THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Thompson (CA)
[Page: H3392] GPO's PDF
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Archer
Buyer
Houghton
Packard
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Stark
Stump
Thomas
Ackerman
Campbell
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Meehan
Murtha
Quinn
Rangel
Salmon
Shadegg
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Vento
Waters
Woolsey
[Time: 19:34]
Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I include the following exchange of letters for inclusion in the RECORD.
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN SPENCE: Thank you for working with me in your development of H.R. 4205, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, specifically:
1. Section 341, Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees.
2. Section 342, Eligibility for Attendance at Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools.
3. Section 504, ``Extension to end of calendar year of expiration date for certain force drawdown transition authorities.''
4. Section 1106, ``Pilot Program For Reengineering the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process.''
As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 4205, the Committee does hold an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should a conference with the Senate arise.
Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the amendments to H.R. 4205 and look forward to working with you on these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Chairman.
--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. FLOYD D.
SPENCE,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 4205, legislation that was ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services on May 10, 2000.
As reported, H.R. 4205 contains language within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, specifically sections 543, 906, and 1101.
The Judiciary Committee staff was consulted on these provisions of the bill to the satisfaction of this Committee. For this reason, the Committee does not object to the terms of this provision, and will not request a sequential referral. However, this does not in any way waive this Committee's jurisdiction over those portions of the bill which fall within this Committee's jurisdiction, nor does it waive the Committee's jurisdiction over any matters within its jurisdiction which might be included in H.R. 4205 during conference discussions with the Senate.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the interest of expediting Floor consideration of the bill, the Committee will not exercise its jurisdiction over the following sections of FY 2001 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 4205.
Section 518: Extension of Involuntary Civil Service Retirement Data for Certain Reserve Technicians.
Section 651: Participation in the Thrift Savings Program.
Section 723: Extended Coverage under Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.
Section 801: Extension of Authority for the Defense of Defense Acquisition Pilot Program: Reports Required.
Section 906: Organization and Management of Civil Air Patrol.
Section 1101: Employment and Compensation Provisions for Employees of Temporary Organizations Established by Law or Executive Order.
Section 1102: Restructuring the Restriction on Degree Training.
Section 1104: Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily in Reductions in Force.
Section 1106: Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process.
Section 2939: Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support Center, Illinois.
As you know, House Rules grant the Committee on Government Reform wide jurisdiction over government management issues including matters related to Federal civil service, procurement policy, and property disposal. This action should not, however, be construed as waiving the Committee's jurisdiction over future legislation of a similar nature.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the Government Reform Committee to ensure that these provisions address the legislative goals of both Committees as well as the American taxpayer.
I look forward to working with you on this and other issues throughout the remainder of the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I support most of the provisions of the Defense Authorization Act; at the same time, I have grave concerns about the Kasich amendment that the House adopted yesterday. In my judgement, the Kasich amendment does serious harm to U.S. policy in Kosovo.
If possible, this amendment is even more misguided than a similar proposal the House rejected earlier this year when we debated the Supplemental Appropriation. The Kasich amendment conditions U.S. participation in Kosovo on whether or not our European allies meet a specified percentage of their aid pledges. All of these so-called burdensharing amendments contain the same fundamental flaw: They seek to abdicate control of U.S. policy in Kosovo to Europe. If the Kasich amendment becomes the law of the land, the decision on whether U.S. forces remain in Kosovo will not be made on the basis of whether doing so is in the best interest of our national security. Instead, the decision will be put on automatic pilot on the basis of what Europe does.
I know some Members of the House honestly disagree with U.S. policy in Kosovo. They feel we should not be there. I disagree with them, but if that's the way they feel, let's debate U.S. participation in Kosovo directly and have an up-or-down vote. Don't try to dress this up as a burdensharing amendment. The fact of the matter is that Europe is already providing 80 percent of the 46,000 NATO troops in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania. There is no legitimate burdensharing argument that would dictate the withdrawal of U.S forces from Kosovo.
I agree with NATO Secretary-General Robinson who recently wrote that an American withdrawal from Kosovo ``risks sending a dangerous signal to the Yugoslav dictator--Slobodan Milosevic--that NATO is divided, and that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up stakes.'' Having prevailed in Operation Allied Force, we should not now hand Milosevic the victory he could not win on the battlefield.
The Kasich amendment would undermine peace in Kosovo and jeopardize the relationship between the United States and our NATO allies. While I will vote for the Defense Authorization today, I do with the expectation that the Kasich language will be modified in conference with the Senate.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns about aspects of this bill. But I will vote for it because it includes many provisions that are important for our country and for Colorado.
For one thing, today the House adopted the amendment that added a strong statement of the need for the Congress to promptly pass legislation to provide compensation and fairer treatment for workers at DOE nuclear-weapons sites who were exposed to beryllium, radiation, and other hazards. I joined with colleagues from both sides of the aisle in proposing that amendment, which is very important for the nation and especially for the many Coloradans who have worked at Rocky Flats.
Earlier, the House also approved my amendment to assist federal employees at Rocky Flats to make successful transitions to retirement or new careers as we move toward expedited cleanup and closure of the site.
In addition, the House approved the amendment by Representative KASICH and others to
[Page: H3393] GPO's PDF
I am also glad that the House adopted the amendment by Mr. DREIER and others to reduce the current six-month waiting period for new computer export controls to a more realistic time period. I believe this is an important step toward developing an effective export control policy that protects our national security at the same time that it ensures continued U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness.
The bill would also make TRICARE's ``senior prime'' a permanent, nationwide program--a change of great importance to veterans.
However, as I said earlier, I do have serious concerns about some provisions in the bill.
First, the bill's authorized levels exceed last year's appropriated levels by $21 billion, and are $4.5 billion more than the Pentagon requested. I remain concerned that too much defense spending means not enough investment in education, health care, and the needs of our children.
Second, the bill authorizes $2.2 billion for the initial phases of a national missile defense system. I am concerned that the authorization of these funds could encourage a premature decision on the deployment of a national missile defense system. I don't believe that it is an accurate statement to say--as the bill does--that the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 entails a commitment by the President to deploy such a system. In fact, this was conditional on feasibility and on whether we are able to deploy in the context of other arms agreements. I am convinced it would be irresponsible--as well as strategically disadvantageous--for us to make a unilateral move toward an inadequately tested defensive system. Earlier this year I wrote to the President urging that he not make a deployment decision based on politics instead of on diplomacy and technical feasibility, and without weighing considerations of cost. The same holds true for Congress.
The House rejected a proposal to simply close the School of the Americas. Instead, the bill will replace it with a new military training institute that is not substantively different than the current one. I am deeply concerned that this cosmetic change is being viewed as the best we can do to clean up the School of the Americas.
I was also disappointed that the amendment Ms. SANCHEZ proposed did not pass. The amendment would have ensured equal access to comprehensive reproductive health care for all U.S. servicewomen and military dependents.
These are not trivial defects. They are real shortcomings.
Nonetheless, on balance, I think the merits of this bill as it stands outweigh its shortcomings and I will vote for its passage. It is my hope that the bill can be further improved as it moves through the legislative process.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001 bill for a number of reasons. This bill spends too much for a national missile defense system that the President hasn't even determined to deploy and it seeks to keep defense contractor coffers plentiful.
H.R. 4205 authorizes $2.2 billion for national missile defense (NMD) systems when President Clinton hasn't made a decision on whether or not to deploy such a system. The President had indicated that he will make his decision later this year. But the longer he waits, the more evidence indicates that deployment is unwise.
Last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered a devastating blow to NMD proponents when they calculated the costs of building and operating the Administration's defenses system at almost $60 billion. For months now, the Pentagon has insisted that the cost of the Administration's system over the next six years was a modest $12.7 billion.
The Pentagon was shocked once again when a recent poll was released that national missile defense is an extremely low priority for Americans. Improving education, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and improving health care coverage are all significantly higher priorities than defense-related matters. I would much rather spend $12 billion to cover 11 million uninsured children--the cost of my MediKids bill.
While GOP feels at liberty to throw more money at the defense industry for deployment of a national missile defense, they considered my amendment unworthy of floor consideration.
I offered an amendment to H.R. 4025 that prevents the use of taxpayer funds at international air and trade shows. Unfortunately, my amendment, along with other amendments that would have saved millions of taxpayer dollars, were not made in order. This is especially egregious because the Defense Appropriations managers on the floor of the House accepted the same amendments last fall.
Currently, the Pentagon pays for incremental costs to advertise sophisticated weaponry and aircraft at international air shows and trade exhibitions. Last year, industry leaders such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon pawned off their wears to developing countries in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Lockheed pushed their high-ticket items such as the F-16, while Boeing advertised their FA/18 Super Hornet Fighter. These companies peddle their wares to countries that cannot even afford to feed their own citizens. And the U.S. government helps them to do so by subsidizing the expense at the shows.
The aircraft used during these shows and weapons exhibitions is paid for with American taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer subsidizes the cost of insurance, ramp fees, transportation to and from the show, and payment for government personnel needed to attend and monitor the show.
A conservative estimate of the total cost of taxpayer subsides is $34.2 million per year. This is a blatant form of corporate welfare and wasteful spending by the government.
My amendment prevents any further direct participation of Defense personnel and equipment at air shows unless the defense industry pays for the advertising and use of the DoD wares. The amendment prohibits sending planes, equipment, weapons, or any other related material to any overseas air show unless the contractor pays for all related expenses. If a contractor is making a profit by showing the aircraft, they will also be required to pay for the advertisement and use of the aircraft. In addition, my amendment prevents military and government personnel from lending their expertise at the show unless the contractor pays for their services during the show.
This amendment in no way prohibits the use of U.S. aircraft or other equipment in trade exhibitions. The bill simply takes the financial burden off of the American taxpayer and puts it on the defense contractor.
This is a wasteful practice that must end. It is a shame that my GOP colleagues did not agree that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars and make my amendment in order.
I urge my colleagues to stop throwing money at the defense industry and oppose H.R. 4205.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of section 535 of H.R. 4205.
At the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific there are 647 nameless remains of soldiers and sailors who died on December 7, 1941 as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. They are buried in graves marked simply ``unknown.''
H.R. 3806, which I introduced on March 1, 2000, would require that the Department of Veterans Affairs add information to the gravestones identifying the ship and the date of the death of those gallant servicemen.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents