Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic this evening that some of our Democratic friends, certainly not all of them but some of them, have expressed such moral outrage at the lack of action in the 105th Congress in bringing meaningful campaign finance legislation to the floor. Prior to 1995, the Democrats controlled the United States Congress for 40 uninterrupted years. I do not recall in the last 10 years the Democrats making much of an effort to bring this type of legislation to the floor. I remember in 1992, when then candidate Bill Clinton listed it as one of his priorities if he were elected president, that he would strive to bring meaningful campaign finance reform to the floor of this House. After he was elected, when the Democrats controlled the Congress in the 103rd Congress in 1994 and 1993, they did not bring meaningful campaign finance reform to this floor. Yet now they express such outrage. President Clinton did not live up to his commitment. The Democratic leadership did not live up to their commitment. But the Republican leadership this evening are bringing four bills to the floor. They made a commitment to do so by the end of March of this year. They are living up to that commitment. Everyone in this House will have the opportunity to vote on four bills. So I think if we just think about this, we will see which party is delivering on its promise.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's party did not control the House for 40 years? They did not control the House for 40 years?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration is launching a major offensive for the adoption of the protocol negotiated at Kyoto regarding global warming. Vice President Gore has been one of the leading advocates of this and has declared there is no longer any significant disagreement in the science community that the greenhouse effect is real. In fact, Vice President Gore has said that 98 percent of the science community would concur that a greenhouse emergency has begun. However, the administration fails to tell the American people that, in 1992, a survey showed that of the two professional groups responsible for climate change in America, that only 17 percent said that warming trends convinced them that an artificial greenhouse was in effect. Vice President Gore frequently refers to the intergovernmental panel on climate change to buttress his argument that we have global warming. However, he fails to say that in that same report there are hundreds of documents that say that there is no global warming taking effect. It is too early for us to adopt the Kyoto Agreement.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was shocked that the gentlewoman from Texas would refer to this rule as being silly. What we are talking about here is ethics in government, really. And if there were a way that we could do more than simply pass a resolution of the sense of the Congress, I think we should do so. We have an obligation and a responsibility to inform the American people about what is taking place in the executive branch of the government, and I would like to take just a few moments to run over a little bit of this. President Clinton created the Task Force on National Health Care Reform on January 25th, 1993, five days after he took office for his first term. The panel conducted its work in secret. The very next month the American Council for Health Care Reform, the National Legal and Policy Center, a foundation that promotes ethics in government, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed suit against First Lady Hillary Clinton, Ira Magaziner and others to gain access to the documents and records of the secret meetings of the President's health care task force. Ira Magaziner went to court and testified in Federal Court, in March, that all members of the task force and its staff working groups were Federal employees and, as a result, they did not have to hold open meetings or divulge their working papers. Then, after an analysis of the evidence by Federal Judge Lamberth, he ruled that the working group formed by the First Lady and Mr. Magaziner violated Federal law and ordered that a penalty of $285,000 be paid to the plaintiffs as reimbursements for legal fees that they used to expose the fact that the White House task force violated Federal law. Throughout the State of the Union address, President Clinton stressed the importance of personal responsibility. We talk to our children all the time about personal responsibility, and we know that personal responsibility is the anchor of a free society. So why should the taxpayers of America pay a $285,000 fine for something for which they were not responsible? Ira Magaziner and the First Lady were responsible for the violation of Federal law. Why do they not pay the fine? They are responsible. Now, I just want to take a few minutes more to talk about what Judge Lamberth has said in his decision and in the newspapers about this issue. He was quoted as saying, ``I am convinced that Ira Magaziner, Clinton's health care adviser, deliberately misled the court with his sworn statement.'' He went on to say that he ``. . . believes Magaziner and the government's lawyers made intentionally misleading statements.'' And then Judge Lamberth went on to say, and he bluntly denounced the White House and the Justice Department for what he called ``. . . dishonest and reprehensible failures to provide accurate information.'' This is another example of a pattern of misconduct by this administration. So why should taxpayers pay a fine that they had nothing to do with? Judge Lamberth said that the White House, the task force, violated the Federal law; that they misled the court; that they would be paying the $285,000 fine that now the taxpayers are going to pay.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, thanks are owed to several Members for their leading role in the development of the food provisions of this bill. Special thanks must be given to Chairman Bliley, ranking minority member Dingell, as well as Messrs. Towns, Hall, Gankse, and of course, the author of the food reform legislation in the last Congress, Mr. Klug. Praise is also due to the exceptional work of committee counsel, Eric Berger, as well as James Derderian and to staff of members of the committee including Tim Taylor of my staff, Brenda Pillors, Grace Warren, and Jon Traub. Special note should be made of the work of Kay Holcombe, who has served the Commerce Committee and Public Health as a whole with extraordinary professionalism of many years. The food provision of the final version of this bill reflects closely the hard work of the House in addressing the need for fine tuning of The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 [NLEA]. Clearly, much more needs to be done before we can assert that our Nation's food law has been reformed. However, this is a responsible down payment of food reform that we may reasonably expect to benefit public health. A compelling problem that is addressed by this legislation is the Food and Drug Administration blocking truthful, nonmisleading information from American consumers. As a matter of public health, this has prevented, either by prohibition or excessive delay, consumers from receiving important information about the nutritional content or health benefits of various foods. This problem also takes the form of an abridgement of the first amendment rights of persons who seek to make truthful, nonmisleading statements about a food. FDA has an absolute duty to act within statutory time frames for action on petitions for claims. The failure to do so would constitute a violation of first amendment rights of petitioners. Particularly given the vulnerability of petitioners to retaliation from the FDA, the courts are urged to be expansive in issues of standing in suits regarding failure by the agency to take timely action. Specifically, the conferees have brought forth a bill that addresses these issues by providing a maximum review time for final action on petitions for claims, including a requirement that the Secretary report on any instances where final action is not taken within the 540 day review period so that the committees of jurisdiction may be promptly informed of a breakdown in the regulatory scheme. Also, special streamlined review mechanisms are provided for health or content claims that are based on the conclusions of authoritative scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences. The Secretary is granted authority to make proposed rules effective immediately as an exceptional tool to assure that the FDA's duty to pre-approve claims can be met without delay that undermines the regulatory scheme or threatens the first amendment right of petitioners. Unnecessary requirements regarding referral statements that accompany certain nutrient content claims have been eliminated under the bill. And, in a matter where both food safety and first amendment rights have been jeopardized by heavy handed regulatory requirements, an important provision of the bill addresses the labeling of foods treated by irradiation. To implement the irradiation amendment, FDA is to expeditiously conduct a rulemaking to revise its current irradiation disclosure requirement. The current requirements of the rule, a ``Treated with Radiation'' or ``Treated by Irradiation'' statement, accompanied by the international radura symbol, make clear that the process has been used. However, it is equally clear that this requirement has had the perverse effect of discouraging many consumers from purchasing food that has been made safer by this process. The conferees are concerned that the current disclosure requirement may be perceived as a warning and that it may raise common but inappropriate anxieties about radiation technologies. FDA should use the new rulemaking to assure that disclosures are only required as necessary to inform consumers of a material fact regarding the food. FDA's 1986 preamble to its final rule regarding irradiation disclosure well explained the general rule regarding disclosure of material facts and how that rule relates to food that has been irradiated: In this case, the standard for misbranding under sections 403(a) and 201(n) of the act is whether the changes brought about by the safe use of irradiation are material facts in light of the representations made, including the failure to reveal material facts, about such foods. Irradiation may not change the food visually so that in the absence of a statement that a food has been irradiated, the implied representation to consumers is that the food has not been processed. The Agency recognizes, however, that the irradiation of one ingredient in a multiple ingredient food is a different situation, because such a food has obviously been processed. Consumers would not expect it to look, smell, or taste the same as fresh or unprocessed food, or have the same holding qualities. Therefore, FDA advises that the retail labeling requirement applies only to food that has been irradiated when that food has been sold as such (first generation food), not to food that contains an irradiated ingredient (second generation food) but that has not itself been irradiated. Thus, FDA determined that disclosure is required to convey to consumers the material fact that the food is not fresh or unprocessed. Given the fresh appearance of food treated by irradiation, FDA determined that the omission of such a disclosure would cause a false or misleading presentation of the food. FDA has authority in this regard only to prevent false or misleading presentation of the food. FDA would exceed its authority if it were to prohibit a truthful, nonmisleading presentation of the food. In any situations where FDA determines that an irradiation disclosure remains necessary, it is obliged to achieve that objective in a minimally burdensome manner. Disclosure statements may only be required where presentation of the food would be false or misleading absent a disclosure statement. Statements different from the current disclosure requirement would suffice if they inform consumers of the material fact that is basis for the disclosure requirement. FDA is obliged to permit disclosure of the material fact through any statements that are not false or misleading. Moreover, the conferees expect FDA to take pains to assure that where disclosure is appropriately required, such required statements not give rise to consumer confusion that could inhibit use of this pathogen reducing technology. It would be unacceptable for FDA to justify a disclosure requirement that may cause consumer confusion with the excuse that the confusion may be corrected by a proper consumer education program. On its face, such an approach creates burdens that inhibit the use of this technology and, as a consequence, food safety. The conferees strongly support the consumer right to know. The act contemplates that right being addressed through a vast array of truthful, nonmisleading voluntary label statements, as well as required disclosure of material facts that are not obvious in the presentation of a food. With respect to food that has been irradiated, this legislation does not limit FDA's existing authority to require disclosure nor does it forbid use of the international radura symbol as one of the means of making such a disclosure. The conferees expect FDA to continue to require necessary disclosures to prevent consumers from being misled about any material fact about a food. Also in the area of labeling, I am disappointed to note that the Senate conferees would not accept the elimination of antiquated and bizarre provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that apply only to margarine. It is a sad measure of our food regulatory system when industries seek competitive advantage over one another through the imposition and maintenance of absurdly burdensome requirements such as these. I am pleased to report that the conferees have agreed to direction for FDA to take final action within 60 days on the petition to permit the irradiation of beef. This petition has been pending in FDA for over 3 years, despite the requirement that FDA act on such petitions within 6 months. Also, the bill includes reforms in the review of food labeling packaging materials that should assist FDA in expediting appropriate approval of both these materials and, through greater efficiency of operation, all food additive petitions. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report so that we may make this down payment on food law reform.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to give special thanks to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for the leadership they have provided. I rise in strong support of this conference report of FDA reform legislation as it relates to medical devices, prescription drugs, and food. The food provisions of the final version of this bill reflect closely the hard work of the House in addressing the need for fine-tuning the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Clearly, much more needs to be done before we can assert that our Nation's food laws have been completely reformed. However, this is a responsible down payment of food reform that we can expect to benefit public health. I want to commend those Members and staff on both sides of the aisle who worked so diligently as we were successful in passing this legislation overwhelmingly. I would urge all Members of the House to support this conference report.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to commend the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], and all the others who have worked on this effort. Mr. Speaker, I simply say that I rise in strong support of this resolution to disapprove the President's line-item veto of the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. I rise in strong support of the resolution to disapprove the President's line-item veto of the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. Congressman Skeen and I introduced resolutions disapproving the line- item veto of these 38 military construction projects. One of those projects--the construction of two vehicle maintenance shops totaling $9.9 million--was to be built at Fort Campbell, KY, located in my congressional district. But whether or not you have a project eliminated by this veto should not be your only concern. What should concern you is the process. Under the provisions of the Line Item Veto Act, the disapproval resolution is the only means we have to register our objection or dissatisfaction with the programs or projects targeted for elimination or the manner in which they were selected. I am very pleased that Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Hefner support us in this effort. Depending on which report you read, as many as 18 projects proposed for elimination in this line-item veto proposal should never have been included on the list, including the vehicle maintenance shops at Fort Campbell. As a matter of fact, in testimony before the House National Security Committee on October 22, 1997, Maj. Gen. Clair F. Gill, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget, testified that the Fort Campbell project is 90-percent design complete, not zero percent as had been reported to the President. Since the President used the design status to determine which projects should be eliminated, he acted based on erroneous information. The bottom line is a mistake was made, and the vehicle maintenance shops at Fort Campbell should not have been included in the list of vetoed projects. I voted to give the President line-item veto authority, and I still believe it is an appropriate means to further reduce unnecessary spending. But the decisions on which projects or programs should be eliminated should be based on the criteria defined in the line-veto message. That did not happen in this case. Two units at Fort Campbell are scheduled to receive the new vehicle maintenance shops. The 235 soldiers assigned to those units currently work in facilities constructed over 50 years ago that were built to last for only five years. They are too small and improperly designed for efficient and safe maintenance activities. They have old and faulty electrical wiring which caused a fire in October 1991, destroying one building; they have inoperable and unserviceable vehicle exhaust systems; and they have inadequate lighting and are combustible. The current buildings contain asbestos and lead-based paint and they have no oil/water separators. Any way you look at it, the current maintenance facilities are deficient from an environmental, safety, and operational standpoint. The soldiers who work in these buildings are responsible for repairing and maintaining 400 pieces of equipment each month. The work they perform is critical in terms of maintaining a premier fighting force like the 101st Airborne Division which is expected to fully deploy to any location throughout the world in only 76 hours. Please join Congressman Skeen and me in support of the disapproval resolution. The Senate has already voted 69 to 30 to reject this veto, and the House must take similar action. We need to protect the line- item veto process, and we need to restore funds to projects which met the President's criteria and did not belong on any veto list.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I announce the christening of my granddaughter, Madison Whitfield Wilson, on Sunday, October 12 at Lakewood Presbyterian Church in Jacksonville, FL Madison is the first child of my daughter Katie and her husband George. She was born at 5:15 p.m., Thursday, July 31, 1997, at Jacksonville Memorial Medical Center and weighed 8 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. This wondrous event is a poignant reminder that the primary purpose of our service here as Members of the U.S. Congress is to build a better future for America, for our children, and their children. In that spirit, I share the joy of Madison Whitfield Wilson's arrival with my colleagues and urge our renewed dedication to ensuring that America's tomorrows will be even better than her yesterdays.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Would the gentleman from Texas enter into a dialog for a moment? What I would like to ask the gentleman is: Let us say we adopted the amendment without anything else; is there a mechanism, would veterans be able to get to this money?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we limit debate on this issue to 15 minutes per side.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that today we have the opportunity to talk about very serious issues facing the American veterans. All of us obviously support the American veterans. There is no question about that. In this House on July 16, we passed an appropriation bill, $90.7 billion for the VA, and that was more than the Clinton administration had asked for. Of course, we want to do more than that, and there are bills pending in the House right now that would give veterans and retirees the opportunity to go to military bases, be treated, and have Medicare reimburse them both at the VA and also at the military bases. In addition to that, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs favorably considered H.R. 2206, the Veterans Health Program Improvement Act of 1997, and it was reported out favorably. It would improve the VA's ability to provide health care to Persian Gulf veterans by authorizing as many as 10 VA facilities to establish demonstration projects aimed at improving care to Gulf veterans with undiagnosed illnesses. In addition, and this is particularly important, this bill would also specify that Persian Gulf veterans are eligible for VA health care for any problem related to service in the Gulf, not just those problems that may be linked to exposure to toxic substances or environmental hazards. One of the great histories of our country is that we have been always supportive of our veterans. I also represent a district that has over 30,000 veterans, and Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne, is in my district. But I rise today in opposition to this amendment for many reasons. First of all, even if the amendment is adopted, it is not going to mean one thing for the American veteran. They will not receive one benefit, even if the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is adopted. So let us look at the facts of this case, and of course we all want to be emotional about veterans' issues, because they have dedicated their lives, and they have sacrificed for this country. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts here. We are talking about establishing a mechanism so that money frozen in Iraqi assets after the Persian Gulf War or at the start of it, $1.2 billion, which has been sitting in a fund, untouched by anyone, since 1990, would be given back to individuals and companies who provided commerce to Iraq. Many of these were small businesses. Many of them have gone bankrupt, and there are over 813 individuals who also are asking to be reimbursed for their expenditures and their losses. Now, if we do not adopt section 1601 as a part of this legislation, if the conferees kick it out, then in essence what is going to happen is nothing. The money is still going to be there, the veterans still are not going to be able to get to it, and let me also say this: The argument has been made that if we do not allow private claims to go over the Government claims, then the veterans somehow are going to get all of this money. But if we look at the Treasury Department's statement on this and the document that they provided, all of the claims, there is only $1.2 billion, and the priority for reimbursement by this administration is not the veteran, but it is the Commodity Credit Corporation of America. It is OPEC, it is the Export-Import Bank. So this is not about veterans, this is not about tobacco companies, but I would commend the gentleman for his ability to cloud the issue. We do not want to mislead the veterans and make them think that they are going to get something that they are not going to get, because even if his motion is adopted, even if the conferees agree to it, it does not change anything about the veterans' ability to get any of this money that belongs to small businesses, large businesses, and individuals who did business.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, $90.7 billion.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right, for 1998.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I think this debate has been quite helpful today because it has truly focused the issue of the importance of veterans to the American people and to the sacrifices that they have made. My purpose in having this debate today was to bring attention to this whole process of how, as is usual in wars, they always set up these commissions to distribute money owed to people who provided services, and they allow governments to come in and make claims against them. This administration and this Congress, they have not done anything in a positive way to make sure that veterans are compensated and, as I said before, if the Doggett amendment is adopted, it still does nothing. So I would urge the committee and the House to work diligently on Medicare subvention so that retirees can go to military bases and have Medicare reimburse them, because they can provide the services more economically. I would urge this House to allow veterans to go to VA hospitals, as they do, and when they are reimbursed through CHAMPUS or by private insurance, allow VA hospitals to keep that money instead of sending it back to the general fund. I would also urge this House to move H.R. 2206, that would improve the VA's ability to provide health care to Persian Gulf veterans; and, more importantly, would specify that Persian Gulf veterans are eligible for VA health care for any problem related to service in the gulf, not just to those problems that may be linked to exposure to toxic substances or environmental hazards. It is obvious to me that we all want the same thing, and I am delighted that the gentleman from Texas raised the issue, and I would like to say I hope that we will adopt it by unanimous consent. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this. I looked at the Congressional Quarterly this morning, and the figure that I saw set out in there was $90.7 billion for the VA. If the gentleman is saying that I am wrong, and I am wrong, then I would apologize about that.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I would just say this to the gentleman. I would be happy to look this up and I will get back to the gentleman on it, because I do not want to mislead anybody on the amount of money available, and of course whatever is available is really not enough for veterans, but in trying to balance all of the demands on the taxpayer dollars, we have a great difficulty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that there are over 400 companies that have claims against these funds that the Iraqi Government owed money to. There are over 832 individuals. In addition to that, there were many Government agencies. This is not a debate about tobacco. Now, I know that in this Congress tobacco is not in favor, and I respect that. But this is not about tobacco. This is about a process to free up Iraqi funds to small businesses, large businesses, and individuals who are owed the money for services provided. Many of them have gone bankrupt. The largest claimant is the Commodity Credit Corporation for $900 million. Now, if we paid the Commodity Credit Corporation $900 million, there is only $1.2 billion in the fund and no one else would even be considered. Now, I would also like to point out, not that I am here to defend anyone in the Senate, but I do respect the body, and I respect the Members. They were all elected like we are. But there has been the impression left today that this was some sinister move by the senior citizen, or the senior Senator and citizen from North Carolina. I would like to point out to the body that this legislation was first proposed in 1993, and some of the cosponsors were Senator Robb, a Democrat from Virginia, Senator Patty Murray from Washington State, and others. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here dated September 29, 1997, from Chuck Robb and Chuck Hagel, both in the U.S. Senate, saying that they support this section 1601. Mr. Speaker, if this were really an issue about veterans, of course we all would be there, we would want to help veterans. But the bottom line is there is not any way they are going to get any of this money, unless this body takes up the measure again and tries to go forward with it, and there has been no effort to do that by anyone. But simply adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Texas does not do anything except put us back where we are with Iraqi funds frozen and many small businesses, many individuals, sitting there without being reimbursed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and we know that he has been a defender throughout his career, not only of the active military, but also those retired and veterans everywhere, and I commend the gentleman for that. I would also like to point out, however, that during the consideration of this, the Disabled American Veterans testified relating to this issue, and I would just like to read a statement that they made. In fact, the statement was made by Mr. Violante, who was representing the Disabled American Veterans. ``While the DAV is certainly supportive of the principle of ensuring that there is just compensation for any damages or injuries received by a veteran or his or her family as a result of the war in the Persian Gulf, we are very concerned about the precedent established here. In recent history, veterans have always been cared for by the VA (previously Veterans' Administration, currently the Department of Veterans Affairs) with respect to the injuries received in services to their country.'' And that is true. That is the obligation of VA. That is the obligation of this Congress to provide adequate funding to take care of them. And then he goes on to say, ``However, the Iraqi claims legislation establishes a procedure whereby veterans could be compensated directly from the assets of the `foreign enemy' government. This precedent could have far-reaching ramifications which could adversely impact upon the current VA system.'' Mr. Speaker, it would be a first time that we have reacted in this type of way. We know that the U.S.S. Stark, which there were injuries and death on the U.S.S. Stark before the start of the Persian gulf war, the Iraqi Government agreed to compensate in that incidence and those people were compensated. Their families were compensated. But I would simply point out that there are veterans and members of veterans groups who are very concerned about the new direction that we are moving off here, diverting responsibility away from this government into the hands of some foreign power that we have defeated in a military endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would just simply say that adopting this motion, as I said, does nothing. If we go through this process, the Government continues, this administration continues, to go by the priority that it has established: The veterans are not going to get anything. So the administration would have to change its position on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out that under existing law that is there today, veterans are precluded from pursuing any of this. As you know, there is a United Nations Commission with funds available and the U.S. Government has made claims against it but has never made any claims on behalf of veterans. As I said earlier, even if we adopt the gentleman's amendment from Texas, it is not going to make any difference. My whole point is, of course, we all support veterans. But this amendment does nothing. If it eliminates it, all we are is where we began; that is, the money is still frozen. It is not going to be distributed to anyone. What about the fact of this? In America, America was built on the free enterprise system where people went out and earned money and they worked hard and they were either successful or they were not successful. But as I said, we have 813 individuals; we have various commercial enterprises who did business; they are owed the money. In many ways, it is their money. They are going to be denied any opportunity of getting it. Under section 601, there is a procedure for private claims with the Commission and then there is a procedure for the Government. As I said earlier, even if the Government makes the claim on behalf of veterans, they have already prioritized it in such a way that the Commodity Credit Corp., OPIC, and Eximbank would get the money first, leaving the veterans without anything. That is why I think we need to do everything we can, as I said earlier, to support these bills reported out by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that would address in a real way some of the problems of Persian Gulf syndrome. These bills provide real relief, not imaginary relief. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say once again that of course we want the veterans to pursue any legal remedy that they have. I know that there is an attorney in Houston by the name of Gary Pitts who is working with a lot of veterans to pursue claims in various ways. But the bottom line, as I have said before, is that the money will not be there. Let us work on real solutions to this problem. Let us get this legislation through that I have referred to. Let us take concrete action that will not raise false hopes for veterans, because we are raising false hopes here. That is my whole point. These men and women have devoted an important part of their life. Their families have suffered. Many of them continue to suffer in the Persian Gulf syndrome. Why should we raise false expectations over this particular issue? We need to be involved with real solutions to this problem. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.