Terry Everett

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform this House of an Alabamian who personifies the best traditions of American military heroism, and whose proper recognition for meritorious service has finally been received after five decades of official oversight. Late in World War II as this nation focused its military might on Japan, Private Arthur Hodges of Dothan, Alabama was a scout in a rifle squad with the U.S. Army's 306th Infantry Regiment in the Western Pacific. On April 20, 1945, the 306th was called to assault Legusugu on the Island of Ie Shima, just south of Okinawa. The island was incredibly fortified and honeycombed with Japanese defenses. Enemy resistance to the landing American forces was severe. Hostile mortars, anti-tank guns, automatic weapons, and small arms covered the approaches with devastating fire delivered from concealed pill boxes and caves. Here's an excerpt from Private Hodges' war record: Private Hodges led his platoon's assault. When he discovered a small group of the enemy in foxholes, he disregarded the heavy fire which swept the area and worked his way forward to a position within a few yards of the Japanese position. Accurately throwing grenades into the foxholes, he killed all four of the enemy. As he started forward again he was fired upon by two enemy rifleman. He took cover behind a rock and killed both of them with rifle fire. When he arrived at the peak of the mountain, he located an enemy machine gun which was blocking the advance of his unit. He promptly attacked this position, destroyed the gun, and killed its crew of two. As he returned to the top of the mountain, he killed two more of the enemy attempting to flee. Private Hodges' fearless aggressiveness and courage were an inspiration to his comrades and were in keeping with the highest military traditions. Private Hodges went on to become a Staff Sergeant and a squad leader in charge of 12 men. Among his many decorations, Sergeant Hodges received the Combat Infantry Badge, the World War II Victory Medal, the Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, and the Army Good Conduct Medal. Surprisingly, Sgt. Hodges, who was also awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars, never actually received those medals due to a paperwork glitch. After my office's personal inquiry on his behalf last September, I'm happy to report that Mr. Arthur Hodges will be presented his Bronze and Silver Stars by me on March 13--some 52 years after he earned them. I congratulate Mr. Hodges and am very proud to have played a part in seeing him finally receive the decorations which he has so long merited and deserved.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, a member of the National Security Committee, and as an American, I am appalled at the callous disrespect that Sarah Lister, the Assistant Security of the Army for Manpower, displayed toward the U.S. Marine Corps when she referred to them as a ``dangerous'' and ``extremist'' group during a recent forum. This type of behavior is reprehensible from a high ranking official in the Department of Defense. This is not only an affront to the men and women serving in the Marine Corps, but it is offensive and demoralizing to the nearly 1.5 million men and women in uniform that go in harms way to defend the United States. What type of message is sent to our young people serving in the military when they hear that a high ranking official in the Pentagon is quoted as saying that the Marines have a ``disconnection with society.'' This administration has been less than fully supportive of Armed Forces, and comments like these will undoubtedly have a further negative impact on their morale. While Secretary Lister has said she will be leaving her post shortly, that's not good enough. Army Secretary Togo West should fire her now-- today. Doing less will disgrace those brave Americans who have served and given their lives for this country. And as far as any talk of Secretary Lister being a possible candidate for Army Secretary should Secretary West leave the post--forget it. On behalf of the U.S. Marine Corps and the entire military, I urge the strong support of this resolution calling for Sara Lister to step down; we cannot and will not tolerate this lack of respect from civilian leaders.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 714, as amended, the Veterans Benefits Act of 1997. Madam Speaker, I particularly want to address title I of the bill, which is derived from H.R. 1703, the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and Adjudication Act. I introduced H.R. 1703 on May 22, 1997, and the House passed it on October 6, 1997. Title I represents a compromise agreement with the Senate on H.R. 1703 and S. 801, the Senate companion bill. I certainly recommend the results to my colleagues. The Senate drew much of the bill from the text of H.R. 1703, and the compromise is entirely consistent with the intent of the House bill. Legislation to address the VA sexual harassment discrimination problems has been a very long time coming, since 1993, as a matter of fact. I am pleased with title I. I particularly want to thank Chairman Stump for making it a priority for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] from the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for their original cosponsorship of H.R. 1703 and the leading roles they have played in the development of this important legislation. Also, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] were original cosponsors of H.R. 1703 and have been active in these provisions every step of the way. Of course, without our Senate colleagues we would have no bill today. I want to commend Chairman Specter of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and Senator Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat, for their hard work and cooperation on making this legislation possible today. Madam Speaker, title I is for the loyal, dedicated employees of the VA who care for and serve our veterans. Some of them do not have the workplace environment of fairness and respect they deserve. I am optimistic these provisions, along with changes already occurring at the VA, will result in greatly improved employment confidence in the VA's ability to address sexual harassment and other discrimination problems. This is good and much-needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on S. 714, as amended.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 91, a resolution providing congressional approval of the interstate compact between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. This compact represents many months of hard work and negotiations between these States on how best to allocate limited water resources. This compact follows a 1992 agreement which expires at the end of this year; therefore, time is of essence. I support this water management plan and believe this compact is crucial to proper water flow and allocation in this region. My State of Alabama depends heavily on adequate water flow from these rivers to support the need of navigation, industry, agriculture and households. Please join me in supporting H.J. Res. 91.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 92, a resolution to provide congressional approval of the interstate compact between Alabama and Georgia. Both of these States have worked hard in arriving at a water resource sharing solution that benefits each State. This resolution simply endorses this agreement. The combined partnership will enhance water quality, deliver water allocations in a responsible manner, and promote interstate commerce. It has always been my belief that locally derived solutions and cooperation regarding the allocation of valuable resources, such as the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River, makes far better sense than a solution derived in Washington. I support House Joint Resolution 92 and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1703, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and Adjudication Act. This legislation has grown out of oversight activities of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations which was reestablished at the beginning of this session. I will outline the bill shortly, but first I want to give my colleagues some background on issues which led to it. In 1993, as a result of committee hearings led by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] on serious sexual harassment cases at the Atlanta VA Medical Center and elsewhere, the House passed a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1032, to strengthen the VA's EEO system. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], now our committee's ranking Democrat, was one of the authors of that bill. The VA opposed the bill and it died in the Senate, as the gentleman from Illinois has indicated. Nevertheless, the VA promised to address the EEO problems the committee had identified. To make a long story short, it did not happen. Then came Fayetteville earlier this year. This past April 17, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, at the request of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], an active member of our committee, held a hearing on allegations of sexual harassment and other abusive treatment of employees at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center in North Carolina. Five courageous women came before the subcommittee to tell us, under oath, what had happened there. It of course differed in details, but essentially it was Atlanta all over again. The testimony showed that the influence and control the former director at Fayetteville had over EEO complaint processing had discouraged VA employees from filing complaints and had prevented those who did from getting a fair hearing. Mr. Speaker, we heard testimony that the women, one of the women involved actually heard the EEO officer, who was the director, laugh at the complaints that had been filed. Obviously, the problems that the Atlanta case have revealed in the VA EEO system still remain. As a consequence, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans]; the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the subcommittee's ranking Democrat; the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the full committee; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]; and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] have joined me in introducing H.R. 1703, a virtually identical bill to H.R. 1032. Down in Alabama we have a saying: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,'' and that is the reason we feel this legislation ought to go into law. I feel I speak for the cosponsors of the bill when I say we firmly believe that the needed EEO reforms at the VA should be a matter of law. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1703, as amended, will require the VA to establish a new EEO complaint resolution system separate from the facility management. It would also require the VA to establish a new, independent final decision-making office for the EEO cases. The director of the office will report directly to the VA's Secretary or Deputy Secretary. The bill would obligate the VA to report regularly to Congress on its progress in implementing the new provisions and on the operation of the new EEO system. Finally, the bill would establish an independent panel to determine the extent of VA's hostile working environment for women and other VA employees. Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I want to thank our distinguished Committee on Veterans Affairs chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], for his support and vigorous oversight of the VA, for giving H.R. 1703, as amended, a high priority, and for bringing it so quickly to the floor. Also, I particularly want to mention the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] for their hard work and personal involvement in this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] for his leadership on both the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee on National Security on this issue. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], as well, has been tireless in his efforts to promote these reforms the VA needs so much for its employees. Our bipartisan bill will not solve every EEO problem, but I believe it will go a long way toward restoring competence of VA employees in the Department's EEO system. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to act favorably on H.R. 1703, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I just received word that the VA has just announced that the administration has no objection to the House passage of H.R. 1703. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1703, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and Adjudication Act. This legislation has grown out of the oversight activities of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which was reestablished at the beginning of this season. I will outline the bill shortly, but first I want to give my colleagues some background on the issues which led to it. In 1993, as the result of committee hearings on serious sexual harassment cases at the Atlanta VA Medical Center and elsewhere, the House passed a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1032, to strengthen the VA's equal employment opportunity [EEO] system. Mr. Evans, now our committee's ranking Democrat, was one of the authors of that bill. The VA opposed the bill and it died in the Senate. Nonetheless, the VA promised to address the EEO problems the committee had identified, but, to make a long story short, it did not. Then came Fayetteville earlier this year. This past April 17, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, at the request of Mr. Bilirakis, an active member of our committee, held a hearing on allegations of sexual harassment and other abusive treatment of employees at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center in North Carolina. Five courageous women came before the subcommittee to tell us under oath what had happened there. It of course differed in the details, but essentially it was Atlanta all over again. And to make matters even worse, the VA had not disciplined the medical center's former director, against whom the allegations were made. Instead, he had been allowed to transfer at the taxpayer's expense to a VA hospital in Florida, Bay Pines, near where he owned a home and where a nonsupervisory job has been created especially for him at a slightly higher salary than he had as a hospital director. This ``Club Med'' treatment for an abusive boss understandably outraged many employees at Fayetteville. The subcommittee believed, based on the testimony it heard, that there were probably more cases of harassment or abusive treatment of employees, both women and men, at Fayetteville. As the chairman, I asked the VA to do a more thorough investigation, which it did. Unfortunately, our concerns proved well founded, and many additional cases came to light. While Fayetteville has new management, we are still monitoring VA's efforts to make the affected employees whole and to restore morale. Some employees had actually been driven into retirement under what amounted to duress in order to escape unbearable working conditions. When we asked employees at Fayetteville with sexual harassment cases why they did not file discrimination complaints with the VA's EEO system, they asked, ``How could we? The director was the hospital's EEO officer and we had no confidence that anything would be done.'' One witness testified that the director and the EEO manager would meet after hours, discuss the EEO cases and laugh about them. The testimony showed that the influence and control the former director at Fayetteville had over EEO complaint processing was discouraging VA employees from filing complaints and preventing those who did from getting fair treatment. Obviously, the problems the Atlanta cases had revealed in the VA's EEO system still remained. As a consequence, Mr. Evans, Mr. Clyburn, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, Chairman Stump, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Buyer joined me in introducing H.R. 1703, a virtually identical bill to H.R. 1032. Down in Alabama, we have a saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' Since we introduced the bill and before the follow up hearing we held on July 17, the VA has taken significant administrative steps to do much of what our bill would accomplish. We have had serious discussions with the VA about their objections to various features of the bill and have completely redrafted the bill without changing its objectives. The Administration now has no objection to passage of the bill. I think I speak for the bill's cosponsors when I say we firmly believe that the needed EEO reforms at VA should be a matter of law. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1703, as amended, would require the VA to establish a new EEO complaint resolution system separated from facility management. It would also require the VA to establish a new, quasi- independent final decision-making office of EEO cases. The director of the office would report directly to the VA Secretary or Deputy Secretary. The bill would obligate the VA to report back regularly to Congress on its progress in implementing the new provisions and on the operations of its new EEO system. Finally, the bill would establish an independent panel to asses the extent of this current problem within the VA. Our bill is cost neutral. It requires changes in the way the VA processes and decides EEO cases, but the VA has assured the committee that it can accomplish these changes within its current budgetary resources. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates no significant additional costs for a reformed EEO system at the VA. Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I want to thank our distinguished Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman, Bob Stump, for his support of vigorous oversight of the VA in order to ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the benefits and services Congress has mandated, and for giving H.R. 1703, as amended, a high priority and bringing it to the floor so quickly. Also, I particularly want to commend Mr. Evans and Mr. Clyburn for their hard work and personal involvement in this legislation. I want to commend Mr. Buyer for his leadership on both the Veterans' Affairs and National Security Committees on these issues. Mr. Bilirakis as well has been tireless in his efforts to promote the reforms needed so much too improve the workplace for VA employees. Our bipartisan bill would not solve every EEO problem, but I believe it would go a long way toward restoring the confidence of VA employees in the department's EEO system. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to act favorably on H.R. 1703, as amended.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Joan Byington Stough of my congressional district, who participated in CIVITAS@Bosnia and Herzegovina, an intensive program from August 1-17, 1997, designed to train teachers from throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina with materials and methods developed to educate for democracy. Joan Byington Sough is a counselor-teacher at Dalraida Elementary School in the Montgomery County School System, Montgomery, AL. Ms. Stough was part of a team of 20 American educators who were assigned to 16 locations throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Republika of Srpska. The Americans teamed with 18 teachers from the Council of Europe in nine of these sites. This education for program reached 550 teachers from both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovnia. The summer training program was developed by the Center for Civic Education, which supplied me with this information, as part of a major civic education initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovnia supported by the U.S. Information Agency and the United States Department of Education. It built on a program which began in 1996. I am told that the U.S. Information Service in Sarajevo provided valuable assistance to the program. The goals of the program are to provide teachers with the tools necessary to help prepare students and their communities for competent and responsible citizenship, including participation in elections and other opportunities to take part in the political life of their communities. Achieving this goal will contribute to the reconstitution of a sense of community, cooperation, tolerance and support for democracy and human rights in this war torn area. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Joan Byington Stough for her dedication and commitment during the summer training program. Her work is helping to achieve the overall objective of building democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer tribute today to an outstanding member of the Alabama business community whose labors have distinguished him before a national audience. I am speaking of Mr. John E. ``Jimmy'' Wilson of Luverne, AL, who was honored with the Spirit of America Award presented by the National Grocers Association of July 29, 1997. Mr. Wilson is in good company, joining the likes of President George Bush, Vice President Dan Quayle, and some 350 others who have all received the Spirit of America Award for support of America's independent grocers. Mr. Wilson has given much to this country. He served honorably in World War II, flying 65 bombing missions in the European theater with the 416 Bombardment Group, 9th Air Force, U.S. Army. His many military honors include the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving a fellow airman's life, the Air Medal with 11 Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Presidential Citation for Outstanding Work in Support of Ground Forces. His war service, combined with strong merchandising skills acquired as a part-time stock boy at T.W. Woolworth's in the early 1930's, served to propel Mr. Wilson toward a lifelong career as a successful businessman. Beginning in Pensacola and then moving to Montgomery, Mr. Wilson steadily climbed the ladder of the retail grocery business eventually acquiring his own store in Luverne, AL, in 1971. He branched out to include grocery businesses in Greenville in 1977 and in Ozark in 1985. I not only congratulate Mr. Jimmy Wilson on receiving the Spirit of America Award for 1997, but for inspiring so many by his example as a great American.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 2332. His name was added in error.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and 34 bipartisan cosponsors, to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 which requires that imported commercial products--including frozen produce packages--be labeled with country-of-origin information. The U.S. Customs Service has proposed to amend current regulations to ensure a uniform labeling standard by requiring a country-of-origin label to be marked on the front panel of frozen produce packages. However, Customs has failed to implement the regulation. My legislation merely codifies Customs' proposal and clarifies the term ``conspicuous'' by requiring the label be moved to the front panel. This way, consumers have the necessary information they need to make informed purchasing decisions. Furthermore, this bill provides an 18-month grace period to provide frozen food packagers with ample time to move the required information to the front of their packages without incurring significant costs. This legislation is consistent with current law and NAFTA. Remarkably, the Canadian and Mexican Governments require strict labeling requirements to ensure their consumers have the appropriate information about the food they purchase. Surely American consumers deserve the same.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 695.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which is based on false information. It is poor from a policy standpoint and unworkable from a practical standpoint. We reformed the peanut program last year extensively. We, the Committee on Agriculture, and the House and the Senate and the President authorized a reform program at no cost to taxpayers, and yes, at no additional cost to families who buy peanut products. Opponents claim that the peanut program costs families additional money. That is not true. What they do not tell us is in one of the reports they used when they quote from, the GAO identifies consumers as those corporations who first purchased the peanut from the farmer; again, not the housewife but the corporations. As far as passing along lower prices to the housewife, that is a joke. The only person who would believe that would be somebody who does believe in Peter Pan. Since the peanut farmer received the cuts for their peanuts that were slashed last year, the price of peanut products has increased, not been passed on. Not one penny of the money taken from farmers has been passed on to the families, not one penny. Also, studies show thousands of jobs in farm-related industries, such as manufacturing of farm equipment and those supplying farmers, will be lost if this flawed amendment passes. This issue was fully considered last year. Now let the program work. This Congress, both House and Senate, and the administration made a commitment to our farmers. We should honor it, and stop this silly and flawed business of trying to rewrite the farm bill every year. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Newmann-Kanjorski amendment which is based on false information, is poor from a policy standpoint and unworkable from a practical standpoint. The appropriation bill is not the appropriate place to consider this issue. This is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the farm bill in a way that is punitive to farmers. I could stand up here all day long and discuss the merits of the peanut program, the reforms we made in the 1996 farm bill, and the financial situation of the peanut farmers. But Mr. Chairman, this is not the time or the place to do it. You see, we did that last year * * * extensively, and we, the Agricultural Committee, and subsequently the House, Senate, and President, authorized a reformed program that benefits all Americans and at absolutely no cost to taxpayers, or, and please hear this--at no cost to families who buy peanut butter and other peanut products. We have been fighting this fight for many years. The fight, however, is not about reform, we have done that, this effort is about corporate greed, pure and simple. These multinational corporations have been lining the Halls of Congress with money for years claiming that the Peanut Program cost families additional money. That is simply not true. The GAO report you will hear quoted does not say the program cost the housewife and families one thin dime. In the report, the GAO identifies ``consumers'' as those multinational corporations who first purchase the peanut from the farmer. Again, not the buying public, but these corporations who are trying to increase their profits by taking money out of the pockets of already struggling farmers. As a matter of fact, since the peanut program was reformed last year, the price farmers received for their peanuts has been slashed, their profits greatly reduced, and, consequently many farmers have stopped farming. But guess what, the price of that candy bar has increased, the cost of that jar of peanut butter is still the same, but the profits of these manufacturers have increased. Not one penny of the money taken from farmers was passed on to families. Not one penny. This amendment is purely about corporate greed and it is a sad thing to hear these members say it cost families money when what they are really doing is siding with greedy corporations against working farmers. Members who do that do a serious disservice to both working farmers and working families while they increase the profit margins of these corporations. And, should this flawed amendment carry the day, it will not be only farmers who lose jobs. Studies show many more thousands of jobs in farm related industries such as the manufacturing of farm equipment and those supplying farmers will be lost. We saw it happen a few years ago when thousands of farm equipment employees lost their jobs. That's real jobs lost, not the pie in the sky stuff you'll hear today. If these members are successful today, they will continue to attack all other farm programs and the jobs lost in farm related industries will occur in the tens of thousands. This issue was fully considered last year, now let the program work. This Congress, both the House and the Senate and this administration made a commitment to our farmers--we should honor it and stop this silly nonsense of trying to rewrite the farm bill every year.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to extend my support for the legislation before us. I especially commend Chairman Lewis and his colleagues on the VA-HUD Appropriations Committee for their cooperation with the Committee on Veterans Affairs in reaching a consensus and commitment to adequately fund the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1998. Chairman Lewis has provided a total appropriation of $40.0 billion in fiscal year 1998 for programs and benefits provided to our veterans by the VA. This total is $143 million more than requested by the administration and includes $17.0 billion in direct appropriation for medical care and treatment of eligible beneficiaries. The legislation also takes an important step to allow the VA to retain for its own use the collections and user fees paid from third parties as reimbursement for VA-provided medical care. While this Congress is dedicated to spending less of the taxpayers dollars on unnecessary programs and departments of Government, we cannot and should not jeopardize veterans healthcare, compensation, and other program benefits. This country made a commitment to every single veteran and we have a responsibility to follow through. I believe that this legislation is true to this commitment. This Congress should, however, expect the Department of Veterans Affairs to commit taxpayer dollars toward programs and services in a fiscally responsible manner. I am particularly concerned with the manner in which the VA is progressing toward VA hospital integrations across the country. Let me first say that I support consolidating VA facilities. I believe this process is necessary to improve the efficiency of healthcare delivery for America's veterans. However, the VA should never implement an integration of facilities before designing a detailed integration plan. Unfortunately, the VA proceeded with the formation of the Central Alabama VA Health Care System and implementation of clinical and administrative changes without a business plan. The GAO considers the VA proposal inadequate, at best. Further, the GAO suggests that the plan raises more questions that it provides answers. For this reason, I have requested that the VA halt the integration of two facilities in Alabama until such time as the Department has provided critical information on the consolidation process, specifically, on the formation of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System through the integration of the Montgomery, AL, VA Medical Center, and the Tuskegee, AL, VA Medical Center. The General Accounting Office [GAO] is reviewing the integration of these facilities and has identified specific issues which should be addressed before further implementation takes place. The VA agreed to temporarily halt this integration in June. At my request, Chairman Lewis has included report language in the bill directing the VA to not proceed with further integration of these two facilities until a detailed plan of the integration has been submitted to the Congress and the General Accounting Office issues a report reviewing the plan. I believe, and the committee agrees, that given the specific circumstances surrounding the integration of these two facilities, integration should be halted until the VA and the GAO can assure this Congress that the integration of the Montgomery and Tuskegee facilities will serve the best interests of the veterans of Alabama and the taxpayers of this country. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this legislation and thank Chairman Lewis, once again, for this attention to the concerns of veterans in my district and throughout the country.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring to the attention of the House, the accomplishments of a fine group of dedicated citizens that serve in both a military and civilian capacity in this great Nation. I am pleased to inform you that the Headquarters and Headquarters Company 926th Engineer Group, U.S. Army Reserve [USAR], Montgomery, AL, received the company size unit award for the training year, 1996. The group was presented the award at the ROA National Convention in Kansas City on June 21, 1997. The Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 926th Engineer Group was selected from hundreds of Army Reserve companies across America, based on stringent criteria of readiness, training, drill attendance, and personnel strength. The 926th Engineer Group has conducted, in a superior manner, a meaningful and effective training program throughout the training year. They have demonstrated to the highest degree, the ability to accomplish their wartime mission. As a member of the Committee on National Security, promoting strong national defense, I wish to congratulate Cap. Joseph K. Roberts, company commander, and all the members of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 926th Engineer Group from my congressional district for their achievements and adherence to the highest standards

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, While I support the vast majority of the provisions of this legislation to implement the balanced budget agreement, I must express my strong opposition to the dramatic cuts in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Program (DSH) as recommended by the Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, this provision proposes a 40 percent cut in DSH payments to 13 so-called ``high DSH'' States. This drastic cut unfairly and punitively targets Alabama and 12 other States with unfortunately high levels of women, children, elderly, disabled and indigent living in poverty. Simply put, a 40 percent reduction in DSH payments over 5 years will cause irreparable harm to Alabama's safety net hospitals, major urban teaching institutions and rural hospitals throughout the State. These hospitals, to a one, meet the highest standards of quality, access and compassion year after year. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to address and fulfill the health care needs of our large number of Medicaid and indigent patients. Governor Fob James and the Alabama Medicaid Commission are actively seeking savings, program improvements and increased state participation. While other provisions contained in HR 2015 would assist their efforts, the DSH reductions would devastate the Alabama Medicaid Program and endanger the health and well-being of Alabama's poor, elderly and disabled, who suffer enough living in poverty. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the motion to recomit may address this matter, but I do not believe the motion is an appropriate avenue for resolution. The Leadership is aware of my concerns and has agreed to revisit this issue in conference. Hopefully, an agreement will be reached to change the formula to reflect a reasonable and compassionate funding allocation within the bonds of the budget plan.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified to correct the drafting error. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, cosponsored by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], relates to DOD's depot maintenance policy. This amendment simply strikes the depot maintenance provisions that were added to the bill by the depot caucus members in subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, the result of the amendment will leave intact the current 60/40 policy that splits repair work between the public and private sectors. Let me say in the beginning that those of us who opposed the language as reported out by the subcommittee come from differing viewpoints. My objection is to what I see as the vastly expansive new definition of ``core logistics capability'' and the redefining of ``workload,'' to name but a few. The Depot Caucus says that their provisions simply block the President's disregard of the 1995 Base Closure Act at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases. I am in agreement with the caucus that the President violated at least the intent of BRAC 1995. However, the provisions go much further than Kelly and McClellan. The bill redefines ``depot level maintenance'' to include ``interim contractor support'' and ``contractor logistics support'' and software maintenance which has principally been performed by contractors. The bill further defines ``core logistics activities'' to include all new weapons systems within 4 years of reaching their initial operating capability. These provisions clearly go beyond the scope of Kelly and McClellan, and are not based on military requirements set out by the war fighter. These provisions will force DOD to place more repair and maintenance work in the public depot system without regard for military necessity or cost to the government. In other words, by forcing DOD to place more repair work in the public depots without regard to military requirements, DOD will be forced to take deeper cuts in personnel and training and in modernization of our weapons systems. I support the need for an in-house public depot system to support the core repair and maintenance needs established by the military. However, if this work is not core and can be performed by the private sector, we should at least give the military leadership the ability to compete the work for best value and best price. The current provisions of this bill work against that philosophy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle]. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my friend from Florida that this does not, my amendment does not repeal 60-40, reverse the current law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues heard my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], say the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports privatization between private sector and depot level maintenance. Let me tell my colleagues who supports this amendment. Aerospace Industries Association, American Defense Preparedness Association of National Security, the Industrial Association, American Electronics Association, American Shipbuilding Association, Business Executives of National Security, Contract Services Association, Electronic Industries Association, Professional Services Council, and Shipbuilders Council of America. Mr. Chairman, the last two amendments, without question, are truly the two hardest amendments this body has to debate. The debate on this amendment has moved across party lines, it has moved across philosophical views, and it has moved across lines of friendship. It is not easy to be on different sides of an issue with friends you trust and admire and who you know debate our true convictions. Yet, my colleagues, I suggest that that is what this House is all about, a place where sincere people can hold different views and express them openly and freely. I offered this amendment not to get even with anyone; I offered this amendment because of what I see to be serious problems contained in the language of this bill. I have tried to make it clear to my colleagues on both sides of this issue that if this language simply calls for the closing of two of our Air Force bases, I would not be standing here tonight. But, in my opinion, it goes much farther than that. I could ask no more than each Member to vote his conscience. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.