Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment, which I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw, but I do want to make this point: this amendment would cut the line item for the Appalachian Regional Commission by $28.5 million. The amendment would leave $10 million for termination of the program.

Three weeks ago, we buried Ronald Reagan. Some of us were moved to reminisce about those days and the ideas that brought many of us here. Looking back, a lot of those ideas that made sense then still make sense today. And one of those ideas was getting rid of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and it still makes sense today.

Now, first of all, I want to applaud the efforts of our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), in looking at this program critically and cutting a good deal out of this program. He is going in the right direction. Last year, he stated that if he had his way he would do away with the ARC; and, true to his word, he is doing what he can to eliminate it.

This year, the bill recommends a $38.5 million appropriation for the commission, $27.5 million, or about 45 percent, less than the President's request. This is much less than just 5 to 10 years ago, when we spent upwards of $200 million on this program.

So I am saying, let us go the rest of the way and eliminate this redundant program altogether.

The ARC purports to provide guidance and financial assistance to 13 Appalachian States to promote economic growth in the region. Let me read you those States and you see if by any reasonable definition this is Appalachia. Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

West Virginia was the cornerstone of the Appalachian Commission, and since the Appalachian Commission has been in existence, West Virginia has gone from 43rd in economic development to 49th. So it tells you the effectiveness of the Appalachian Commission.

Until the past few years, the ARC was among our most expensive economic development programs, $282 million in 1995, just 10 years ago. Yet despite such spending, after 30 years of existence, there is no convincing evidence that the ARC has created new jobs or capital investment. Indeed, there is some evidence that this region is getting poorer relative to the rest of the country.

It is time to try something different. There are other programs that do better what the ARC does less well: the Department of Transportation's highway program, a host of programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Further, each of the 13 States and within them many of the counties and municipalities within those States have economic development agencies that are better suited and better qualified to judge the needs of these areas than the ARC.

As I said, it is time to phase out this program. But in deference to the excellent job that I think the chairman is doing, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is headed in the right direction on this, I will ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I object. Is it not the policy of the House to go from one side to the other side on these amendments?

Well, that is a different policy than we have been following all afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I hope we do not take near that much time, but I rise to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by $278,880,000, or approximately 1 percent of the total outlays of the bill.

This amendment is in the form of a retrenchment under the Holman rule. If we cut these funds, it will be up to the administration to decide where the cuts should fall. The bill totals approximately $28 billion, $49.6 million above the President's request, and $734.5 million, or 2.7 percent, over last year.

Now, last week, we debated the interior appropriations bill, which actually showed a decrease in funding from last year, and I voted for the bill because I thought that was a terrific step in the right direction towards getting a grip on our deficit. It focused on the core functions, I think, that needed to be done and eliminated some things which were nonessential.

Now I understand that there are needs that need to be addressed in this bill, important needs, but given this year's budget deficit is still projected at around $400 billion, I think some of these needs should be postponed.

Energy and water, I believe, should have to meet the same kinds of strictures as the other appropriations bills, namely either a freeze or cut. Naturally, we will hear about the impact of a 1 percent cut on certain specific popular programs, and it is possible a 1 percent cut could impact some of the smallest programs. That is why this amendment leaves those cuts to the administration.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at what the 1 percent cut would mean to other programs. One percent of the $1.87 billion general construction budget for the Army Corps of Engineers would total $18.7 million. For one of the Corps' recommendations in my district, $273,000 for the flood control study along Fountain Creek, 1 percent would amount to $2,730. Mr. Chairman, $2,730, though no doubt the Corps would disagree, I cannot see how they would miss that particularly. It probably would not pay for the printing.

Mr. Chairman, we have a terrible deficit. Our children are going to be paying for it. Given that context, I do not think asking the administration to find us a savings of one cent on the dollar is too much to ask.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in closing we are talking about one penny on a dollar. And I think many businessmen will tell you if you cannot find one penny on a dollar of savings, you should not be in business. I think we should apply that to our governmental spending here in our budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 2: Page 38, line 11, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $28,500,000)''.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to celebrate and commemorate the career of my good friend and Chief of Staff of 11 years, Constance Scott Solomon, who has recently retired from 20 years of selfless public service to the people of Colorado.

Originally from Kansas, Ms. Solomon earned a Bachelor of Science in Education and a Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of Kansas where she was a proud member of the University of Kansas Chapter of Pi Beta Phi Sorority. After moving to Colorado Springs, Colorado, she began working for U.S. Senator William Armstrong. While serving as his Area Director, she so greatly endeared herself to Coloradans by her dedication, that 20 years later, Senator Armstrong is still thanked for and reminded of Ms. Solomon's help and assistance by those she aided in their time of need.

Following Senator Armstrong's retirement, Ms. Solomon continued to stay active in Colorado politics and joined the staff of newly elected Senator Hank Brown. She rose in the ranks and assumed the position of Area Director for southern Colorado. Again her patience and hard work are remembered years later.

In 1993, I was pleased to have Ms. Solomon join my staff and assume the duties of Chief of Staff. She has worked tirelessly for so many years to assist the people of Colorado's 5th Congressional District through both legislation and case work.

Aside from public service, Ms. Solomon has served as Director of Pre- School for Downs Syndrome Children in Teller County, Colorado; Director and Coordinator for Homebound-Hospital Program in Wyandotte County, Kansas; Director of the University of Kansas Medical Center Hospital's Teenage Parents School; and taught first-grade in Kansas City, Missouri.

Ms. Solomon has dedicated her life and professional careers to assisting and improving the lives of others. Her perseverance and commitment to her fellow man is certainly uncommon and I, as well as the people of southern Colorado will surely miss a truly unique and compassionate friend. I wish Ms. Solomon the best in her retirement and thank her for all her years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as so many others have, to pay tribute to one of our Nation's finest sons and political leaders. Former President Ronald Reagan is worthy of respect and admiration both as a man and world leader, and his passing this weekend leaves each of us with a sense of loss and sadness.

His lasting mark on American politics is unquestionable. At a time when it was fashionable to declare one's political moderation, Reagan fearlessly changed the face of American politics by standing up and boldly declaring himself to be a conservative. He fought

for principles and causes that, before his Presidency, were considered heresy. Balanced budgets, tax cuts, smaller government, and a robust national defense were the hallmarks of his ideology, and he never shied away from articulating and fighting for those views.

He proudly became the father of political conservatism and made it possible for people like me to become a Member of Congress. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, those who espoused conservative political views had few outlets from which to share their philosophies, but Reagan ushered in an era of conservatism whose tide has yet to wane. The makeup of today's political world is due, in large part, to the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the 2-year delay that is in the bill is in direct response to widespread concern that the Department of Defense is experiencing too many stresses and changes to make effective base closure decisions by May of 2005. Our Nation cannot afford to close a base in the 2005 BRAC round only to discover in 2010 that the assets at that base were both irreplaceable and now lost forever.

We have had this happen in the past, at Cecil Field in Florida, and we also lost port space down in Charleston Harbor that we could very well use today.

The press releases, what I have heard from the gentleman from Minnesota, seems to be that he is mostly concerned about the saving of money. I would like to share with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) the BRAC math that we get by serving on the committee.

The DOD's claim that BRAC will result in a savings of $3 billion are only half the story. It is like looking at a financial sheet and just seeing the assets and not the deficits. In truth, 3 years after the next BRAC round, we can expect DOD to have spent approximately $5 billion more than they have saved.

In other words, DOD will have realized a cumulative savings of $4 billion, but they will have spent $9 billion in the process. Even 6 years after the BRAC rounds, we can expect DOD BRAC costs to exceed their cumulative savings by more than $100 million.

These figures are real. These are not my figures. They are based on GAO's reports on costs and savings from the past two BRAC rounds.

Let me repeat. DOD will actually need increased budgets to implement base closures, and by 2011, DOD will actually have spent more than it has saved from base closure actions.

Let me share two additional reasons for why delaying the BRAC until 2007 is the responsible thing to do. First, we are undergoing the most significant realignment of overseas forces and bases since World War II. And these changes may result in tens of thousands of military personnel returning to the United States. We do not know what this is going to amount to. In addition, I am concerned about the Department's overseas proposals. According to CBO, all the proposals under consideration have substantial upfront cost, as much as $9 billion; and several of the approaches under consideration would actually result in decreased operational capability.

DOD plans to roll these overseas realignment decisions into BRAC. This is too significant an issue for Congress to accept without time for consultation, oversight, and approval.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Readiness which oversees base closures.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. Chairman, let me just point out very quickly that the committee that works with this issue and struggles with it every day overwhelmingly supports the defeat of the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a very fine member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, today the U.S. military is deployed around the world in support of the war against terrorism, the efforts to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, and defense of the American homeland and U.S. interests abroad. H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2005, provides the resources necessary to keep the U.S. military ready to overcome any challenge.

H.R. 4200 includes operations and maintenance funds for training, peacetime operational tempo and depot maintenance, as well as resources to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the first months of fiscal year 2005. Of the $25 billion included in the bill for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, $16 billion is directly dedicated to maintaining or improving our military readiness.

H.R. 4200 fully funds the President's environmental programs, including $3.8 billion for pollution prevention, conservation, compliance, and cleanup activities of the Department of Defense. The bill also recognizes and rewards the civilian personnel who support the global war on terror by authorizing additional pay for civilians who are proficient in foreign languages and extending health benefits to government employees who are mobilized Reservists.

In keeping with the theme of this year's bill, The Year of the Soldier, H.R. 4200 contains additional funds for soldier equipment and protective gear, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to reimburse those soldiers who needed protective body armor, but had to buy it themselves, and provides $9.9 billion for military construction and family housing. The bill also contains a provision to eliminate the cap on military housing privatization program as of October 1, 2005, saving this successful program which has improved housing for tens of thousands of military families from termination.

Finally, H.R. 4200 contains a provision that would delay the next base closure round until 2007, pending DoD reports to Congress on a number of absolutely critical, yet still unresolved, infrastructure- related issues. This provision is neither an election-year stunt nor an effort to kill BRAC forever. To the contrary, it is reflective of deep bipartisan concern that the U.S. military is undergoing too much turbulence to allow the 2005 BRAC round to be a fully informed, effective process.

We are a Nation at war against terrorism. Our military is rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. The Department of Defense is contemplating the most significant overseas basing changes since World War II. The military requirements to defend the homeland continue to evolve and military transformation continues to change the basic training and operational requirements of our Nation's forces. Each of these issues is a significant factor in determining the domestic basing needs of our Nation's military, and each of these issues is not yet resolved. Until the Department resolves these issues and Congress has the opportunity to review and approve these decisions, a base closure round is premature and is sure to result in poor closure and realignment decisions. As a Nation, we simply cannot afford to close a military installation in the 2005 BRAC round only to discover in 2010 that the assets at that base were both irreplaceable and now lost forever.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I encourage the support of everyone for this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 608. Few things boast morale in a war zone more than receiving a card, a letter, or a care package from a loved one from back home. And, unfortunately, as more and more men and women in uniform are deployed in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom, we are hearing countless stories of delays in service members receiving their mail.

On March 24 of this year, the General Accounting Office testified that some of the problems that existed during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 are occurring now in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the GAO, the current system of delivering mail to service members relies on outmoded and labor-intensive manual sorting processes that result in undue delays. Furthermore, the Department of Defense is unable to track mail and determine the timeliness of deliveries. And since we have known of the problem for so long and we have not gotten it fixed, it tells me that it is not a very high priority of the Department of Defense; and I think that is what this resolution does, is tell the Department of Defense we think this is important and it ought to be a higher priority.

Compounding this situation is the issue of service members serving in war zones that are not able to vote, and we have heard other speakers before me talk about this, but it is serious and it is important. Currently 29 States require absentee ballots to be mailed and returned to the U.S. Postal Service. Since these service members will not be able to utilize fax machines or the Internet to send their ballots, and given the delays in the Department of Defense's mail service, there is a real possibility of a repeat of the military absentee ballot fiasco of the 2000 general election. The potential disenfranchisement of military voters is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 608 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a system that expedites the delivery of election ballots to members of the Armed Forces.

Additionally, H. Res. 608 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a mail delivery system that accurately tracks military postal transmit times, ensuring servicemembers will not have to wait weeks or months to receive a long-awaited letter or package from home.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that must be fixed now, both for the morale of the troops and to ensure that our service men and women are given every opportunity to exercise the voting rights they serve to defend. This is why I rise today in support of H. Res. 608.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for pushing this through in time for the actual memorial.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the more than 20,000 peace officers from around the country who will come to Washington, D.C. this next week, and in fact all the peace officers, the 1 million or so peace officers of one kind or another throughout the Nation. They are coming for National Police Week to commemorate the lives, as we have already heard, the 145 peace officers who died last year in the line of duty.

Today, we recognize May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and pay tribute to the commitment, sacrifice, and public safety services these officers provide for all Americans on a daily basis.

As we all know, September 11, 2001 stands out as one of the most tragic days in American history. On that fateful Tuesday, we lost 72 police officers, the largest loss of law enforcement personnel in a single day in our Nation's history. While September 11 offered an extreme glimpse of law enforcement's services and sacrifice, similar acts of heroism, individual acts of heroism and valor, are performed every day in every community by police officers across our great Nation.

Last year, more than 145 officers are killed in the line of duty nationwide, and, thankfully, these police officers killed last year is well below the decade-long average of 166 deaths, and slightly less than in 2002. The deaths have decreased in each of the last 2 years, and, hopefully, this is a lasting trend.

Peace officers in every community have an admirable record of services and sacrifice, yet too many Americans lack true understanding and appreciation, I feel, of law enforcement's work. That is why I worked a few years ago to help establish the National Law Enforcement Museum in Washington, D.C., and this week, 362 names of brave men and women will be added to the memorial, 145 from 2003 and 217 from prior years.

Unlike most other jobs, peace officers face unprecedented risks while bravely protecting our communities and our freedoms. I hope my colleagues will join me today in paying tribute to our Nation's fallen officers and expressing our gratitude for the work these men and women perform.

We feel very strongly here in the Congress, I think, about paying honor to the brave men and women in uniform. And when we say that, we usually mean those that serve in the Armed Services of our country. But there are other brave men and women in uniform we need to pay tribute to, and that is why I offer this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to support House Resolution 557.

Under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people lived in poverty and fear. During his 30-year reign of tyranny, he massacred tens of thousands of his own people, some murdered for their religion and some for their ethnicity.

On March 19, 2003, the United States and its coalition partners launched the first air strikes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 3 weeks, Iraqis in Baghdad danced and waved their country's flag as U.S. forces toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein, signaling the end of Saddam's brutal tyranny.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was a military success, courageously executed by American men and women in uniform. It was an operation of unparalleled precision and speed, and was carried out in a way that prevented widespread destruction of Iraqi's infrastructure, lengthy street-by-street fighting or a humanitarian crisis. Food and medical aid flowed into Iraq immediately after the troops and there was no ``adventurism'' by Iraq's neighbors or other destabilizing action in the region.

One year later, Iraqis are engaged in the enormous challenge of rebuilding their country after decades of neglect, and are working with the coalition toward the creation of a secure, stable, sovereign and peaceful Iraq. To date, in nearly all major cities and most towns and villages, Iraqi municipal councils have been formed, and for the first time in more than a generation the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500 courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces are handing the torch to the Iraqi people as they take control, form an army, build an effective police force, and develop a fair justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. I have a lot of other good stuff to say, but my time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 577. Under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people lived in poverty and fear. During his 30-year reign of tyranny, he massacred tens of thousands of his own people, some murdered for their religion, some for their ethnicity.

On March 19, 2003, the United States and its Coalition partners launched the first air strikes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On the evening of April 9, 2003, Iraqis danced and waved their country's flag in central Baghdad as U.S. forces toppled a huge statue of Saddam Hussein. In a matter of weeks, Hussein's decades-old regime was dismantled and 25 million Iraqis were liberated from one of the world's most brutal tyrannies.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was a military success, courageously executed by American men and women in uniform. It was an operation of unparalleled precision and speed, and was carried out in a way that prevented widespread destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, lengthy street-by-street fighting or a humanitarian crises. Food and medical aid flowed into Iraq immediately after the troops, and there was no ``adventurism'' by Iraq's neighbors or other destabilizing action in the region.

Coalition successes include delivering some 3.3 million metric tons of food to Iraq; all 240 hospitals in Iraq and more than 1,200 clinics are open with more then 90 percent of Iraq's 4.3 million children under the age of 5 have been vaccinated against diseases including polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles and tuberculosis; two-thirds of potable water production in Iraq has been restored, treating nearly 800 million liters a day, benefiting 3.5 million people; electric power generation has surpassed 4,400 megawatts of electricity in contrast to only 300 megawatts prior to the war; average crude oil production has reached 2.5 million barrels per day and since June 2003 oil sales have generated more than $5 billion in revenue for Iraqi reconstruction.

One year later, Iraqis are engaged in the enormous challenge of rebuilding their country after decades of neglect, and are working with the Coalition toward the creation of a secure, stable, sovereign and peaceful Iraq. To date, in nearly all major cities and most towns and villages, Iraqi municipal councils have been forced, and for the first time in more than a generation the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500 courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and from the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces are handing the torch to the Iraqi people as they take control of their own resources, form an army, build an effective police force and develop a fair justice system. Thousands of Iraqis now provide security for their fellow citizens, and Iraqi security forces now account for more than half of all forces in Iraq. Every day more and more Iraqis who know that a free Iraq will change the world are stepping forward to ensure a more prosperous and free Iraq. And Iraqis who once fearfully followed a fluid and unwritten law now have the assurance of a fair and reliable bill of rights that ensures equality for all.

Some skeptics continue to suggest that military action in Iraq was wrong, that preemption is never the answer and that Iraqis would have been better off left to the will of Saddam Hussein. Today, however, Iraq has been freed from the grips of fear, a liberated people are cultivating their resources and exploring their free lands, and the world is also a safer place because of Saddam's removal.

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment that was intended to cut $600,000 out of the IMET account to prevent Indonesia from receiving IMET funding in fiscal year 2004.

As many members are aware, I offered an amendment to the Foreign Service Re-Authorization Act of 2004 and 2005 that would limit Indonesia's participation in the IMET program. My amendment would limit Indonesia from receiving International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds until the President certifies to Congress that the Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are taking effective measures, including cooperating with the Director of the FBI, in conducting a full investigation of the attack and to criminally prosecute the individuals responsible for the attack.

For those members that are not aware, on August 31, 2002, the staff of the International School in West Papua, Indonesia decided to take a picnic. The teachers lived and worked in Tembagapura, a company town located high in the mountains near the Grasberg gold

and copper mine. The group of eleven people, including a 6-year-old child, drove in two vehicles to a picnic site about 10 miles away on the road to Timika. Because it began to rain, they decided to return to town for lunch.

The road they were traveling on is not an ordinary road. The road is surrounded by the gold and copper mine, and is heavily guarded by the Indonesian military. At both ends of this mountain road are military check points, which seals the road and control access to Tembagapura.

As they returned home, the group was brutally attacked by a band of terrorists. Two Americans, Ted Burgon (from Oregon) and Rick Spier (from Colorado), and an Indonesian man were killed in the ambush. The attack, which occurred less than a half-mile away from an Indonesian military check point, went on for approximately 45 minutes. Hundreds of rounds were fired at the teachers and their vehicles. Most of the survivors, including the 6-year-old child, were shot. Several of the teachers were shot multiple times and suffered horrible injuries.

Ted Burgon of Sunriver, Oregon was killed and his wife Nancy suffered facial cuts and abrasions. Rick Spier of Littleton, Colorado was killed, and his wife Patsy was shot in the back and foot. Francine Goodfriend of Rockford, Illinois was shot and has a spinal cord injury. Steven Emma of Broward County, Florida was shot in the legs, buttocks, and suffered injuries to his back. Lynn Poston of Olga, Washington was shot in the shoulder and legs. Suandra Hopkins of Sunriver, Oregon was shot in the side, legs, and pellets around the eye and his wife Taia was shot in the buttocks.

Following the attack, the Indonesian Police promptly began an investigation. They collected evidence, interviewed witnesses and reconstructed the ambush. The Indonesian Police issued a report (that I ask for unanimous consent to submit for the Record) concluding, ``there is a strong possibility that the Tambagapura case was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force, however, it still needs to be investigated further.''

In early November 2002, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that ``United States intelligence agencies have intercepted messages between Indonesian army commanders indicating that they were involved in staging an ambush at the remote mine in which three school teachers, two of them Americans, were killed. . . .'' The Washington Post has reported these same intelligence intercepts.

Despite this intelligence, the investigation of the attack has faltered. The Indonesian Police have been effectively removed from the case due to their report that implicated the military. The two senior Indonesian police officers who uncovered evidence of the army's involvement have been transferred to new posts, and the investigation has now been handed over to a joint military police team. Not surprisingly, the Indonesian military has exonerated itself. American investigative teams, including the FBI, have not been able to complete their investigations due mainly to the Indonesian military's refusal to cooperate and its tampering of evidence.

The evasions and obstructions of the Indonesian military are wholly unacceptable, and it is incumbent upon this Congress to see that a thorough investigation is conducted. The victims of this brutal attack deserve no less. My amendment is, therefore, intended to ensure that the perpetrators of this heinous crime against Americans are brought to justice. To the extent that the Indonesian military was involved, the United States should insist on criminal prosecution of all involved parties.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is important. It gives voice to our commitment that the United States will hold accountable the perpetrators and protectors of terrorism. We will exhaust every means to protect our citizens. We will pursue terrorists wherever they may be and hold to account. We will demand justice for attacks against our citizens and withhold aid from those countries that do not cooperate in bringing terrorists to justice. As President Bush has stated, ``if you are not with us you are against us.'' It is time for Indonesia to choose who it will align itself with, the terrorists or the coalition of nations that bring them to justice.

Report Summary

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues this is a good bill. This recognizes needs that have gone unmet for in some cases seems like generations, and I am not going to go through and describe the bill in its totality because other speakers have done it better than I can, but let me just say an area that I am particularly interested in is the authorization for the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to enter into a contract in the amount of $26 million for the advance planning and engineering for the VA medical facility project at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center site in Aurora, Colorado.

As the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) said, the University of Colorado Hospital is moving to this new medical campus, which is really going to be something to see when it is completed, and they have cooperated with the veterans hospital over the years, and now to bring the veterans hospital out there with the savings

that goes with that, it is going to be a magnificent medical facility.

The VA Medical Center at Fitzsimons, with this co-location with the Colorado Health Sciences Center and University of Colorado Hospital will be a veteran-friendly, state-of-the-art medical campus providing veterans with highly specialized medical needs with easy access to the best diagnostic and treatment programs that America can provide for veterans anywhere in America.

The Denver Veterans Medical Center's relocation is a unique opportunity to provide solid and constructive solutions to the challenges of aging facilities issues and new facilities costs while providing enhanced quality of medical care for veterans.

I believe that co-locating the Denver Veterans Medical Center with the University of Colorado Hospital will achieve the goals of providing the most modern, comprehensive and cost-effective medical care that our Nation can provide our veterans.

Congress has a duty to provide the best medical care it can to our Nation's veterans, and we must always strive for the very best health care services it can by utilizing the most cost-effective measures available, and for this reason, I am very much in support of Senate bill 1156 and encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

I have said it before, and so I am being redundant, but I will say it again, no one cares more about the veterans of this Nation than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and they have just done a magnificent job of putting this bill together with the limitations we have. It is a wonderful bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Let me just respond just a second to the gentlewoman who just spoke.

The Democrats controlled this House for 40 years, and I went to Sonny Montgomery, who was chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I asked him years ago, why do we not do something about this concurrent receipt thing? And he said, we are not doing anything about that concurrent receipt and we are never doing anything about that concurrent receipt.

They had a Democrat President. They had a Democrat Senate. They had a Democrat House. They could have done something about it, but they did not, and now we get this phony posturing after a deal has been worked out to really try to deal with the problem. I think that is a cheap shot, Mr. Chairman. But that is not why I rise today.

I rise to support H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. We are a Nation engaged in an ongoing global war on terrorism. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are deployed all over the world in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill supports all of our service members who are fighting terrorism and defending our homeland.

H.R. 1588 strikes a careful balance between ensuring that our military is able to train in a realistic manner while remaining good stewards of the environment. The bill amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act so that it can be read and implemented in a common sense fashion. The Navy, for example, will now be able use new sonar technology vital to the protection of U.S. ships, submarines and global interests, without harming marine mammals.

The bill also changes the Endangered Species Act to ensure that military training lands are used for their primary purpose, to train America's troops in realistic environments. These changes will protect the environment and also enhance the readiness of our military personnel.

H.R. 1588 also recognizes that the military services will face significant challenges as personnel and equipment return home from war. The level of effort necessary to resurge this equipment at our maintenance depots will be extraordinary. This conference report recognizes these consequences and includes additional funding for key readiness accounts.

The bill includes $9.7 billion for military construction and family housing projects around the world. This is an increase in the President's budget of more than $420 million, with additional funds targeted at projects to improve the facilities in which America's service members live, work, train and operate. Such projects are extraordinarily important to the quality of life for our military personnel and their families, as well as U.S. military readiness.

The National Security Personnel System established in this bill will provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to hire, fire and promote a more agile workforce; the authority to tie pay to performance; increased ability to classify positions and to administer pay and allowances; and a better basis on which to establish a labor relations system.

The new personnel system will also ensure that employee representatives are included in the planning, development, and implementing of new human resources management systems. There also will be a separate process to ensure that employee representatives participate in the development and implementation of a new management relations system.

There are some things that did not get in this that we were beat back on in the Senate. I think the BRAC provisions were one that I wish were changed. I think the firefighting provisions were very important to be changed; but, in balance, H.R. 1588 will make real improvements in U.S. military readiness and ensure the continued strength of U.S. Armed Forces for years to come, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who is chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is not a Johnny-come-lately on concurrent receipt. He has led this fight longer than I have been a Member of the United States Congress.

(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1720, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act, a two-year authorization bill that will authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out major medical facility construction projects to improve, renovate, replace, update or establish patient care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In addition to authorizing $168 million for fiscal year 2004 and $600 million for fiscal year 2005 for construction of undesignated major projects, H.R. 1720 also authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a major medical facility project at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center site in Aurora, Colorado. H.R. 1720 would authorize this project to be carried out using a total appropriation of $300 million.

Mr. Speaker, since the end of World War II, the Veterans Medical Center in Denver and the University of Colorado hospitals have shared expensive and specialized medical equipment and facilities, such as surgical suites and imaging equipment. This partnership has also included the sharing of expensive specialty diagnostics and medical treatments.

Due to the lack of space, inability to renovate or construct newer facilities and the cost associated with continuing to use the site, the University of Colorado Hospital moved its campus in 1995 to the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. This site is four and one half times the size of the existing campus and provides the school with a new medical complex for the 21st century.

As the University completes its move to Fitzsimons, a state of the art medical campus will be developed and many of the very best services in the United States will be available. For example, the Anschutz Cancer Pavilion, which is already open, is among the best institutions in the nation for all types of cancer treatment and research. In addition, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center is well known throughout the country for its organ transplant programs.

While the move to the Fitzsimons site solved existing problems and provided future advantages for the University of Colorado Hospital, it unfortunately separated the Denver Veterans Medical Center from both the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the University of Colorado Hospital by eight miles. While the University of Colorado Hospital and the Veterans Medical Center continue to share medical resources, this eight mile separation creates a very real and significant barrier to quality care for veterans who receive their care at the Denver Veterans Medical Center.

Compounding this problem, a recent study commissioned by the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 19 indicated that high demand for medical services by veterans at the Denver Veterans Medical Center will continue unabated for the next 20 years. The cost of maintaining the current Denver Veterans Medical Center to satisfy minimal accreditation levels until 2020 has been estimated to be $233 million, and estimates to rebuild the facility in 2020 are $377 million in today's dollars.

Planning studies have shown that a move of the Denver Veterans Medical Center to the Fitzsimons campus is the most cost effective of the reasonably acceptable alternatives. Passage of H.R. 1720 will allow the Denver Veterans Medical Center to relocate to the Fitzsimons site and enjoy many of the same opportunities as the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center enjoys now. This will include, but is not limited to, solving aging facilities issues, capping new facilities cost, enhancing quality of medical care, increasing flexibility and reducing operational costs.

Veterans who have highly specialized medical needs must have easy access to the best diagnostic and treatment programs that America provides. In a medical school environment doctors tend to be better informed of the latest treatment procedures and protocols. They are closer to the ``cutting edge'' of modern medicine. Quality of medical care for veterans is enhanced in a medical school teaching hospital.

University physicians in specialty residency programs provide a significant amount of care in the Denver Veterans Medical Center. To date some 90 percent of the physicians that work at the VA Medical Center also work at University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and most VA doctors have faculty appointments in the Medical School. Co- locating the University of Colorado Hospital with the Denver Veterans Medical Center will allow University doctors to continue their close relationship in treating veterans. Not allowing the Denver Veterans Medical Center to move to the Fitzsimons campus is simply unacceptable and it would not be in the best interest of high quality patient care veterans deserve to abandon this partnership of over fifty years.

The new VA Medical Center at Fitzsimons site will be veteran-friendly and will provide a practicable alternative to the Denver Veterans Medical Center remaining at its current, out-dated facility. The new Veterans Medical Center at Fitzsimons will be a free-standing ambulatory and inpatient care federal tower building for veterans, clearly identified as the Veterans Administration Medical Center with its own nearby parking. New veterans research facilities will be constructed and there will be a new veterans long-term care unit located next to the new 180-bed State veterans nursing home currently being constructed at the site.

This project has another group of potential beneficiaries, as well. The Department of Defense will likely construct a military treatment facility to meet the needs of Buckley Air Force Base. One attractive solution will be to meet the Buckley Air Force Base's military treatment facility requirements by participating in joint construction of a joint Denver Veterans Medical Center and a Department of Defense facility at Fitzsimons. The Air Force, as well as the Department of Defense, find this partnership to be in its long term interest. For this reason, the House-passed Fiscal Year 2004

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) included $4 million for the Department of Defense's portion of the design and planning phase of its military treatment facility.

Additionally, recognizing the importance of cost savings and other efficiencies, the FY04 NDAA included report language directing that the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs make every effort to share health care facilities. I have included this report language below:

Title XXIV: Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs HealthCare

Sharing

The committee continues to believe that significant

efficiencies are possible if the Department of Defense and

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) share health care

facilities. However, the Department and VA operate only 7

joint ventures, even though the 2 departments operate

approximately 240 hospitals. Such incremental progress is

representative of the significant bureaucratic challenges

facing the health care sharing effort. Nevertheless, the

committee believes that the Department and VA should take

advantage of health care sharing opportunities whenever

possible.

The committee understands that the Colorado University

School of Medicine has begun relocation to the site of the

closed Fitzsimons Army Hospital. The Department of Veterans

Affairs is currently considering replacement of the Denver VA

Medical Center, a 50-year-old structure now co-located with

the Colorado medical school, as a part of that relocation.

The committee understands that the Department is also

considering participation in the VA Medical Center's new

facility. As such, the committee believes that the Department

of Defense should participate in design and construction of

this facility, which would provide ambulatory and acute care

medical services to military personnel attached to Buckley

Air Force Base. Such an approach would allow the Department

to leverage construction, operations, and maintenance costs

of a joint facility with VA, and eliminate the Department's

need to construct an additional medical treatment facility at

Buckley Air Force Base. In this particular case, a joint

facility would further benefit by sharing significant assets

with the Colorado University School of Medicine Facility,

resulting in further savings.

With the expectation that the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs will reach an agreement on sharing design and construction costs at levels representative of their medical requirements, the committee recommends authorization of $4,000,000 for planning and design of a DOD-VA medical treatment facility at the site of the closed Fitzsimons Army Hospital.

The funds included in the House-passed FY04 NDAA are a critical step toward ensuring that the VA and the DOD leverage their resources through joint projects that meet both of their requirements. Constructing a VA-DOD facility at Fitzsimons will serve as a model for future efforts to serve the medical needs of America's service members and veterans alike. And, I would like to point out that inpatient care for the veterans and the DOD will be located in the same federal tower as the veterans ambulatory care, but will be connected to the University of Colorado Hospital to share expensive facilities such as operating rooms and medical imaging.

Mr. Speaker, given the rising demand for veterans' health care, and the significant challenges of an aging and increasingly less-efficient Denver Veterans Medical Center facility, my interest and my efforts are aimed at continuing the collaboration between the Denver Veterans Medical Center, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and University of Colorado Hospital. I believe that the opportunity to locate the Denver Veterans Medical Center with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the University of Colorado Hospital at the Fitzsimons campus will meet the demand for veteran care in the VISN 19 area through 2020 and beyond; provide significant savings in both capital and operational costs for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the taxpayer; continue to meet the Denver Veterans Medical Center commitment to education and research; and potentially create a national model for the future of veterans' care dealing with both a new concept for facilities and collaboration with long-established partners. More importantly, this move will retain veteran ``identity'' while also providing optimum patient care:

To date, over 45 local, state and national Veterans' Service Organizations and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2241, have expressed their support for this proposal. We stand committed in the goal of providing the utmost modern, comprehensive and cost-efficient medical care that we as a nation owe our veterans. And I believe that co-locating the Denver Veterans' Medical Center with the University of Colorado Hospital will achieve these goals.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a duty to provide the best medical care it can to our nation's veterans and we must always strive for the very best health care services it can by utilizing the most cost-effective measures available. The fact is, aging facilities, lack of funds, and the growing demands on the veterans health system are proving to be daunting obstacles in meeting Congress' responsibilities to our nation's veterans. However, the possibility for the Denver Veterans Medical Center to move to Fitzsimons and co-locate with University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and University of Colorado Hospital is a unique opportunity to provide solid and constructive solutions to these challenges.