Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare, this is an issue which has been before the Congress for quite some time. There has been a discussion about it for a number of years. If Members will recall, last year for the first time the House of Representatives under our leadership did pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit for senior citizens throughout the country. We all know how difficult it is for some of these seniors to pay for the prescription drugs that they have been prescribed for their particular condition. One of the disappointing things about last year was that although the House passed a meaningful prescription drug benefit, the Senate did not pass one. So we found ourselves back this year at the same place that we started last year. So we made it very clear on the Republican side of the aisle that we were committed to a meaningful prescription drug benefit for senior citizens that would not bankrupt the country. Because, obviously, we can spend a trillion dollars over 10 years, or $2 trillion over 10 years, but that certainly would not be fair to the young men and women who are out working today with children. Their employer does not provide health insurance for them, and they have made too much money for Medicaid to provide their health coverage, and they are not old enough for Medicare and yet they are paying taxes that go for the Medicare beneficiary and the Medicaid beneficiary. We tried to be reasonable about this to get a prescription drug benefit on the books to get started in a meaningful way, and our proposal will spend $350 billion over 10 years. I have a chart here that shows the House Republican principles on this issue. One, we obviously want to strengthen Medicare, and we are committed to a prescription drug benefit. Two, we want to lower the cost of prescription drugs now. We want to guarantee that for all seniors, prescription drug coverage will be covered under Medicare. We want to improve Medicare with more choices and savings, and obviously we want to strengthen Medicare for the long-term future. The other side of the aisle has made a lot of arguments that we are not spending enough money on prescription drugs. As I stated earlier, many of us agree with that. But when we have a Nation at war against terrorism, when we are just coming out of a recession, it is important that we get this on the books and that we be reasonable in our approach; and I think that is precisely what we are doing. But yet I want to make it very clear because the other side of the aisle has indicated that this is not a meaningful prescription drug benefit program, which I would disagree with. But if, for example, you are a single person on Medicare today under our bill, if your salary is $13,000 and below, then all of your prescription drugs will be paid for by the Federal Government. If you are a married couple and your joint income is $17,910 or less, then all of your prescription drugs will be paid for by the Federal Government. And if you are married and you are making about $21,000 a year, under our proposal even some of that will be subsidized for you in addition to the other benefits that will be there for you. So I am quite excited that tomorrow the Committee on Energy and Commerce will begin marking up this important legislation to provide finally prescription drugs for our senior citizens. My only hope is, and I am convinced, by the way, that the House of Representatives will pass it again, and my only hope is that the U.S. Senate will step up to the plate and not make this a political issue just because we are approaching an election but will step up to the plate and enter into meaningful dialogue so that they too will pass a prescription drug benefit that we can send to the President; and I know that President Bush has indicated time and time again that he will sign the legislation. I think tomorrow is a big day for senior citizens throughout the country and for all of us who have parents and aunts and uncles who need this benefit, because, as I said, we will begin marking this up tomorrow and I think within 3 days it will be coming out of our committee and then hopefully going to the floor. I appreciate very much the gentleman yielding to me this evening. I look forward to working with him tomorrow and the next 2 to 3 days as we try to finish this matter up.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Elizabeth Leslie Stone who passed away Friday, September 7, 2001 at the age of 15. She was the daughter of Wilson Lee Stone and Lanna Jo Stinson Stone and sister of Catherine Stone of Scottsville, Kentucky. Although Elizabeth was only with us for a short time, her memory lives on through her family and friends in Scottsville, Kentucky. Elizabeth was an active leader for her peers at Allen County- Scottsville High School. She served on the Student Council as the Freshman Class Vice-President and was also elected to represent her class as ``Miss Freshman''. Throughout the duration of her illness, she remained a loyal friend and role-model for her classmates. One of her truly remarkable talents was her ability to play the clarinet. As a member of the Allen County-Scottsville High Patriot Marching Band, she achieved First Chair All State Clarinet. Her family remembers her main goal as wanting to return to school to play her clarinet in the band. Elizabeth was truly happiest when bringing the joy of music to others. As a devoted member of the Scottsville Church of Christ, Elizabeth found strength in her faith. Her mother remembers her as learning to see the world in such a way that she found the good in everyone and everything and tried to love the blemishes that inflicted others. Elizabeth's perspective should serve as a lesson for everyone in hopes that we may find happiness regardless of life's many difficulties. Elizabeth also had a special interest in our government and hoped to come to Washington, D.C. to work as a page. Although she was not able to fulfill this dream, I know she would have made an excellent addition to the page program and would have served her country and Kentucky's First District with patriotism and pride. Although our time with Elizabeth was cut tragically short, she will always be remembered for her love of family and friends, commitment to her community and zest for life. Elizabeth brought happiness and meaning to the lives of those who were lucky enough to have known her. As she is grieved, her family knows that her spirit has returned to God and that she is smiling down on the world watching over her loved ones.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in recognition of Clear Fork Baptist church, located in Albany, Kentucky. Clear fork celebrated its 200th anniversary April 7th, 2002. When our great nation was only 26 years old, Clear Fork Baptist church was founded on the banks of the Clear Fork Creek in what is now Clinton County. The founder, Pastor Isaac Denton, migrated to Kentucky from North Carolina in 1798 and, according to his calling, began to conduct a series of meetings in 1801, converting many settlers to Christianity. In April of 1802, Clear Fork Baptist Church was established with 13 charter members. The Church thrived under Pastor Denton's leadership for 46 years until his death in 1848. He was buried beside the Church, where his tombstone has since been restored and memorialized to honor his dedication. His son, Joseph Denton, also served Pastor for 33 years, becoming one of 24 men who have guided the Church throughout history until today. Clear Fork Baptist Church has survived an astounding history. The original building was destroyed by fire during the Civil War. Three other structures have been erected through the years, including today's church building, which was built in 1995. Several church members throughout history have also served the great State of Kentucky. Preston H. Leslie, Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from 1871-1875, was a member of the Church. In addition, Major William Wood, a state legislator for 23 years, was one of the charter members. During his term in the Legislature, a bill for the Benefit of Religious Society in the Commonwealth was passed. This bill provided official recognition of trustees appointed by the church to act as legal representatives of their congregations. Known as ``The Lighthouse in the Wilderness'' after a history book written about the Church, Clear Fork Baptist is the oldest in Clinton County and was the fountainhead for many churches in Kentucky and Tennessee. The first secular school was also established by and named after the Church. Few churches in our region of the country have a longer or more colorful history than Clear Fork Baptist. Two hundred years after its birth, the Church continues to stand with a determination to fulfill her mission to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their leadership on this important issue. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1542. This is a bill whose time has come. It provides for less Federal and State regulation of broadband services and Internet access service. It also removes the disparity that now exists between cable, modem service and DSL. The bill also addresses the restrictions caused by the LATA lines drawn by Judge Greene in 1984. And I might add that was a long time before commercial Internet or retail broadband service was available. Finally, this bill will help rural America, an area that I represent, because it will expedite broadband deployment in rural America. I think that will be a tremendous boost to help in economic development in rural America, which is vitally needed at this time. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 22 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, when I think about the Shays-Meehan bill, I think of many people who have described it in the news media as an incumbent protection act. And I think that adequately describes what this bill is all about because we all know that if you are an incumbent Member of Congress, it is very easy to raise hard money through political action committees. But if you are a challenger to an incumbent, it is very difficult to raise hard money, and you get your best support from soft money through issue advocacy ads. The only thing this legislation does is it does not apply in any way to money spent by politicians for their campaigns, but does seriously restrict money spent by other groups and entities to talk about campaigns, and particularly that is true within the last 60 days of an election. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that there are two types of money. Hard money; if you expressly advocate the defeat or election of a candidate, you can only use hard money. But if you talk about issues and tell people the way a candidate votes on an issue without expressly advocating his defeat or election, you can use soft money. But Shays- Meehan says that any ad run within 60 days of an election must use hard money. And the Supreme Court and other Federal courts have consistently said that if you create obstacles to participating in the election system in the democracy that we live in, then it is unconstitutional. So I do not think there is any question that trying to deprive people of speaking within the last 60 days of an election unless they meet all of the requirements in meeting the rules and regulations set out by the Federal Election Commission, unless they are able to meet that hard burden, then they are shut out of the political system. I urge a no vote on Shays-Meehan.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the contributions to Kentucky Journalism one of the great citizens and most notable journalists of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Mr. Al Smith. Al Smith has been a major player in Kentucky Journalism since 1958 when he arrived in our Commonwealth after having covered New Orleans government. His first position was editor of the Russellville News- Democrat in Logan County. He learned about grassroots politics by spending time with the wing of the Kentucky Democratic Party headed by Logan Countian Emerson `Doc' Beauchamp, who was the political enemy of Governor A.B. Chandler. In 1968 Smith and some partners started their own newspaper, the Logan Leader, in competition with the News-Democrat. In a few weeks they owned both papers and began biweekly publishing. Then came the purchase of newspapers in Morgantown, Cadiz, and Leitchfield as part of Al Smith Communications. Smith served as chairman of the Kentucky Oral History Commission and the Kentucky Arts Commission. He also became moderator of Kentucky Educational Television's ``Comment on Kentucky'' which he still heads 27 years later. Mr. Speaker, Al Smith had grown up an admirer of the Tennessee Valley Authority and actively sought a seat on its board. Instead, he was named federal co-chairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission by President Jimmy Carter. He also served in that capacity temporarily under President Ronald Reagan. Upon his return to Kentucky, he purchased the Sentinel Echo in London and moved there. After the sale of Al Smith Communications to Park Newspapers in the mid-80's, he and his wife Martha Helen moved to Lexington where he produced and was host of the statewide radio talk show AOK Primeline. He continues to live in Lexington and one of his home towns, Sarasota, Florida. Al Smith has been honored by several groups, awarded an honorary doctorate by Cumberland College, and named to the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 1, 2001 Logan County will honor Kentucky's most notable journalists featuring Al Smith and those he has been a mentor to including The Courier Journal's Al Cross who is now national president of the Society of Professional Journalists; Larry Craig, President of the Kentucky Press Association and a Hall of Fame journalist; his daughter Catherine Hancock, who became a reporter for the Tennessean before going to law school; and News-Democrat & Leader Editor Jim Turner, who has won over 62 awards in the journalism profession.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the leadership on the Democratic side and the Republican side for dealing with this anthrax issue in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. It has called for cooperation on both sides to deal with this very complicated issue. And, yes, it is affecting our legislative process. It is slowing it down. We are not able to move as fast as we want to. On the economic stimulus package, it is not everything that any of us want. I will say this, though, that this stimulus package provides $9 billion to States to help them respond to economic hardship in the wake of the September 11 attack. It also provides $3 billion in fiscal 2002 to help States provide health care coverage for unemployed workers who today do not have any health care coverage. Obviously there are some aspects of it we do not like, but hopefully we can work those out with the Senate in the conference. So I think that this economic stimulus package is reasonable and we can work out differences with the Senate.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Yesterday's treacherous acts of demented minds led to families shattered, dreams crushed, lives lost, unwritten futures tragically ended. Immediately though came America's reaction. Rescuers charged into doomed buildings, police braved falling debris to aid the wounded. Evil attacked yesterday; America withstood the assault. Those shocking images of smoke and dust came down to this: a father gone; a wife, a sister, gone. As sure as the famous towers in which they worked, gone, too, the passengers and airline crews en route to California and elsewhere. Nationwide, people rushed to blood banks, eager to have their own blood flow into the veins of those wounded by an unknown enemy. Let that enemy note that this nation of many people is often at odds, but under pressure is united. A blow against one is a blow against all. Let the enemy know, America will respond.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I support the amendment offered by my two colleagues, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin). The limitation imposed by this amendment on the sale and transfer of U.S.-owned uranium products contained in the amendment will strengthen our domestic uranium enrichment industry. I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for agreeing to two exceptions from the freeze. One will ensure no disruption in the planned construction of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The other will allow for the replacement of contaminated uranium that was transferred to the United States Enrichment Corporation at the time of privatization. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I was quite impressed with the way that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) worked to put this bill together. It is an important piece of legislation because it sets out a national energy policy for America, something we have not had in a long time. It also pays some special attention to coal. Coal is our most abundant resource. We have 250 years of coal in the ground in America today. It provides 51 percent of all of the electricity produced in America, and it is one of the low-cost fuels which benefits the consumers throughout the country. Not only that, but it is one of the very few fuels that we do not have to import from other countries. Mr. Chairman, this bill is important because it authorizes $2 billion for research and development of clean coal technology. It provides tax credits for investment in clean coal technology, tax credits for production using clean coal technology, and I would urge everyone on this floor to support this legislation. I, for one, am particularly happy that it does place an emphasis on the importance of coal in America.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise reluctantly to oppose this amendment today, because of my respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a good friend of mine. But I think his amendment that would cut off funding for the FDA to go through the approval process or issue the final approval is bad policy. I do not believe the anti-biotech position is supported by the facts. Even the Washington Post in this Monday's editorial entitled ``Food Fight'' called efforts to ban biotech murderous nonsense. Let me read from the article. ``Is this technology safe? No test has suggested that genetically- engineered crops harm human health. On the other hand, a lack of plentiful, cheap food harms human health enormously. Half the children in South Asia and one-third in sub-Saharan Africa are malnourished today. Among other consequences, these children suffer iodine deficiency disorder, which causes mental retardation, and vitamin A deficiency, which causes blindness. ``Some anti-genetic activists say the poor will not be able to afford or benefit from these new genetic products.'' They say also that the so-called ``green revolution'', which was supposed to conquer hunger and in their view did not, ``the green revolution, which involved improving seeds and fertilizers and pesticides, actually more than doubled cereal production in South Asia between 1970 and 1995. Despite enormous population growth during that period, it reduced the malnutrition rate in the world from 40 percent to 23 percent.'' So what the green revolution began, the gene revolution can continue. Today's amendment would stop the approval process or the approval. I think that is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for bringing this important issue to the forefront. We have a lot of people in America reaching out asking for a helping hand. We have a lot of organizations who have programs in place that can assist those people. This resolution today simply calls on corporate America to not discriminate against a group simply because they are faith based. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his remarks today.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who was the author and primary sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 170, which calls on America's corporations to increase their support of faith-based charities. In 1999, the last year in which facts were available, a total of $190.16 billion were contributed to charities throughout America. Of that amount, corporations contributed $11.02 billion to charities, which is 5.8 percent of the total amount given to charities in America came from corporations. Unfortunately, some of America's largest corporations as a matter of policy explicitly discriminate against faith-based organizations. Now, there are many effective charitable groups throughout our country. These organizations have developed effective programs to assist people to recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitate prison inmates, and to teach job skills that will allow individuals to move from poverty to productivity, from dependence to independence. Now, in this resolution, we are not encouraging faith-based groups to do any proselytizing. As a matter of fact, they do not proselytize and recommend their particular religion. They are there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to provide assistance to people who need assistance. For example, charities like the Alpha Alternative Pregnancy Care Center in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Alpha Alternative is a place where women in an unwanted pregnancy situation can turn for Christian compassion and help in a time of great personal crisis. They minister to their clients with parenting skills, classes, material assistance, and counseling. If this faith-based charity were to receive more corporate support, perhaps Alpha Alternative could also expand its services to include other medical diagnostic services and job training programs. But with corporate policies banning support for worthwhile faith-based charities, community groups like Alpha Alternative will never reach their true potential. I ask my colleagues today to join with me in voting for this resolution calling on the conscience of America's largest companies not to discriminate against an organization that is successfully advancing philanthropic and human causes, and not to discriminate merely because they happen to be faith based. As I said earlier, these groups are not out proselytizing. They are not out trying to impose their religion on anyone, and this legislation is not trying to impose religion on anyone. This legislation simply asks corporate America to help effective organizations, whether they be faith based or secular. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the concurrent resolution.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 170) encouraging corporations to contribute to faith-based organizations.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member, for the leadership they have provided in putting this legislation together to fund the important programs of the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers. I support the fiscal year 2002 energy and water development appropriation measure. Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate the subcommittee's continued support of the Kentucky Lock Addition and Olmsted Locks, which help transport waterborne commerce to more than 23 States and for reinstating funding for the annual dredge work at Kentucky's only port on the Mississippi River, the Elvis Star Harbor in Hickman, Kentucky. In particular, I want to thank the subcommittee for agreeing to our request to increase funding for environmental cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The $10 million increase the subcommittee provided is desperately needed to help combat the myriad of environmental programs and problems stemming from over 50 years of enriched uranium production at that site. These funds, along with the monies the subcommittee has provided for cylinder maintenance and the construction of an on-site low-level waste disposal cell, will keep us on a steady path towards a safer workplace and a safer community. Mr. Chairman, the employees at the plant and the citizens living and working in the area adjacent to the plant deserve no less. On one separate issue, I understand that with the constraint of money, obviously, that the bill recommends a slight reduction in the DOE's Office of Environmental Safety and Health. To the extent that this reduction might impact the very important medical monitoring program at Paducah for current and former workers, I hope that the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) might consider restoring those funds, if it is possible, as the bill moves forward. The monitoring program is a key component of the newly established DOE workers compensation program, which has just now been implemented Nationwide. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member, for their leadership; and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and I have introduced the Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Preservation Act of 2001. The Medicaid disproportionate share program provides funding for hospital uncompensated care. Payments are made through the Medicaid program and the costs are financed with a combination of Federal and State dollars. The amount of money that any State can spend on indigent care through the Medicaid DSH program is limited by the caps imposed by the Federal Government. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act affected hospitals to a far greater degree than was ever anticipated by Congress. Rural hospitals have been hardest hit and are struggling to remain financially solvent. In the closing days of the 106th Congress, we passed the Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act which stopped further reductions in Medicaid DSH spending in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. Even though we froze further cuts in those years, the law reinstates the full Balanced Budget Act reduction for most States in fiscal year 2003. Last year's legislation secured only a temporary reprieve. Therefore, the act that we have introduced will eliminate any further reductions in the program for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are having this discussion tonight about this important issue and, of course, as we move closer to an election it is politically wise, I believe, to attack HMOs. And we recognize that all HMOs, there are some deficiencies there but also I think we must recognize that HMOs play a valuable part of providing health care to people throughout America. As a matter of fact, HMOs for our senior citizens are the only entities offering prescription drugs today, offering eye glasses today and so there are many benefits from HMOs that seniors receive. There has been some discussion this evening about placing mandates on HMOs, and obviously we do need some mandates, but excessive mandates are not the answer. We have learned that lesson all too well in the State of Kentucky. Our Governor, about 6 years ago, placed such heavy mandates on the insurance companies offering health insurance in Kentucky that every one of them left, with the exception of one, and the insurance premiums in Kentucky skyrocketed and the number of uninsured in Kentucky skyrocketed because of mandates. Now we can solve the health care problems in America today, but we cannot blame it all on the HMOs. We cannot blame it all on HCFA. But we have to work together. It is a complex issue, and I think that we can solve it. I am particularly disappointed, however, that so many on the other side of the aisle and the President is now threatening to veto this bill that provides additional money for Medicare, about $31 billion, $6.5 billion to strengthen the Medicare+Choice program; more than $500 million in increased funding for diabetes treatment, nearly $500 million to the Ricky Ray Fund to compensate hemophiliacs, more than $12 billion to strengthen hospitals, particularly rural hospitals. So I would urge the defeat of this motion to instruct.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I, like others, rise in strong support of this Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense conference report. I support this bill because we must reverse the downward spiral in defense spending that we have seen for more than a decade. That spiral has seriously undermined our readiness, modernization, recruitment, and retention efforts. It has been my honor to represent the men and women serving in the military at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. This legislation is important to them because it provides those soldiers a 3.7 percent pay raise and provides up to $500 a month to assist soldiers and families who are forced to live on food stamps. For our military retirees, this bill finally fulfills the promise made when they joined the service years ago. It guarantees a lifetime health care benefit for all retirees and their eligible family members. For Department of Energy contract and vendor employees, this bill establishes the first Federal program to compensate workers who have or will contract beryllium disease or certain cancers resulting from radiation exposure. At a minimum, workers will be entitled to a $150,000 lump sum payment plus medical expenses. For the employees that I represent at that Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant who have been unknowingly exposed to contaminated uranium, plutonium, neptunium, and other hazardous substances while producing the materials needed to sustain our nuclear weapons arsenal throughout the Cold War, approval of this compensation package was a hard-fought and long-overdue victory. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and all of those on both sides of the aisle who worked on this important compensation package, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) on our side, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and others. This is an important piece of legislation. It corrects some long overdue inequities. I urge all of my colleagues to support this Department of Defense conference report.