of bombing that has been taking place there.


This amendment is being offered because our fellow U.S. citizens residing in Vieques have had to endure bombing on a daily basis for the last 50 years. Population on the island of Vieques is approximately 9,300 people. The rates of cancer are significantly higher there than on the mainland of the Puerto Rican island. The people who live there are sandwiched between an ammunition storage area on the west and a target range on the east.


For all of these years, the Navy has used Vieques and its surrounding coastal waters to stage training exercises which involve live-ammunition weapons fire. The armed forces of the United States is tasked with the duty of protecting all of our U.S. citizens and it is hard to accept the fact that the Navy can continue to fire shells into the backyards of our fellow U.S. citizens.


The Clinton administration, Mr. Chairman, has recently submitted a plan to hold a referendum on the future of Vieques, which I believe will be offered as a separate amendment. Unfortunately, President Clinton's plan, in my judgment, permits the bombing on Vieques to continue in the interim. I believe that the people of Vieques have already made themselves heard on this issue; they want to the bombing to stop now and not have to wait for a referendum.


Mr. Chairman, the United States citizens of Puerto Rico, including those in Vieques, share a deep love for our country and have a very distinguished record of service in the United States armed forces, but they have had enough. We would never allow nor tolerate this situation in our states. We owe no less to the United States citizens that reside in Vieques.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would appreciate your favorable consideration of my amendment.


HASTINGS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Blagojevich. We appreciate your being here. I see your amendment was submitted late, but...


BLAGOJEVICH: OK. I'll talk to my staff.


HASTINGS: Yes. Well, no, I think you're responsible for that, aren't you? I mean...


BLAGOJEVICH: OK. I'll answer -- I'll answer to my voters.


HASTINGS: I mean, I've never blamed my staff for anything, because they always blame me for...


BLAGOJEVICH: Right.


HASTINGS: ... you know, things whenever it happens.


BLAGOJEVICH: Very good.


HASTINGS: I know Mr. Moakley has the same challenge.


MOAKLEY: The amendment made late, but those bombs keep dropping on time, don't they?


BLAGOJEVICH: Yes, they do. Well-said.


HASTINGS: Very well-said.


BLAGOJEVICH: Thank you.


HASTINGS: Thanks. So you're arguing in behalf of the amendment, I suspect.


MOAKLEY: No, I'm just making an observation.


HASTINGS: OK. You're right.


Thank you very much.


Any other observation, Mr. Moakley?


(CROSSTALK)


HASTINGS: OK. Thanks.


Thank you very much for being here.


BLAGOJEVICH: Thank you. Thanks.


HASTINGS: Our next witness is the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Shows.


Mr. Shows, please come forward. We're happy to welcome you and...


SHOWS: Happy to be here.


HASTINGS: ... you have -- if you have prepared remarks...


SHOWS: Yes.


HASTINGS: ... they will without -- unless Mr. Moakley objects, they'll appear in the record. And if...


MOAKLEY: I'm co-sponsor.


SHOWS: Yes, he is.


HASTINGS: So you're not going to object to his prepared remarks being put in the record? OK.


SHOWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Rules Committee.



SHOWS: I respectfully submit for consideration amendment to H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001, FY.


My amendment -- let me get my glasses, I can't see.


(CROSSTALK)


SHOWS: It depends what I have to do.


My amendment substitutes language regarding military retirement, health care that's virtually identical to 3573, the Shows-Norwood Keep Our Promise to American Military Act.


My amendment also addresses costs and funding questions regarding H.R. 3573 that have given some members of Congress a sticker shock, you might say.


H.R. 3573 allows all military retirees the option of participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan like any other federal employee or remaining in TRICARE after age 65 just as federal employees do. It provides the option of fully paid FEHBP coverage to military retirees who entered the service prior to June 7, 1956, the day Congress authorized military health care that involved today's TRICARE, which is not very good.


The pre-1956 military retirees who fought in World War II and Korea were promised the most, but had the health care taken away when they reach age 65 -- which you all know that.


There's no other federal group of retirees forced to relinquish their health care at age 65. The military retirees are the only one.


H.R. 3573 right now has 296 co-sponsors, including the majority of the Rules Committee.


New language in my amendment cuts by more than half the estimated cost and provides funding for H.R. 3573. We understand this has been the problem with a lot of members on the Rules Committee and in Congress, so we've tried to do something, I think, that brings it down a little scale that might help you.


The CBO scores H.R. 3573 at $9 billion per year, and that assumes half the eligible military retirees, more than 750,000, would abandon TRICARE for Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.


We think this is exaggerated, a lot of the service organizations do. So my amendment caps it at 300,000, the number of retirees eligible to transfer into the FEHBP.


Now, I'm going to tell you why the DOD opposed this bill in the first place. They say that if we allow them to get into FEHBP plan that a majority of the retirees would leave TRICARE and CHAMPUS, and they said that would cause a national security problem. I asked them: Why does it cause a national security problem? And he said: Because our doctors and nurses wouldn't have enough men and women to practice on. That's the only reason they opposed it. I think that's a -- that's pretty bad.


What it does, it gives priority to Medicare-eligible retirees. This cost-cutting language should give comfort to members of Congress who could not support a more costly -- so basically we cut the funding from $9 billion to around -- $9 billion a year to $4 billion.


But the most important concern, Mr. Chairman, has been the belief that some of our colleagues that Congress simply does not have the money for H.R. 3573. That's not true.


On Friday, May 12, CBO announced a $40 billion super surplus for FY 2000. The funds are there, and my amendment ensures that H.R. 3573 is affordable and fundable.


My amendment allocates new budget authority and outlays to the Armed Service Committee $4 billion annually from 2001 to 2005. If such an increase will not cause an on-budget deficit -- on-budget -- American soldiers who paved the way for democracy at Bunker Hill and led the charge up San Juan hill, these brave men and women should have the opportunity to have this bill passed.


I'm going to skip through most of this and get to what we're trying to do.


Mr. Chairman, I don't see how we can look armed forces men and women in the face, and they were promised health care when they joined up if they stayed 20 years. We've got brochures from up to 1994 promising health care to our military retirees. You know what we've been telling them for the last 20 years? "We get the money, we're going to help you out." But basically we take it away from them when they reach 65.


What this -- this was made to our retirees. And my amendment to H.R. 4205 makes H.R. 3573 affordable and fundable.


Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee, millions of military retirees, their dependents and families are looking to you to do the right thing. On their behalf, I respectfully request that you make this amendment in order and grant any necessary waivers.


And also, I'd like to submit this letter for the record from the National Association for Uniformed Services.


HASTINGS: Well, thank you. Without objection it'll appear in the record, Mr. Shows. Thank you very much for your testimony.


And I'm happy to recognize the co-author of your amendment, Mr. Moakley.


MOAKLEY: Yes, I'm a co-author of your amendment...


SHOWS: Yes, sir.


MOAKLEY: Thank you very much.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it.


SHOWS: All right.


HASTINGS: Next, because of the exigencies of his schedule, we're going to go to the ranking minority member of the Rules Committee who has a very important amendment that he'd like to offer. He has to go down and try to defeat me on the previous question downstairs, so I wanted him to take all the time he'd like up here.


MOAKLEY: Just don't hold it against me, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: OK.


MOAKLEY: Mr. Chairman, as many of you know on the committee, there's a school in Fort Benning, Georgia, that needs to close. In fact, last year a majority of House members voted to cut the funding for the School of the Americas but were overturned in the conference.


This year the proponents of the School of the Americas are trying to breath new life into the school with language that will basically allow the School of the Americas to continue with a few minor cosmetic changes. But the class will be in the same place with the same type of students, just under a new name.


Now while most of the students will not become terrorist criminals, some of them may, as in the past. In fact, some of the past graduates of the School of the Americas look like a who's who in Latin America, people like Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega; the head of the Salvadorian death squad, Robert de Basalm (ph); the architect of the genocide campaign in Guatemala, General Hector Glamato (ph); not to mention the killers of the six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the rapists and murderers of the U.S. church woman, and dozens and dozens of others.


So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the School of the Americas -- you know, it has been associated with far too many atrocities to be let off the hook with a simple name change. So I would like to say I'll offer an amendment to the defense authorization bill asking the Rules Committee to make my amendment in order, of course, that will repeal the authority for the school, close it down, and create a congressional task force to find out exactly what training is appropriate for Latin America and how that training will affect the people.


So I appreciate your support, Mr. Chairman and the members, and I hope you'll make the amendment in order.


HASTINGS: Well, thank you very much.

MOAKLEY: I'll save the rest of the debate for the floor.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much, Mr. Moakley, we appreciate that. And I will tell you that when I look back on my service here, one of the great honors that I had was serving as a member of your task force dealing with the tragic...


MOAKLEY: You did an outstanding job, too.


HASTINGS: Well, thank you -- dealing with the great tragedy of Father Agnasio Ayakoria (ph) and the six other Jesuits. And it was -- in fact, just thinking about it I get chills, the day that you and I walked in there 10 years ago and saw what happened to them. And there were other, of course, horrible memories that come to mind just as you go through the names of those people. And it's a thoughtful amendment, and I hope very much that the committee will be able to make it in order.


MOAKLEY: Appreciate it.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much.


And you can go down and try to defeat me on the floor now.


(LAUGHTER)


And our next witness is the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall. And he is not here so we'll go on to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baird.


Mr. Baird, welcome, and it's nice to see you, and please, without objection -- since Mr. Moakley's leaving, there's no one here to object at all -- we're happy to put your prepared statement in the record, and if you'd like to offer a summary, I'll...


(CROSSTALK)


BAIRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief, because I know you've got a long schedule.


Very briefly, the city of Vancouver, Washington, is one of the central places in American history in the Pacific Northwest since the founding of the first Hudson's Bay fort there to establishment of a U.S. Army barracks that pre-dated the Civil War. At that Army barracks, people such as Ulysses S. Grant, E.O. Howard (ph) and others had served, and George Marshall more recently.


In recent years, the Army has found it no longer needs that Army barracks. They would like to transfer that to the city of Vancouver for use as a historical site. And we actually had thought this was going through on the bill before, but there was a small portion of language pertaining to the transfer of 12 acres of the land to the Park Service for an adjacent U.S. historic site.


The language that had been of concern to the Resource Committee we have removed. We've submitted the amendment with some changes requested by the Army. And now, as we understand it, the Army's on board, the city's on board, and the language looks pretty good to every one involved.


So we would respectfully request that the committee support this amendment and make it in order, allowing the -- authorizing the transfer of this barracks from the active Army to the city of Vancouver as currently desired by both the Army and the city.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much. You've made it very clear. We'll do what we can to see if your amendment can be in order.


BAIRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much for being here.


Out next witness is the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. Please come forward, and you're welcome to submit any prepared remarks for the record and we welcome a summary.


THUNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


And I won't be long because I know you've already heard about this amendment I believe from Congressman Stenholm from Texas.


But we are -- would like to have an amendment made in order to H.R. 4205, which addresses the TRICARE health care system. And I don't think there's probably anything that's generated more interest in my state, both in terms of military retirees as well as active duty military, as the health care system that was instituted a few years ago by the military.


And there are couple of issues which this amendment proposes to address, which I think will improve that program dramatically for military retirees, for active duty personnel. And it's very straightforward. It basically waives the preauthorization and the nonavailability statement requirements that are in current -- procedure of current law, I guess you'd say, under TRICARE standard.


So this amendment is fairly straightforward. We think it would be a tremendous improvement and would provide the one thing I think that was promised under TRICARE when it was offered in the first place, and that is continuity of care. It was designed to be an improvement what the military offered in the past.


There have been a lot of glitches that they've been trying to work through, but this is an issue which we think is important and would go a long ways -- and particularly in our area of the country where there's a long distance between facilities, and if someone needed to get a treatment and had to go to get a nonavailability statement from the base hospital before they get treated, sometimes that's a 200-mile drive.


So this is really I think a practical, common-sense amendment, which would, again, dramatically improve access that people have to health care facilities under TRICARE standard option.


So with that I will conclude and be happy to try to answer any questions...


(CROSSTALK)


HASTINGS: Well, thank you very much. As you pointed out, Mr. Stenholm outlined the amendment, and we're happy that you have joined him in support of it, and we'll do what we can...


(CROSSTALK)


THUNE: Thank you. We want to make sure that we weighed in, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much, appreciate your being here.


THUNE: Thanks.


HASTINGS: Out next witness is the gentlewoman from New York, my good friend, Ms. Velazquez, and we're happy to welcome you and to enter your prepared statement in the record. And if you'd offer a brief summary we'd appreciate it.


Since the hearing is winding down, we've got two more witnesses, and I know that they're under time constraints, just as every one else is, so...


VELAZQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to testify before the committee today regarding two proposed amendments that I'm offering with Chairman Talent, who already came before this committee.


I'm here today in my capacity as ranking Democratic member on the Committee on Small Business. The Committee on Small Business has jurisdiction over fair procurement issues that affect small business. It has come to the attention of the committee that the Department of Defense, the largest body of goods and services in the entire U.S. government, has increasing relied on the practice of contract bundling to the exclusion of small businesses.


The department has justified its continued escalation of contract bundling by claiming cost savings and increased quality. However, the committee has learned that there are no statistics kept by the department that can prove any cost savings or quality improvement.


What can be proven is the devastating effect of bundling on small businesses. It is well-known among advocates of small business that small businesses are the most innovative and responsive of businesses. There's no truth, as far as businesses are concerned, that large business equates to quality and small business equates to lack of quality.


Contract bundling is defined by public law 105-135, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, as the consolidation of two or more smaller contracts into one large contract. Hearings held by the Committee on Small Business, two in the first half of this session of Congress alone, have shown that the Department of Defense has consistently ignored the goals set forth in the small business act, particularly in the area of awarding prime contracts to small business concerns, especially those small business concerns owned and controlled by minorities and women.


As an example, from fiscal year '97 through fiscal year 1999, the number of prime contracts to small businesses awarded by the Department of Defense has decreased by over 34 percent. The number of contracts to small disadvantaged businesses has decreased by over 25 percent. And most dramatically, the number of contracts to women- owned businesses has decreased by over 38 percent.


Contrasting this number with the actual dollar volume of contracts, which is in fact up for fiscal year 1999, there is clear indication that contract bundling is on the rise. Contract bundling by the Department of Defense is hurting small businesses who are the backbone of our nation's economy. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of America's employers. Small businesses employed 53 percent of the private work force and contributes 47 percent of all sales in our country.


To solve this problem, I am offering an amendment that modifies the way the Department of Defense processes bundled contracts. Under current law, the Small Business Administration has appeal rights to DOD contract bundles if the SBA determines that the contract bundle will have an adverse impact on small businesses.


The problem with this is that the decider of the SBA's appeal is the Department of Defense itself.


Further, although the SBA has promulgated regulations defining contract bundling, the Department of Defense continues to use its own definition.


What I propose in my amendment is that the Department of Defense be required to justify its bundle to the SBA. If the SBA determines that measurable, substantial benefits have not been met, and if quality is not, at the very least, equal to that currently being contracted for, the Department of Defense will not be allowed to proceed with their bundling strategy.


I'm also recommending the Department of Defense be allowed to appeal the SBA's decision to the Office of Management and Budget. I have included waiver provisions in this amendment in the event of national security issues or other emergency situations.


I will urge the committee to make this amendment in order. This amendment will ensure that the interests of our small businesses are protected. They continue to be the primary job creators and innovators and remain the foundation of America's economic future.


Should the committee choose not to accept my first amendment, I am offering a second amendment to expand the contract bundling study proposed in Section 11 of H.R. 4205. Under the current committee's Section 11, a GAO study of the -- study of the effects of contract bundling on military construction projects is included.


I commend the Armed Services Committee for including a study on contract bundling in their version of this bill. The Committee on Small Business has found that the issue of contract bundling is an industry-wide issue, and a study of bundling should be equally comprehensive.


Further, during a November 4, 1999, hearing of the Committee on Small Business, testimony was heard from Mr. Oliver -- David Oliver, principal undersecretary for acquisition and technology. Mr. Oliver testified that he will be commissioning a study to evaluate the effects of contract bundling on small businesses department-wide.


I accepted Mr. Oliver's testimony in good faith. Within a few months it became clear that the department does not have a database of contract bundling information in place for an adequate study to be performed. My amendment requires a study of contract bundling department-wide. It further requires the department to work with GAO in developing a database to monitor the effects of contract bundling in all industry classifications on small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses and women-owned businesses.


I would like to close by thanking you for allowing me to testify regarding my two amendments.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much, Ms. Velazquez, we appreciate your being here. And thanks for your hard work on behalf of small businesses.


One thing I would say on your second amendment, you might be able to mark that up in your committee and you could proceed with that.


But we'll certainly take a look at making them in order.


So thank you very much for being here.


VELAZQUEZ: Thank you.



HASTINGS: Our next witness is the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley. She does not appear to be here.


Our final witness is the gentleman from California, Mr. Baca.


Ms. Berkley, I just called you so I guess we'll -- why don't we take both of you together? Since you're the last two witnesses, you just come together here. And Ms. Berkley, why don't you proceed and turn on the microphone so that the World Wide Web will be able to enjoy the benefit of your eloquence?


BERKLEY: (OFF-MIKE)


HASTINGS: Yes. And if you have prepared remarks, which it appears you do, I will tell you that all of those will be included in the record. Why don't you just give me a brief summary? We've got a vote downstairs.


BERKLEY: OK.


HASTINGS: Just tell me a little bit about your amendment and then we'll proceed.


BERKLEY: All right. I'm going to read just a very small portion of it and then summarize and present it to you.


First, of course, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views today. I'm hear to speak in favor of justice and fair play for former Department of Energy workers who have suffered due to radiation, beryllium, silica exposure or other types of chemical exposure related to their jobs.


From 1951 to 1992, the federal government tested nuclear weapons above and below ground at the Nevada Test Site, among other sites around the country. Growing up in southern Nevada, I was friends with many of the children of the Nevada test site workers. These former workers now suffer debilitating diseases and horrendous cancers and many have died as a result of their service to this great country.


We, as a nation, have a debt to those who have sustained this pain and suffering, who have lost loved ones due to the dangers that they faced at several atomic weapon sites around the country. These people must be compensated for their tremendous losses.


The people that worked at these sites were never made aware of the potential danger this exposure to -- these toxic chemicals might pose to their health, particularly the radiation, and we now know the hazards that were faced, and we now have the responsibility to do the right thing. We cannot shirk this responsibility nor can we delay it any longer.


The people that worked at these sites during the years of atomic weapons programs deserve compensation for the illnesses related to their work. They were taught to serve their country, and they took great risks on behalf of the United States. We can properly recognize these people rather than paying lip service by providing the compensation for...


HASTINGS: Thank you very much.


BERKLEY: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here and thanks for making your case so quickly here.


BERKLEY: Thank you.


HASTINGS: We thank you.


BERKLEY: I'll answer any questions you may have.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much. I have no questions. We appreciate your being here and we're going to close the hearing with testimony from my very good friend and neighbor and colleague, Mr. Baca.


BACA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.


HASTINGS: And you, too -- let me just say that your prepared remarks -- there's no one here to object -- so they will appear in the record and if you'd just like to, in light of the vote downstairs, just briefly summarize what it is you'd like us to do.


BACA: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.


What I will do is leave my remarks, my full statement.


HASTINGS: Yes.


BACA: Basically, what I'm asking for is an amendment be considered to the Congressional Medal of Honor that we're currently giving our veterans right now. It's currently made of brass. It costs about $35. And yet, you know, we're giving the Congressional Medal of Honor to other individuals that costs us about $30,000. This should be a medal that we should give to our veterans who have served our country. They deserve to get the gold medal.


I was surprised to hear that the medal that we're presenting them is not made of solid gold. Really, it's made of brass. It only costs $35. Yet, we give the Congressional Medal of Honor to other individuals at costs of $30,000. And basically, what I'm asking for is fairness to honor our veterans who have served our country.


HASTINGS: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. You make a compelling case and I have followed this.


BACA: And the amount of dollars are stated in the statement in terms of what the actual medal would cost us.


HASTINGS: We'll certainly take a close look at it, and we appreciate your hard work on this issue on behalf of our veterans.


BACA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


HASTINGS: That will conclude the hearing. I'd like to, at this point, submit for the record the statement by my colleague, Mr. Hall. Is there anything else?


And apparently, we have several other people who want to submit testimony, so I'm going to leave the record opened.


But with that, the hearing portion stands adjourned, so the committee will be in recess subject to the call of the chair, at which time we will mark up the rule.


Thank you.


(RECESS)


(JOINED IN PROGRESS)


GOSS: ... divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that it shall be in order to consider as an original bill, for the purpose of the amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule further provides that no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution or specified by a subsequent order of the House.



GOSS: Amendments en bloc described in Section 3 of this resolution and pro forma amendments are offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services for the purposes of debate. The rule provides that, except as specified in Section 5 of the resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a member designated, and the report shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the committee as a whole.


The rule further provides that unless otherwise specified in the report, each amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent. And the proponent shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services make each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate on any pending amendment.


The rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report or amendments en bloc described in Section 3 of the resolution. The rule provides that it shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services designee to offer amendments en bloc, consisting of amendments printed in the report, not early disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment, which shall be considered as writ, except the modification shall be reported, shall be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or the designees. shall not be subject to amendment, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the committee as a whole.


The rule provides, after the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, that amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be stricken.


The rule further provides that the original proponent of an amendment, including such amendments en bloc, may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. The rule allows the chairman of the committee to hold the postponed votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote falls to a 15 minute vote.


The rule allows the chair of the committee as a whole to recognize for the consideration of any amendment printed in the report out of the order printed, but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.


Finally, the rule provides that at the disposition of the amendments printed in the report, the committee of the whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order, except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.


So moved, Mr. Chairman.


DREIER: You've heard the motion of the gentleman from Sanibel. Let me just explain. We were hoping to be able to report out one rule as we had discussed earlier, but with over 100 amendments that have been filed and the challenge of dealing with the service for the Stupak family, we have proceeded with this plan, which will provide unusual flexibility, allowing the chair to call up amendments out of order here so that they can, in fact, have an opportunity to recognize those members who are here.


The votes will be -- well, we'll possibly have votes on the first three amendments that are made in order before the 3:00 bus leaves for the airport, and then the other amendments will be debated and votes will be rolled until Thursday. It's our hope that we'll be able to meet, as I said, before the bus leaves -- that may not be possible -- to handle the other amendments, but we will try to do that. If we're not able to, we will still have to meet sometime tomorrow so that we can, in fact, have a rule and allow for consideration of the concluding amendments on the floor for debate on Thursday.


So with that, if Mr. Moakley wants to...


MOAKLEY: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I understand that because of the situation tomorrow that you had no control over, you know, we can't argue with the matter before us because -- but we don't know what's going to be on the bill tomorrow.


And many people, like Mr. Frost, are together with me on that plane and I would hope that the hearing on the second bill does take place before that so the members who are going to the funeral would have a chance to be heard on the second rule.


DREIER: Well, let me just say, we've had the hearing. I mean, we've completed the hearing.


MOAKLEY: Oh, I mean, to participate in the...


DREIER: The only thing we have is just the markup...


MOAKLEY: The markup rather.


DREIER: ... on this second rule. And I will tell you that we are going to try to do that if we possibly can before people leave tomorrow afternoon. And it's my understanding that -- I know that Mr. Frost is going to be leaving tomorrow afternoon and I think that there are going to be other members of the Rules Committee who will be here, so that if we do have to meet after 3:00, we'll have to do that. Because, as you know, we have to have this on the floor on Thursday.


Mr. Frost?


FROST: Mr. Chairman, I can't tell from the rule what the basis was for which amendments were considered or not considered and which amendments are still on the table for consideration under the second rule. Did you attempt to do this by title or is this just kind of a scatter-shot approach, making in order certain relatively non- controversial amendments, delaying action on all the controversial amendments and...


DREIER: Well, I don't want to say, you know, all are noncontroversial because there is some controversy surrounding a number of these amendments. But there was an attempt made to bring up amendments that would be debated for a relatively short period of time, as you can see through the length of them, and some that would be less controversial. And we'll have other amendments that, I believe, we'll have the full complement of the House here for debate on Thursday.


FROST: Mr. Chairman, are we to conclude that from this that all the other amendments that are not listed in here are still under consideration?


DREIER: Absolutely.


FROST: Or have some of those amendments been eliminated?


DREIER: No. Absolutely. All of the 101 amendments that were filed and those that were not made in order are still being considered.


FROST: Specifically, the Taylor amendment, dealing with health benefits for military retirees.


DREIER: That's still in consideration.


FROST: Specifically, the Skelton amendment...


DREIER: That's still in consideration.


FROST: ... dealing with Vieques.


DREIER: That's still in consideration, along with every other amendment.


FROST: And Moakley -- along with the Moakley amendment.


DREIER: That's still in consideration. That's still included in the 101 amendments that were filed. All three of those amendments that you've mentioned are included in the 101 amendments that were filed, and all 101 of those amendments, those that are not included in this rule that we're going to hope to pass out before midnight tonight, are, in fact, going to be in consideration for tomorrow.


FROST: Well, the only other thing is I would hope that the committee could act prior to 3:15 because I -- I don't know whether I'm the only one who's going to be attending the funeral from this committee. I don't know on your side if you've determined whether any members are going to miss, but it is a sad occasion...


DREIER: Certainly.


FROST: ... and a number of members will be attending.


DREIER: Right. We understand that and appreciate the fact that you are going to the funeral and certainly respect that.


Any amendments...


MOAKLEY: Mr. Chairman?


DREIER: Yes, Mr. Moakley.


MOAKLEY: Once again, just Mr. Frost's statement that no amendments have been eliminated at this stage.


DREIER: Correct. That's correct.


MOAKLEY: So all other amendments are still in play.


DREIER: All of the amendments that have not been made an order here are still in play.


MOAKLEY: Thank you. That's fine.


DREIER: OK, if there are no amendments, the vote occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Sanibel.


Those in favor say aye.


Those opposed, no.


In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. And accordingly, Ms. Myrick, for our side, will be managing the rule.


MOAKLEY: Mr. Frost will be for the minority.


DREIER: And Mr. Frost for the minority.


And with that, the committee stands adjourned until -- well, we don't have a meeting time yet, but we will hope to meet again and have a nice evening. Thank you.


END


NOTES:
Unknown - Indicates speaker unknown.
Inaudible - Could not make out what was being said. 
off mike - Indicates could not make out what was being said.

PERSON:  DAVID DREIER (94%); DEBORAH D PRYCE (57%); JOHN LINDER (57%); PORTER J GOSS (57%); LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (56%); RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS (56%); SUE MYRICK (55%); THOMAS REYNOLDS (55%); JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY (54%); MARTIN FROST (54%); FLOYD SPENCE (53%); TONY P HALL (53%); CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (52%); IKE SKELTON (52%); JOHN R KASICH (52%); BARNEY FRANK (51%); GARY CONDIT (51%); JAMES A TRAFICANT JR (51%); CURT WELDON (50%); JOEL HEFLEY (50%); 

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2000