Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in honor of Maj. Gen. Henry Mohr, a personal friend, an honorable man, a devoted husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather, patriot, soldier and hero, who passed away in St. Louis on September 7, 1997. Henry Mohr's entire adult life exemplifies in the most profound manner what it means to be a ``citizen soldier.'' He enlisted as a private in September 1941 and was stationed at Pearl Harbor on that day that will live in infamy, December 7, 1941. While most of us know of Pearl Harbor from movies and books, Private Henry Mohr was there. In August 1942, he earned the gold bars of a second lieutenant by completing Army Officer Candidate School. As a field artillery officer, he served throughout World War II, participating in amphibious landings in New Guinea, the Philippines, and service in Korea. Following the war, Captain Mohr left active duty, but continued to serve in the Army Reserve until 1950. After North Korea's attack against the South, he volunteered for active duty and served throughout that conflict as well. Following the cessation of hostilities in 1953, Captain Mohr returned to Reserve status, serving in a variety of command and staff positions as he worked his way up through the ranks. He also participated in studies designed to improve the role of Army Reserve Forces, paving the way for the seamless integration of Active and Reserve components, years prior to Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird's formal implementation of the total army concept in the early 1970's. Throughout the early to mid 1970's, colonel and then Brigadier General Mohr served as chief of staff, deputy commander, and then as commander of the 102d Army Reserve Command, or ARCOM, in St. Louis. In June 1975, Henry Mohr was promoted to major general and called to active duty to serve as the Chief of the Army Reserve, commanding an Active Reserve Force of over 225,000 soldiers. During his 4-year command, General Mohr committed himself totally to the improvement of military readiness, appearing frequently before Congress to testify on immediate and strategic readiness issues, not the least of which was combat medical care, the first responsibility this Nation has to those it sends in harm's way. The medals he wore were a testament to his character. The Nation awarded him a Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star with ``V'' device for Valor, Presidential Unit Citation, Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and, upon retirement, the Distinguished Service Medal. Impressive as it is, Major General Mohr's character was by no means defined solely by his military service. He was a devoted husband to his wife Dorothy and father of 2 sons, Philip Mohr of Lake Saint Louis, and David Mohr of Table Rock, MO, 5 grandsons, and he had 10 great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, to know General Mohr was to know a man of unmatched integrity and character, an officer who first and foremost cared for his troops, a man possessed of both physical and moral courage, a man who, as his family, his many friends and his fellow soldiers around the country will tell you, embodied what it means to be a patriot, a citizen soldier, a war hero, an American of the most exemplary kind. He always stood for the service and for his men, without regard to the consequences to himself personally. We have lost a good man in Maj. Gen. Henry Mohr, his lifelong example of selfless service most of us can only aspire to. The man who can fill his boots is a rare man indeed. I hope and trust that many will accept the challenge. To quote Shakespeare, in Julius Caesar, . . . the elements so mix'd in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world, ``This was a man!''. General Mohr, it was an honor to know you and consider you my friend. I appreciate the advice you gave to me on military issues over the years. Good-bye, General, God bless you. Your country will miss you.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of St. Peters for the successful implementation of WorkLink, the first telecommuting center in the State of Missouri and the entire Midwest. Opening in July 1996, WorkLink was designed as a community-based telecommunications center equipped to provide individuals, businesses, and organizations with a wide array of advanced telecommunications and related services. WorkLink promotes telecommuting as an efficient way of doing business and helping employees better balance their time between work and family. WorkLink offers an alternative to many companies and employees to maintain and encourage performance and productivity; assists companies in cutting expenses by consolidating office and parking space; improves employee moral by accommodating work and family needs; and helps the community by reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. Currently, two-thirds of the available space at WorkLink is equipped with offices and workstations with the advanced technology and inter- connectivity to handle most advanced office telecommunication functions. The facility houses many business types, including engineering, financial, computer consulting, computer programming, sales/marketing, healthcare, publishing, distance learning, and charitable professionals. By stepping out onto the cutting edge of telecommuting, the city of St. Peters is offering those in their community a tremendous opportunity. I am sure WorkLink will serve as a model for other communities, and I commend Mayor Tom Brown and Helen Robert, WorkLink manager, for their vision and hard work.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, in 1965 the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 6 percent. Today, it is 32 percent. We have had an explosion of illegitimacy in the country at the same time as contraceptives have been widely available without restriction to children. All of the sociological data indicates that these kids are not having kids because they do not know the facts of life or do not have access to contraceptives. They are getting pregnant because they are choosing to get pregnant because our society has consistently sent them the message that they should do what is expedient ahead of what is right, precisely the kind of policy that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is trying to change. Mr. Chairman, these kids do not need condoms. They desperately need to be told the truth, that for them sexual experimentation is physically, emotionally, and spiritually dangerous. They are much more likely to get that message from their parents than they are from the Government. If we have not learned that lesson from the last 30 years, then experience has truly gone through us without stopping. Support the Istook amendment. Oppose the Castle amendment.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Missouri State Representative Patricia ``Pat'' Secrest. Representative Secrest has been named Legislator of the Year by the American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC], the largest, bipartisan association of State legislators in the country. A distinguished public servant, Representative Secrest was chosen to receive this honor because of her outstanding work on ALEC's commerce and economic development task force. Under her leadership, the task force has doubled its effectiveness, growing the number of model bills drafted from 52 in 1996 to 110 in 1997. Her selection to receive this award is yet another milestone in an exceptional public service career. Her list of achievements is as diverse as it is extensive. Beginning in 1991 with the Outstanding Freshman Legislator for Small Business Leadership, to the 1992 Spirit of Enterprise Award from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce; to the 1993 Missouri Guardian of Small Business, from the National Federation of Independent Businesses; to being named 1994 Legislator of the Year by the National Republican Legislator's Association; to her class of 1995 Leadership Missouri Award; to the 1996 Legislative Award, from the Missouri Association of Insurance Agents; to her 1996 Voice of Missouri Business Award by the Associated Industries of Missouri; and to the Golden Sparkplug Award by the St. Louis Area Young Republicans, Representative Secrest has shown she is a dedicated leader. Her commitment to her community is exceptional. As cofounder of Secrest Engineered Products, Inc., she is a member of the National Association of Women Business Owners, and a former member of the St. Louis County Planning Commission, Leadership St. Louis, Greater Missouri Leadership, and a past president of Confluence St. Louis, the regional citizens' league. As an educational leader, she is past recipient of the Parkway School District's excellence in teaching award, a former member of the Parkway Citizens Advisory Council, and a former teacher in the Joplin, Columbia, and Parkway School Districts. As a public servant, she is serving her fourth term representing the citizens of District 93 in St. Louis County, and was named in 1997 to serve as the Chair of the House Republican Campaign Committee. Mr. Speaker, it my honor to know and represent such an outstanding public servant. I ask you to join me in congratulating Representative Secrest on being named ALEC's Legislator of the Year.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of an outstanding new organization which has dedicated itself to aid in the development of our Nation's children. The Gift of Time Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing community service, academic, and physical fitness programs for children between the ages of 4 and 18. The mission of the Gift of Time Foundation is: ``To provide children with resources, opportunities and assistance that help them develop high self-esteem, self confidence, socially acceptable value systems, diverse cultural appreciation and family values by providing them with structured environments for membership in mandatory participation in physical fitness, academics, and community service programs. To provide children with personal character development assistance for self expression through structured positive activities alternatives.'' The Gift of Time Foundation is spearheaded by Mr. E. Douglas McFarlin. His vision is to build a youth complex in St. Louis that will provide children with the upper direction to meet the challenges of our modern society. Mr. McFarlin is working closely with business, community, and civic leaders to launch this important project. He is hoping that the St. Louis complex will be the first of many across the country. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Gift of Time Foundation, can help a community in building character and values in its children. The efforts of Mr. McFarlin and his organization are to be commended for taking this challenge head on. I ask that you join me in recognizing this fine organization and wishing Mr. McFarlin the very best on his endeavors to bring this program to the children of our Nation.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would ask the gentleman if it was the intention of the authors of the 1996 welfare reform law that workfare participants be considered employees, and thus covered under at least 25 labor laws, including prevailing wages, unemployment compensation, and social security taxes and benefits, none of which previously applied to workfare?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, last year's welfare reform bill was about, in part, getting welfare recipients into work. One of the most effective ways to do that is through community service and community work experience programs which we generally know as workfare. Since the 1960's Federal welfare laws have allowed States to place recipients in workfare which requires recipients to work in exchange for their welfare benefits. The workfare program created under the 1988 Family Support Act specified public and private sector workfare recipients' hours and compensation, and included specific health and safety, nondiscrimination and other protections for workfare participants, but did not treat the workfare participants as employees. I would ask the chairman if that is his understanding, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources with jurisdiction over welfare reform.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman. One other concern: The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. Their concern is that the administration of clean-up will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha, reducing the community's input and influence on the clean-up process. If the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, is it committee's intention that it be administered out of the St. Louis Corps office?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman for his responsiveness. The Department of Energy, in its site recommendations, has targeted the year 2004 for completion of this project. I would say to the gentleman it is very important to the community that this commitment be maintained.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to engage in a colloquy regarding the transfer of FUSRAP responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste as well. For 15 years, the St. Louis community has attempted to work with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. After years of frustration and delay, however, the Department of Energy has finally begun a serious effort to begin to clean up the site. Contracts have been let, feasibility studies completed, the site recommendations have been prepared and commitments have been made. As a result, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the community, who while very appreciative of the abilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, are very concerned that the progress we finally made in getting DOE to clean up the site will be undone by this transfer. As a result, I would like to ask the gentleman, as a sponsor of this legislation, to clarify some of the concerns the community and I have about the effects of the legislation. Although there is no formal record of decision yet for this clean-up, in St. Louis, several feasibility sites have been completed and a site recommendation has been made by the Department of energy. Would the Army Corps of Engineers respect these studies and the site plan and the contracts which have already been let for work at the site?

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and I thank him and the ranking member for their hard work on this outstanding bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I knew from the beginning of the session that there would be a series of attempts through the back door, if my colleagues will, to substantially revise, in fact to gut the work provisions in the welfare bill that we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, and that the President signed and that is working in the United States of America and reducing welfare caseloads around the country, getting people off dependency and to work. And there have been a series of attempts to do that in committee, on the Senate floor, and now unfortunately in this motion to instruct. Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct contains, I think, a good provision telling us that we should not, at this time anyway, increase the retirement age for Medicare from 65 to 67. I support that, and I am going to support the motion to instruct for that reason. But attached to it is one of those back-door attacks on the work provisions in the welfare bill. The whole point of the work provisions that we passed last year was to require work in exchange for welfare benefits and therefore to make work attractive vis-a-vis welfare, so that we would encourage people to get work skills and to get off welfare and into work, and it is working. All around the country caseloads are going down, people are going off of dependency into sufficiency, into self-sufficiency, and it is working because we have decreased the attractiveness of welfare vis- a-vis work. Now there are many people in this House who will not oppose that openly. They will all stand up and say ``We are for welfare reform.'' But then they introduce measures which would have the effect of gutting that by in effect turning workfare into a vast expansion of the welfare bureaucracy without changing any of the incentives that lead people to dependency. That is the effect of the work provisions that were attached to the Senate bill. Here is what they would do, in a nutshell: Let us suppose somebody goes on community service. They have to work under the new bill, they cannot get a job, so they go into community service, they are doing some kind of paperwork job in a clerk's office; OK. If the Senate provision prevails, they will be getting at least a minimum wage plus food stamps, plus Medicaid, plus housing, plus access to 70 other Federal welfare programs; plus, if the Senate has its way, the right to get the earned income tax credit, the right to file worker's compensation. FICA taxes will be deducted. It will be some kind of a super employee status, and they will be working right next to somebody who is just getting that same minimum wage and is not getting any of those other things, and the reason is they never went on welfare. So we will take a provision, the purpose of which was to make welfare less attractive than work, and will turn it around and make it more attractive than work, exactly the kind of welfare reform, quote, unquote, that was attempted in the 1980's and did not work and will not work now. Mr. Speaker, we are helping for the first time poor people and their children. We are getting them off of welfare checks and onto paychecks. It is working. Let us not turn the clock back on that. I am going to vote for the motion to instruct. I like the provision on Medicare. I think my colleague is right. I think we ought to make a statement to the Senate. Let us work together in conference on these other provisions. The House has reasonable protections for people in community service. We do require the payment of the minimum wage. We have protections against sex discrimination. We have protections to make sure they work in a safe environment. But let us not load up the work requirements to the point that they are unaffordable to the State and that they make actual work unattractive vis-a-vis welfare. I hope I can work with my colleagues in achieving that in conference. I think the motion to instruct in that respect is a step in the wrong direction. I am going to support it anyway, but let us talk about it in conference. Let us not gut the work provisions in a welfare bill that is working so well.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman getting the time and doing this special order on taxes. I have been meaning to come over and have not been able to participate in one of these. I am just so pleased that we are finally passing bipartisan tax relief for the American people. And the position that is a bipartisan position on this bill, as anybody could tell who looked at the vote, is the affirmative position in favor of this tax relief. We are going to end up passing this tax bill coming out of conference with support from both parties. I believe the President is going to sign it, and I think we are going to pass this bill because the American people need it and deserve it. I would like to say what I think about this measure because I think it is one of the best things we are going to do in this Congress. We look at the trend of the last generation before the 1994 election, and I think this is what the American people were so angry about in 1990 and 1992 and 1994. It was a trend where Washington sucked the money and resources and the power away from the American people to here, and then used it often to uproot their most basic values and traditions. You know the Bible says where your treasure is, that is where your heart will be also, and it was clear that the regime that used to run this place, the treasure they wanted in Washington, because that is where their heart was. And look what it did to the tax burden of the American people. I mean my parents started out in the early 1950s. The average American family in the early 1950s was paying about 2\1/2\ percent of their income in Federal taxes, 2\1/2\ percent. Today that same average family in my district earning in the mid-$40,000s pay about 25 percent total of their income in Federal taxes. If they were paying at 1970 levels, that family earning $45,000 a year today would have $4,000 a year more in disposable income. And then we got the naysayers and the quibblers. No matter what tax bill we come up with, tax cut bill, they do not like it because they basically do not want to cut the taxes for the American people. Now the heart and center of this bill, and I wish it could be more, and I wish we could do across-the-board tax relief for everybody. Bob Dole lost the last election, so we cannot do that. But the President has agreed to something that I think is a substantial step forward, and the heart and center of this bill is a $500-per-child tax credit. And I hope the American people understand what we are talking about is $500 off the bottom line of your taxes for every child you have got. You got three children, it is $1,500 less in your Federal taxes. So if you are again in that family paying, earning in the mid- forties, and in Federal income taxes you are paying 7, $8,000, this amounts to about a 15-percent income tax cut for you. It is very, very substantial. And the other side argues, people who do not like this thing, they got to come up with some reason to oppose it, and they do not want to come out and say we are opposed to tax cuts so they say, well, your tax relief is for the wealthy. It is for everybody but the very wealthy. I cannot understand how they even say that. The very wealthy do not get it. Everybody else gets it, and they do not want to get it, and if you are earning above a certain income level, what is it, $75,000 in the bill, you do not get the $500-per-child tax credit.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I chair the Committee on Small Business, and I am taking up a lot of your time, and I appreciate your indulgence, but I did want to talk briefly about the death tax because we have held hearings on this in the Committee on Small Business, and the gentleman is absolutely correct. The large publicly-held corporations, they do not care about the death tax. It is the small family business, people who have done, as you were saying before so eloquently, who have done what we want them to do. They have worked, they have saved, they invested. They do not go out to eat a lot, they do not take a lot of trips. They have started a family business. And something like 60 percent of family businesses in this country are seriously adversely affected by the death tax. Many of them have to liquidate in order to pay the death tax. There was a lady who testified at a hearing we held in St. Louis, my district, on this issue, and that woman almost broke down in tears describing what she and her brother were trying to do to save their family business from the IRS, the business their father had built up and worked his whole life to preserve and passed on to them. And then the government, swooping in and trying to grab it from them. And I would say to the gentleman, what happens to the employees of the family business when the business has to liquidate or sell out to a big company in order to pay the estate tax? Who gets laid off? It is the employees. It is a tax that makes no sense. We are writing this bill to do something about it. I wish we could do more than we are doing. The gentleman is doing a service in having this special order, and I really appreciate your yielding some time to me because this is a good bill, I believe we are going to pass this bill. It is a bill the American people have needed and wanted for a long time, and again it is a question of where is your faith. I mean if you want the resources of the country to go to Washington, you are going to be opposed to this bill, and that is the reason for this rear guard desperate action fought against every tax-cut bill we come up with because these people want to preserve the power and resources and size and scope of the Federal Government. But I do not think they are going to win in this one. I think we are going to get it and the----

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a good point. The IRS has been responding to the signals that its political masters for a generation were sending it. I think what the IRS is guilty of is not understanding that the political masters have changed now, and the signals are changing. They need to change as well. We no longer want them to ratchet every possible dollar they can get out of the American people, regardless of how fair or unfair the tactic may be. I wanted to make one other comment. I agree completely with the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, about the relative merits of the tax plan. I do think it is unfortunate that we have to argue over who gets what tax relief here. I just want to point out the reason is because this tax bill is not as big as we all wanted it to be. It was not as big. It is not as big as the tax bill we had in the Contract With America. It is not because the President did not want it that big. He did not want as much tax relief for the American people, so now we have to argue over who gets what. But we have less of a tax bill, and we have it so we can support a Government growing, even under this plan, and it is a good plan and I support it, but a Government growing at over 4 percent a year, at twice the rate of inflation. If we had cut the Government back to the rate of inflation, we would have more than enough money to provide tax relief for the American people, for all of these people.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the perspective is totally different. The last budget agreement, the budget plan, big increase in taxes, big new burst of domestic spending, deficits as far as the eye could see, passed on a totally partisan basis. Now we have a bipartisan budget agreement with tax relief, a plausible plan to balance the budget. We may do it sooner than we are expecting to do it, with real tax relief for the American people and restraint on domestic spending, a total sea change. There are the naysayers here, the old establishment type Members who are not going gently into that good night. They are the ``I want tax relief but'' Members. I want tax relief but not this plan. I want tax relief, but it does not give enough to this. I want tax relief but not now, or I want tax relief but I want it to end after 5 years. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody needs to be aware, when they hear that ``I want tax relief but,'' make sure your wallet is still in your pocket. What they are trying to do is to keep that money for the Federal Government.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate him on his outstanding work. I look forward to supporting this afternoon a historic bill that will provide a balanced budget for the American people, and then tomorrow, to support a bill that will provide tax relief within that framework. It is a historic and outstanding and bipartisan achievement and all of those behind it deserve congratulations. I want to talk just a moment about a very important part of this bill. It is a part of the bill designed to preserve the integrity of the works provisions in last year's welfare bill, a bill that is working around the country. For the first time, welfare caseloads around the country are dropping. People are substituting paychecks for welfare checks, and that is so good for them and so good for their children and so good for their communities, but there is a danger here. There are some folks in this body and some at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who want to adopt a provision that would make the work provisions unworkable, unaffordable to the States and unworkable in terms of their purpose. Let me describe it with an illustration. Right now the work provisions require that certain parts of the able-bodied people on welfare have to go to work and if they cannot get a job in the private sector, they have to provide community service, and that is good. Let us suppose that they are helping out as a clerk, as a part-time clerk in some Government office 20 hours a week. What these people are talking about doing would require that these individuals be paid comparable wages with people who are clerks in the area, maybe, $7, $8, $9 an hour. Plus they continue to get Medicaid, subsidized housing, food stamps, and they get all the other web of protections that we provide employees in this country: Unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, Family and Medical Leave Act, thus increasing the cost of this program, making it unaffordable to the States and turning it into a program that sucks people onto welfare. Because how unfair would that be to the individual who does not go on welfare and just gets a job as a clerk? All they have is their pay and the protections that we give employees. They do not get Medicaid or subsidized housing or food stamps. The work provisions are designed to create a bridge from welfare to work, and by making it unaffordable we would knock down that bridge so that people would never get from welfare to employment. It was not intended in last year's bill, we should not do it now, it is the wrong thing to do. What we provide in our bill is that individuals have to be paid the minimum wage; the FDC and their food stamps have to constitute the minimum wage. We provide them protection from discrimination, from unhealthy or unsafe conditions, and they can continue to enjoy their other welfare benefits. That is the way to go. Keep the workfare provision strong. Support this bill.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. TALENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce an amendment to H.R. 1119 the fiscal year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment mirrors and expands on the language of H.R. 409, the Missing Persons Authorities Improvement Act of 1997. Mr. Chairman, last year this body secured a victory for U.S. service personnel, their families and the families of POW/MIA's by winning the passage of H.R. 945, the Missing Service Personnel Act. That bill received unanimous support in the House as part of the defense authorization bill for that year. The amendment would restore the provisions stricken from the Missing Service Personnel Act by a Senate amendment that was offered and passed last year. Last year this legislation was introduced as H.R. 4000. It received 280 cosponsors and passed unanimously in the House before failing to come to the Senate floor. Mr. Chairman, I will briefly describe the provisions of the amendment. I do not believe that they are controversial. The first provision to be restored requires that military commanders report and initiate searching for a missing service personnel member within 48 hours, rather than 10 days as stated in current law, unless prevented by combat conditions. That bears repeating, Mr. Chairman. The requirement does not apply if the local commander is engaged in an ongoing combat situation, especially one on a large scale. But it is entirely appropriate for peacekeeping operations. Captain O'Grady, for example, was missing for 6 days before being found. Had he not been reported missing in a timely fashion, his story would surely have had a different outcome. The second provision in the amendment covers civilian employees of the Defense Department and Defense Department civilian contractors in the same way that active duty personnel are covered. These civilians are in the field under orders to assist our military, Mr. Chairman. They deserve the same protections afforded our men and women in uniform. Moreover, with the downsizing of our Armed Forces that has been occurring during the post-cold-war period, the Department of Defense has been increasingly turning to civilian contractors for technical support with equipment during operations in the field. These contract employees face the same conditions in the front lines as our men and women in uniform. Since they are assuming the same risks, it only makes sense that they are allowed the knowledge that the Pentagon places the same priority on their recovery as it does for military personnel. The third key provision in the amendment states that if a body is recovered and cannot be identified by visual means, a certification by a credible forensic authority has to be made before the DPMO can certify that the person is dead. This provision is simple common sense. There have been too many cases where misidentification of remains has caused undue trauma for families. The last provision I want to mention specifically, Mr. Chairman, may be the most important of all. The amendment contains provisions relating to pre-enactment cases, cases that occurred before the enactment of the Missing Service Personnel Act in 1995. These are primarily from the Korean and the Vietnam wars. Should any new information be found on such a case and be presented to the Department of Defense, the MIA in question must have counsel present at any hearing called to decide on the convening of a review board. Furthermore, such counsel must be revealed to the MIA's family which can then provide the counsel with additional information as warranted. Finally, the DOD should treat any new information from pre-enactment cases in the same manner as for future cases that may occur. More importantly, the law requires that personnel files be established for those servicemen last known alive in Korea. In recent years, Mr. Chairman, information has been declassified which revealed that the United States Government knew that over 900 soldiers had been left behind in Korea. The United Nations has had a similar list available for years, albeit with a much smaller number. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, we need to do everything in our power to locate and return these individuals. The establishment of personnel files for these cases is a small step in that direction, but it does help to organize the information that does exist and begins to allow for coordination so that our efforts at personnel recovery are as efficient as possible. Mr. Chairman, I will not go on about the amendment or about the underlying issue. We have a lot of other business to do today. I just want to urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting the amendment to this year's defense authorization bill and thus show support for MIA's, POW's, their families and for the Missing Persons Authorities Improvement Act of 1997. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying this is an issue that we have been working on on the House side on a bipartisan basis for a number of years. We have made real progress in trying to make sure that what has happened in the past to many of our men who have been lost overseas and never returned, never came home, does not happen again. I want to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on National Security, for his comments and for his very hard work and his leadership in this.

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.