Summary:

All articles in House section

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
(House of Representatives - May 18, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3346-H3397] FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4205. {time} 1322 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 503 had been completed. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except amendments printed in House Report 106-624 and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member. Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Each amendment shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified in the report and except that the chairman and ranking minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. [[Page H3347]] The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sanchez Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Sanchez: At the end of title VII (page 247, after line 9), insert the following new section: SEC. 7____. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES. Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking out ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--''; and (2) by striking out subsection (b). The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each will control 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I join the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to offer this amendment. This amendment repeals a provision of the fiscal year 1996 defense bill which bars women serving overseas in the U.S. military from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and they risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights because of a policy that has no valid military purpose. This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations are often not equipped to handle procedures, and medical standards may be far lower than those in the United States. In other words, we are putting our soldiers at risk. This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment. They only expect the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade at their own expense. My amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortions on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. My amendment reinstates the same policy that we had as a Nation from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 until 1996. This has received bipartisan support from the House and from the House Committee on Armed Services. It also has strong support from the health care community; namely, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And my amendment is supported by the Department of Defense. If the professionals who are responsible for our Nation's armed services support this policy change, then why would Congress not? I urge my fellow colleagues to vote for the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the access to abortion services as may be claimed here on the House floor. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of host nations regarding abortions. Second, the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform such procedures, even though we then enacted a conscience clause. The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. This language was defeated previously. It almost feels as though it is political theater year in and year out as we go through these abortion amendments. I would note that in overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available, the beneficiaries have options of using space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. But if we are going to subject our military facilities by military doctors who have taken a pledge and focus all of their energies toward military medical readiness, which means the saving of life, that is what our military doctors do. Military medical readiness is that they focus the performance of their duties to take care of soldiers who are wounded in accidents and, more particular, in battlefield injuries. Now to say, ``Well, we're going to take that same doctor and, oh, by the way, now we're going to say it's okay to let him perform abortions,'' I think not. The House has been heard on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1330 Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country, and yet these women, for the past 4 years, have been denied the very constitutional rights they fight to protect. Mr. Chairman, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on United States soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, especially as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide, we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions, because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to, because they are protected by a conscience clause. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to privacy and access to safe and legal abortion services. In the past, I have expressed my exhaustion with the anti-choice majority's continued attempts to strip women of their right to choose. Well, yes, I am tired of revisiting these now familiar battles, and so, too, are the American people. Their message is clear: Do not make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Instead, they have asked this body to find ways to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion by encouraging responsibility and making contraception affordable and accessible to all women. That is why in the 105th Congress I worked tirelessly to secure passage of my provision. Mr. Chairman, not one of these restrictions does anything to make abortion less necessary. I urge Members to support the Sanchez amendment and join me in my effort to make abortion less necessary. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman by saying if she is fatigued in these types of battles, then join in the cause of the celebration for life. [[Page H3348]] Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Sanchez amendment is to facilitate the destruction of unborn babies by dismemberment and chemical poisoning. Of course, my friend and colleague from California does not present her case to us in this way, my friend instead sanitizes a terrible reality. The difficult unavoidable consequence of enactment of her amendment is to facilitate the violent death of babies. Mr. Chairman, with each passing day, more Americans in their heart of hearts know that abortion is violence against children. The stark, horrific reality of partial-birth abortion has shattered forever the unsustainable myth that abortion procedures are somehow benign and benevolent acts. The scrutiny that partial-birth abortion has received has helped peel away the layers upon layers of euphemisms, disinformation and lies to show abortion for what it is, child abuse and violence against children. Mr. Chairman, the most commonly procured method of abortion in America today and most likely to be facilitated by this amendment is the dismemberment of babies. The Sanchez amendment will prevent razor blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household vacuum cleaner to be used in military health facilities to pulverize the child's arms, legs, torso and head. The baby who gets killed in the hideous fashion is turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about and a vote in favor of Sanchez will result in more kids being murdered in this way. Abortion methods also include injecting deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions, into the child's amniotic fluid or into the baby. That too would be facilitated by Sanchez. This barbaric type of child abuse usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and anybody who has ever seen a picture of a child killed by a saline abortion quickly takes note of the red/black badly burned skin of the victim child. The whole baby's body is badly burned from the corrosive action of the high dose of salt, but the palms of the child's hands are white, because the baby grips and clenches his or her fist because of the pain. That's not child abuse? That's not violence against children? I strongly urge Members to vote no on the Sanchez amendment. Don't turn our medical facilities overseas into abortion mills. Make them places of healing and nurture. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I am certainly pleased to be a cosponsor of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. Actually, I did not recognize the amendment when I heard my good friend from New Jersey speak about it, because actually what the amendment would do would be to restore a provision, a regulation that had been there earlier, to allow U.S. servicewomen stationed overseas access to the Department of Defense health facilities and allowing them to use their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women serving in the military overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical care. They may be stationed in areas where local health care facilities are inadequate, and this ban that we currently have might cause a woman who needs an abortion to delay the procedure while she looks for a safe provider or may force a woman to seek an illegal unsafe procedure locally. I want to point out that women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many of their freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country, and they should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose. The amendment is about women's health, it is about fairness, and it is also about economic fairness. An officer may be able to fly home or fly one's wife or daughter home to seek abortion services, if necessary, but for an enlisted personnel, the burden of the ban may not be possible to overcome. The amendment does not allow taxpayer funded abortions at military hospitals, I emphasize that, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996. So I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring servicewomen's constitutional rights by supporting the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton with the provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of rape or incest. The provision reversed a Clinton Administration policy that was instituted on January 22, 1993, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. The Sanchez amendment, which would repeal the pro-life provision, reopens this issue and attempts to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. The House rejected this same amendment last year. We rejected it in committee this year. We should reject it again today. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, all military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Sanchez amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, resources would be used to search for, hire and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. Military treatment facilities, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in the womb. I urge Members to maintain current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. This amendment, strongly supported by the Department of Defense, would provide fairness to female service members of the military assigned to duty overseas. Mr. Chairman, the facts of this amendment are simple. First, no Federal funds would be used to perform these service. Individuals who decide to have these procedures would use their own money. Second, health care professionals who object to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so. Finally, the amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the well-respected gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it always is a mystery to me why so many good people, and the advocates of this amendment are as good as they get, can support such a hollow cause as killing an unborn child. That is the what an abortion is. Do you ever hear the saying, get real? Well, they talk about euphemisms, about choice. We are all for choice, but there is only one choice, whether it is in a military hospital or in an abortion clinic; it is a live baby, or a dead baby. That is the choice they are opting for. Mr. Chairman, military facilities are paid for by taxpayers, and they do not want the facilities used to kill unborn children. The phrase ``terminate a pregnancy,'' that is fraudulent. You exterminate a [[Page H3349]] pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months. No, our military is to defend life, not to exterminate defenseless, powerless, unborn life. I know lots of tough situations occur where a pregnancy is terribly awkward. It can even threaten your health. Those are serious and we cannot minimize them. But I will tell you what is serious; taking a little life that has a future and exterminating it for any reason other than to save another life. So if abortion is just another procedure, and getting rid of the child is no big deal because it is really not a member of the human family, it is a thing, it is expendable, then, fine, this is probably a good idea. But if you think human life is something that is special, something that is sacred, if you think that all people are possessed of inalienable rights, the first of which is life, then it would seem to me, do not use taxpayer facilities. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez-Morella- Lowey amendment, and I want to thank them for their leadership. Together they consistently fight for equal treatment for women in the military. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is all about, equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This amendment is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their country abroad the same constitutional protections that women have here at home. In 1995 the Republicans told servicewomen stationed overseas that they could not spend their own money on abortion services in military hospitals. This message is loud and clear to each American servicewoman, that a political agenda here in the House of Representatives is more important than a woman's health and safety. Mr. Chairman, these brave military women serve overseas to safeguard our freedom. They deserve the right to choose how to safeguard their own health. These women stand up for our freedom every day. Let us not take away their freedom. Vote for the Sanchez amendment. {time} 1345 Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the House Committee on Armed Services. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in this debate by the proponents that somehow there is a different standard in the military than there is in the rest of society. I think that is true. I think, in fact, it is a higher standard, and interestingly, when polls are taken among the American people about which institutions they respect the most, the American military is number one, because the American military does have higher standards in a number of areas and this is one of those areas. It is absolutely true, if one listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a former military physician, that military physicians come in with a sense of honor to serve their country, to save lives, and it is an enormous imposition on them to ask them to carry out the social dictates of a few folks who would devalue, in my estimation, devalue human life. So let us keep that high standard, duty, honor, country, for the American military. Let us not drag them down into the abortion mess. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues to think about the double standard that we are imposing on these women. How can we expect women to serve their country if their country strips them of their rights of healthcare. Mr. Chairman, this issue is an issue of fairness. We have more than 100,000 women serving our country overseas and these women are entitled to the same freedom as all other American women. The Department of Defense supports this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me just make one point. I serve on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the same problems that the women in the military are having are the same ones that the veterans' women have. This is why we cannot have comprehensive healthcare because of the same controlling, narrow-minded, one-sided philosophy of we are going to control what happens to women, and the healthcare of women, and the veterans' women, that is the problem that the military women are having and the veteran women are having. Let me say I am hoping that women take control of what happens in this Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair would notify Members that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has one-half minute remaining and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has the right to close. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), do not question our reverence for life, including the lives of women and including the lives of the 100,000 women active service members, spouses and dependents of military personnel who live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their healthcare. The current ban on privately-funded abortions discriminates against these women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally protected right to choose, simply because they are stationed overseas. The bottom line is, prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain services at overseas military services endangers women's health and lives. Vote yes on Sanchez-Morella-Lowey. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, since the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was brought up in the well of the House, I yield 1 minute to him to respond. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), no one attacks anyone's reverence for life. I attack killing unborn children, however, and I will defend them. Secondly, no one is stopping a woman from exercising her constitutional right to have an abortion because of Roe versus Wade. Under the law, women have that right but they do not have the right to have the government pay for any part of it. We have a right of free speech. That does not mean the government has to buy someone a megaphone or a typewriter. People can exercise it. Taxpayers' funds are expended when military facilities are used and there is no constitutional right to that, and so that is the difference. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the words fairness, double standard, discrimination, narrow-minded. I mean, we could go down the list. I suppose to articulate debates one can choose these types of words. One thing that is real that one cannot get away from is the Supreme Court over there permits Congress to set the rules for the military, and we discriminate all the time: How tall one can be; how short; how heavy; how light; one cannot even be color blind. We discriminate all the time, so that argument is rather foolish. Narrow-minded? Guilty. So narrow that the interests for which we seek to protect are twofold. Number one, life. If we in this country cannot be the defenders of life, then what are we as a society? If that is narrow-minded, guilty. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment and thank the gentlewoman for her hard work in support of the women who serve our Nation overseas. This amendment would extend to the more than 100,000 women who live on American military bases abroad the right to make health decisions and access available care as they would be able to do here at home. This amendment would not commit public funds, not one taxpayer dollar, for abortion. It would simply allow [[Page H3350]] servicewomen--or the spouses or dependents of servicemen--to use their own funds to pay for an abortion which would be legal if they were stationed in the United States. We all have our own views on the issue of abortion. But the fact remains that it remains a legal option for American women. Unarguably, women serving in our armed forces are entitled to all the constitutional rights they work each day to defend and protect. To deny them the right to use their own money to obtain health care on their base if it is available is unfair to those committed service women. Many times these women are stationed in hostile nations where they may not know the language and have few or no civil rights. Denying our female soldiers or the wives of make soldiers the safe and quality health care they could have on base could in fact be putting them in danger. This amendment is about preserving the rights of American soldiers and their families serving abroad. It is not about promoting or considering the legality of abortion. A vote for the Sanchez amendment is a vote to support these servicewomen stationed far from home. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, but with deep disappointment that this issue must be subject to debate. Today, we must debate whether or not the women serving this country overseas will fall into the same category as female prisoners as a class of women who cannot exercise the same right as free women in this country to access a safe and legal abortion. This amendment simply restores access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents abroad. We are not even debating funding this medical service with taxpayer dollars, and still this is subject to debate. As much as the other side would like to make this debate about the practice of abortion, this debate is about equal treatment for women who put their lives on the line for this country all across the globe. I support the Sanchez amendment because current law jeopardizes the health of the 100,000 U.S. servicewomen and military dependents who live on military bases overseas. It denies a woman her constitutional right to choose and punishes her for her military service. This amendment ensures that our servicewomen are not forced into dangerous back alley abortions in unsafe, unsanitary, inhospitable locales. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, and it should be legal for an American woman serving her country overseas. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment to the Fiscal 2001 Department of Defense authorization which would restore equal access to health services for servicewomen stationed overseas by reversing the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases. More than 100,000 women--some active service members, some the wives of military personnel--live on American military bases overseas. These brave women risk their lives to protect our freedom, often in lands with laws and customs very different from those we know and cherish in the United States. The availability of abortion services in their host countries varies widely according to many factors--location, individual physician practices, command interpretations and practices, and that nation's rules and laws. Our soldiers and their families deserve equal access to the same spectrum and quality of health care procedures that we enjoy in the United States. Under current law, however, these women are denied this access, effectively putting their lives and health in harm's way. The Sanchez amendment would rectify this grievous inequity by allowing women stationed overseas and their dependents to use their own funds to pay for abortion services at U.S. military bases, thereby providing them with access to constitutionally protected health care. The facts of this amendment are clear--Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to choose, and if abortion is legal for women on the American mainland, it should be legal for women living on American bases abroad. No federal funds would be used, and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle are not required to do so. This is a health issue, and we should be making sure that this procedure is safe, legal and available for our military women and dependents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is the 145th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have documented each of these votes in my choice scorecard, which is available on my website: www.house.gov/maloney. This common-sense amendment offered by Ms. Sanchez, lifts the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. It is bad enough that current law prohibits a woman from using her own funds at all military facilities overseas to get an abortion. But I want to point out although there is an exception when a woman's life is in danger, abortion is not even covered for cases of rape and incest. How can anyone interfere with a woman's right to choose under these extreme circumstances? Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who is raped is not entitled to sue in Federal court for civil damages. Too often in our society, women who are raped are victimized a second time by the judicial system. Failure to pass this amendment doubly victimizes a women who is raped. Why doesn't this Republican majority take rape seriously? I believe that the underlying law is discriminatory. While a woman may serve overseas defending our Constitutional rights, and defending our freedom, this Republican-led Congress is busily working to undermine hers. I cannot think of a men's medical procedure that is not covered. I cannot imagine a situation where a man would be told that a certain medical procedure was prohibited at overseas military hospitals. In fact, when the drug Viagra came on the market, DoD quickly decided to cover it. This amendment is simple. This amendment will not cost the Federal Government one dime. This amendment is about fairness. This amendment simply allows privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. This amendment protects women's rights. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moakley. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Moakley: Strike section 908 (page 285, line 6 through page 289, line 8) and insert the following: SEC. 908. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS. (a) Closure of School of the Americas.--The Secretary of the Army shall close the United States Army School of the Americas. (b) Repeal.--(1) Section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 407 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 4415. (c) Limitation on Establishment of New Education and Training Facility.--No training or education facility may be established in the Department of Defense for Latin American military personnel (as a successor to the United States Army School of the Americas or otherwise) until the end of the ten-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Task Force.--(1) There is established a task force to conduct an assessment of the kind of education and training that is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide to military personnel of Latin American nations. (2) The task force shall be composed of eight Members of Congress, of whom two each shall be designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate. (3) Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to Congress a report on its assessment as specified in paragraph (1). The report shall include-- (A) a critical assessment of courses, curriculum and procedures appropriate for such education and training; and (B) an evaluation of the effect of such education and training on the performance of Latin American military personnel in the areas of human rights and adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. [[Page H3351]] (4) In this subsection, the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner, in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for their tremendous support of this bill last year. Last year, 230 Members of this body joined me in voting against the School of the Americas and today, Mr. Chairman, I am asking them to do the same again. A lot of people are surprised to see a Boston Congressman working to close a school, a military school, in Fort Benning, Georgia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have my reasons. Ten years ago, Speaker Foley asked me to head up a congressional investigation of the Jesuit murders in El Salvador and what I learned during the course of that investigation I will never forget. On November 6, 1989, at the University of Central America in San Salvador, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her 15-year-old daughter were pulled from their beds in the middle of the night, armed only with Bibles and their rosary beads, forced to lie on the ground and they were executed in cold blood by a military cabal. These murders shocked the entire country, the entire world, and at that point the United States Government had sent the Salvador military a total of $6 billion, with a ``B,'' and Congress wanted to get to the bottom of this killing. So my top staffer at the time, who is now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I traveled to El Salvador dozens of times over the next 2 years to get to the bottom of those very, very heinous murders. After these 2 years, we learned an awful lot. We learned that 26 Salvadoran soldiers committed the massacre and 19 of the 26 were graduates of the School of the Americas. Mr. Chairman, up until that point I had never heard of the School of the Americas, but what I learned quickly convinced me that the school had no place as part of the United States Army. The School of the Americas is an Army-run school at Fort Benning, Georgia, that every year trains about 1,000 Latin American soldiers in commando tactics, military intelligence, combat arms, and all this, Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $20 million of the United States taxpayers' dollars. I am not saying that everyone who graduates from the School of the Americas has gone on to murder civilians and I do not want to let anybody in this place believe that for one moment, but, Mr. Chairman, after investigation, many of them have. It is those who bring disgrace to the school. Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega went to the School of the Americas, along with one-third of General Pinochet's officials. The architect of the genocide campaign in Guatemala, General Hector Gramaho, went to the School of the Americas. As so did the murderers of 900 unarmed Salvadorans who were killed in El Mozote and then buried in a big, huge ditch, and also the perpetrators of the chainsaw massacre at El Trujillo. The rapists and murderers of the four American church women killed in El Salvador also went to the School of the Americas. The crimes are not just in the past, Mr. Chairman. As recently as March of 1999, Colombian School of the America graduates Major Rojas and Captain Rodriguez were cited for murdering a peace activist and two others as they tried to deliver ransom money for a kidnapping victim. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas has been associated with some of the most heinous crimes that this hemisphere has ever endured. These crimes are so awful, Mr. Chairman, that approximately 10,000 people every year march on the school in protest. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the United States to remove this blemish on our human rights record. It is time once again, Mr. Chairman, for the House to pass the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell-McGovern amendment. Our amendment will close the School of the Americas as it exists today, and create a Congressional task force to determine what sort of training we should provide to our Latin American neighbors. My colleagues who support the School of the Americas may say that the school got the message last year and made some changes. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those changes do not amount to much more than a new coat of paint. It will still be at Fort Benning, Georgia. It will still inadequately screen soldiers who attend. It will still not monitor graduates for human rights abuses and it will still train Latin American soldiers in commando tactics and combat arms. These changes that they made, Mr. Chairman, are like putting a perfume factory on top of a toxic waste dump. We believe that any school with such an infamous list of graduates needs more than a few cosmetic changes. Mr. Chairman, Latin America needs us. They need us to help shore up their judicial systems. They need us to strengthen their electoral system. They need us to work with their police. They do not need the School of the Americas teaching their militaries how to wage war more effectively, especially when the vast majority of Latin America wars are conflicts with their own peoples. It is time to move in a new direction. It is time to close the School of the Americas and start over. So I urge my colleagues to continue what we began last year and support the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell- McGovern amendment to close the School of the Americas and create a Congressional task force to determine what should take its place. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized for 20 minutes in opposition. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, times have not changed in so much of this debate. Our Nation cannot walk away from its obligation to lead our hemisphere in preserving regional stability, conducting counternarcotics operations, providing disaster relief and promoting democratic values and respect for human rights. Our military and the School of the Americas, in particular, have been a forefront of these efforts. {time} 1400 Ironically, the amendment before us would actually strike a provision of H.R. 4205 that would reform the School of the Americas and address key concerns that have been raised over the years by the school's critics. Specifically, transitioning the school into the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, it requires a minimum of 8 hours of instruction per student in human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society, and creating a board of visitors with a broad mandate to oversee the activities and curriculum of the Institute, and requires the board to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress. These are fundamental changes to the program that are intended to ensure continued education and training of the military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel from Latin America while enhancing transparency. Passage of this amendment would undo the important reforms contained in this bill, and would eliminate the School of the Americas altogether. This would be a regrettable step backwards and would disregard the significant contributions of our military in fostering democracy throughout America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [[Page H3352]] Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley amendment. Today, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is in focus. History teaches us that graduates from the School of the Americas have returned to their home countries and committed some of the worst atrocities this hemisphere has ever seen. Finally Congress responded accordingly and reasonably in cutting funds for the School of the Americas during the debate of the defense authorization bill last summer. Unfortunately, the will of the House was disregarded in conference. No doubt the U.S. military has good intentions and regrets the behavior of those trained at the School of the Americas. But we have many higher education institutions that do not have such a bad track record. Let us utilize them, and let us eliminate the School of the Americas. Now, in the face of pressure, of course, the Army has attempted to add new language that would simply rename the School of the Americas the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. It has a nice ring to it. That idea provides no substantive reform or constructive policy path that would address the real problems of this institution's troubled history. This would be really a victory of symbolism over substance. Last year when they talked about course work, they offered all these courses, but unfortunately, nobody was taking them, the human rights courses specifically. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this would be a victory of symbolism over substance. The reality is that the day after the name is changed, the school would continue to operate and it would be business as usual. Most would agree we need to engage in a comprehensive approach to military training and aid for Latin America, but the U.S. military training for Latin America must go far beyond the School of the Americas, and certainly in a different direction. It is time that we fully reassess our military engagement policies and take a closer look at results. The Moakley amendment would address the question, first, of closing the School of the Americas and placing any new training institute on hold until a bipartisan task force reviews and make recommendations for U.S. military training and relations in Latin America. This is a reasonable approach, a policy path that our constituents could understand and support. The Army's attempts at reform are too little, too late. This existing initiative in the bill at best reflects cosmetic changes. Real reform in my judgment would encompass alternatives to military aid, such as economic assistance, microcredit loans, and the other alternatives that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, outlined. I would urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and implement this new approach, real reform. Let us not let the Army buy off on an unworkable, easy route. Vote for the Moakley amendment. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes an important bipartisan proposal that squarely addresses the concerns of critics of the United States Army School of the Americas. This bill will create the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation to replace the United States Army School of the Americas. This modern institution will have a new charter and a mission that is fully consistent with the U.S. military training efforts worldwide. Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned by a number of the allegations that were leveled at the School of the Americas. I believe, however, based on repeated staff visits to Fort Benning, that the school now has bent over backwards to resolve those issues. I cannot support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my good friend. However, we should note that the language in the bill before the House today addresses a major concern behind the Moakley amendment. A new board of visitors, including Members of Congress, will be established to conduct the oversight and pragmatic review that the gentleman from Massachusetts has advocated in his amendment. H.R. 4205 differs, however, in one fundamental respect, from the Moakley amendment. It reaffirms that the U.S. Army is a force for good in the world, and it recognizes that our men and women in uniform can make a difference by helping other militaries undertake an important professional reform. The Moakley amendment would force an unwelcome hiatus in our U.S. Army's efforts to help Latin American armies become more professional and to respect human rights and civilian control of the military. The creation of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation addresses the criticisms leveled at the School of the Americas. The Moakley amendment would unnecessarily be disruptive of our Armed Forces training programs. I have met with a number of good people from my own congressional district who have urged that the School of the Americas should be closed. As I understood their views, they believe that Latin American countries do not need and should not have armies. For better or worse, most Latin American countries do have armies, and we are not in a position to dictate that they should abolish those institutions. As long as those nations choose to keep their military, their people and our Nation will be far better served if our decent, honorable soldiers are able to exercise a positive influence on their soldiers. It is abundantly clear that there are nefarious forces, including narcotics trafficking syndicates, that are waiting in the wings to fill the void if we decide here today to end our efforts to influence these armies for the good. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who have loyally served our Nation with honor and distinction in the U.S. Army School of the Americas. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4205 and to oppose the Moakley amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If the School of the Americas closed tomorrow, there would still be 9,000 Latin American soldiers getting some kind of training in this country from the U.S. Army, so it is not the only school. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who was my chief investigator into the killings in El Salvador. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley amendment to close the School of the Americas and initiate a bipartisan review of U.S. military education and training for our Latin American partners. This amendment is a reasonable solution to the longstanding questions regarding the School of the Americas. This is a sensible solution to identifying our priorities in education and training and determining how best we can achieve these goals, and whether that requires a school or an institute. I am sure that my colleagues are aware that the School of the Americas has provided less than 10 percent of the education and training the U.S. provides Latin American military personnel; let me repeat that, less than 10 percent. But the school has certainly provided most of the scandal, most of the debate, most of the horror stories, most of the controversy. That history will not go away by hanging a sign with a new name over the same entry gate to the School of the Americas. The stains of blood will not fade away when we train Latin American military officers on the very same ground where we trained the people who murdered Archbishop Romero, Bishop Gerardi, the six Jesuit priests [[Page H3353]] of El Salvador, and massacred literally thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Colombians, and other Latin Americans. Those scandals will not disappear with a few minor changes in the curriculum. The controversy will continue. There has to be a clean break with the past, not cosmetic changes, although some of the changes are interesting in what they reveal. The U.S. Army has now finally and openly admitted that human rights, rule of law, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military were not part of the school's curriculum. But do we need a newly-named school, the so-called Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, to teach those courses? I do not think so. That training is covered under our extended IMET program. We do not need to subsidize junkets to Georgia for this training. Well- established, well-funded programs at scores of U.S. institutions are already available to our Latin American partners on these subjects. We do not need to send them to a scandal-ridden school with no history or expertise in teaching these courses. The new School of the Americas will continue to emphasize counterdrug operations, military education, and leadership development, all areas of the curriculum that helped develop some of the worst human rights violators of the hemisphere in the past. Why should we believe it will be any different now? Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon already has a huge budget for training Latin American military in counterdrug operations. I was looking at a list of over 100 counterdrug programs we did last year for 1,200 Mexican military personnel. We do not need redundant counterdrug programs at the old or new School of the Americas. Not even the Pentagon knows fully what military education and training programs it is engaged in. What information the Pentagon does have comes from policy groups that took the time to go through the programs and add up the numbers. What information the Pentagon does have also comes from a congressionally mandated report on foreign military training. Support the Moakley amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Moakley amendment. I have visited El Salvador 40 or 50 times. The School of the Americas is something we need. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moakley amendment. As you should know, the School of the Americas has trained over 54,000 graduates, including ten presidents, 38 ministers of defense and state, 71 commanders of armed forces, and 25 service chiefs of staff in Latin America. Since the school began training national leaders of South and Central American countries, military or totalitarian regimes in that region have declined and have been replaced with democracies. Right now, Cuba remains as the sole dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Not so ironically, Cuba does not participate in the School of the Americas program. This amendment attempts to close the school based on 10-20-year-old assumptions about the school. Although there may have been questionable practices taught at the school in the past, these have all been corrected years ago. Without the training from the School of the Americas, there never would have been peace in El Salvador. The FMLN rebels demanded that the military leadership resign before they would negotiate for a peace settlement. Armed with the lessons taught at the school, these leaders decided to resign. This was not because they were losing, but because President Christiani had urged them to do it. And with that resignation, the peace process began. You see, yielding to civilian leadership is a principle taught at the School of the Americas, as has occurred just lately in the county of Columbia. Students from our southern neighbors are learning about democracy and becoming our friends of the future. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic education of these officers provided by the school by defeating this amendment. By the way, the former commanding general of the Salvadoran Army is now running a filling station in San Salvador. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), whose district includes the School of the Americas. (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, for many years we have been engaged in a debate over whether or not the School of the Americas has faithfully carried out its mission of teaching human rights and principles of democracy to visiting students from Latin America in addition to their military training. Opponents have accused the school of all kinds of misdeeds, and those of us supporting the school and its mission have presented documented evidence which we believe thoroughly refutes these allegations. Nevertheless, the same old charges and countercharges are revived year after year, time and again. I am not interested in rehashing the same old debate. What I am interested in is focusing on the substantive changes that are proposed today, changes that opponents have called for and which the supporters of the school also believe can be helpful. Opponents wanted to change the name, claiming the existing one has been tainted. The plan before us would do that. Opponents want stronger oversight, and the plan proposed shifts the oversight responsibility to the Cabinet level by placing it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretary of the Army, and by establishing the Independent Board of Visitors, which includes prominent human rights activists as part of this law. Opponents wanted more emphasis on human rights, and the plan makes instruction in human rights and democratic principles mandatory by law for every student. Anyone who supports the long-standing U.S. policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations, the policy of helping Latin American democracies develop professional military forces that are committed to serving under civilian authority, should be for these changes. The leaders of the School of the Americas Watch oppose this policy, so it is not surprising that this movement does not support the proposed reorganization of the school. The opponents of the School of the Americas have publicly stated that they want weak military forces in Latin America, even for democracies. The real issue we are debating today is whether the U.S. should promote weaker military forces for emerging democracies which the Moakley Amendment does, or whether we should help these democracies become more secure--and whether we should sustain an instrument like the school at Fort Benning to actively carry out this policy. A vote for this program is a vote for sound policy--and a vote for truth. {time} 1415 Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year, the House voted overwhelmingly 230 to 197 to stop funding the Army School of the Americas. We voted that way because this House finally decided that the record of atrocities of murders and mayhem committed by graduates of that school can no longer be ignored or condoned. Does the Pentagon believe that renaming the school will fool those of us who voted against funding it last year? Mr. Chairman, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This new school proposed by the Pentagon would have the same mission, the same grounds, the same commanders, the same purpose but a different name. The Army claims it would teach human rights, but there is no credibility to that school teaching human rights. If the Army thinks that the Latin American officers being trained by the United States should be trained in human rights, they should require all students to take courses sponsored by nongovernmental organizations that are qualified to do that. The gross violations of human rights and the murders perpetrated by graduates of this school argue convincingly that we must not be fooled, we should again vote to remove funds for this school from the budget, to close it down once and for all, so that the [[Page H3354]] American role of Latin America can once again be an honorable role and the shameful record of some of the graduates of this school can no longer besmirch the honor of the United States. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because I think we need to refute some of the slander that is being perpetuated by some of the opponents of the School of the Americas, and that is that the United States Army systematically teaches its foreign students how to violate human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Army and this school has never taught torture techniques. Yes, some graduates of the School of America have subsequently been guilty of human rights abuses. So have some graduates from schools like Harvard. In those cases, the training did not take. But only 100 or 200 out of 58,000 graduates have documented human rights abuses. Let us not forget the other 57,800 plus graduates. Over 100 School of Americas graduates serve or served their Nation and its people from the highest levels of civilian and military office, from chief executive to commander of major military units. Furt

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
(House of Representatives - May 18, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3346-H3397] FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4205. {time} 1322 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 503 had been completed. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except amendments printed in House Report 106-624 and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member. Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Each amendment shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified in the report and except that the chairman and ranking minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. [[Page H3347]] The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sanchez Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Sanchez: At the end of title VII (page 247, after line 9), insert the following new section: SEC. 7____. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES. Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking out ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--''; and (2) by striking out subsection (b). The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each will control 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I join the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to offer this amendment. This amendment repeals a provision of the fiscal year 1996 defense bill which bars women serving overseas in the U.S. military from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and they risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights because of a policy that has no valid military purpose. This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations are often not equipped to handle procedures, and medical standards may be far lower than those in the United States. In other words, we are putting our soldiers at risk. This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment. They only expect the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade at their own expense. My amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortions on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. My amendment reinstates the same policy that we had as a Nation from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 until 1996. This has received bipartisan support from the House and from the House Committee on Armed Services. It also has strong support from the health care community; namely, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And my amendment is supported by the Department of Defense. If the professionals who are responsible for our Nation's armed services support this policy change, then why would Congress not? I urge my fellow colleagues to vote for the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the access to abortion services as may be claimed here on the House floor. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of host nations regarding abortions. Second, the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform such procedures, even though we then enacted a conscience clause. The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. This language was defeated previously. It almost feels as though it is political theater year in and year out as we go through these abortion amendments. I would note that in overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available, the beneficiaries have options of using space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. But if we are going to subject our military facilities by military doctors who have taken a pledge and focus all of their energies toward military medical readiness, which means the saving of life, that is what our military doctors do. Military medical readiness is that they focus the performance of their duties to take care of soldiers who are wounded in accidents and, more particular, in battlefield injuries. Now to say, ``Well, we're going to take that same doctor and, oh, by the way, now we're going to say it's okay to let him perform abortions,'' I think not. The House has been heard on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1330 Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country, and yet these women, for the past 4 years, have been denied the very constitutional rights they fight to protect. Mr. Chairman, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on United States soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, especially as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide, we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions, because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to, because they are protected by a conscience clause. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to privacy and access to safe and legal abortion services. In the past, I have expressed my exhaustion with the anti-choice majority's continued attempts to strip women of their right to choose. Well, yes, I am tired of revisiting these now familiar battles, and so, too, are the American people. Their message is clear: Do not make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Instead, they have asked this body to find ways to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion by encouraging responsibility and making contraception affordable and accessible to all women. That is why in the 105th Congress I worked tirelessly to secure passage of my provision. Mr. Chairman, not one of these restrictions does anything to make abortion less necessary. I urge Members to support the Sanchez amendment and join me in my effort to make abortion less necessary. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman by saying if she is fatigued in these types of battles, then join in the cause of the celebration for life. [[Page H3348]] Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Sanchez amendment is to facilitate the destruction of unborn babies by dismemberment and chemical poisoning. Of course, my friend and colleague from California does not present her case to us in this way, my friend instead sanitizes a terrible reality. The difficult unavoidable consequence of enactment of her amendment is to facilitate the violent death of babies. Mr. Chairman, with each passing day, more Americans in their heart of hearts know that abortion is violence against children. The stark, horrific reality of partial-birth abortion has shattered forever the unsustainable myth that abortion procedures are somehow benign and benevolent acts. The scrutiny that partial-birth abortion has received has helped peel away the layers upon layers of euphemisms, disinformation and lies to show abortion for what it is, child abuse and violence against children. Mr. Chairman, the most commonly procured method of abortion in America today and most likely to be facilitated by this amendment is the dismemberment of babies. The Sanchez amendment will prevent razor blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household vacuum cleaner to be used in military health facilities to pulverize the child's arms, legs, torso and head. The baby who gets killed in the hideous fashion is turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about and a vote in favor of Sanchez will result in more kids being murdered in this way. Abortion methods also include injecting deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions, into the child's amniotic fluid or into the baby. That too would be facilitated by Sanchez. This barbaric type of child abuse usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and anybody who has ever seen a picture of a child killed by a saline abortion quickly takes note of the red/black badly burned skin of the victim child. The whole baby's body is badly burned from the corrosive action of the high dose of salt, but the palms of the child's hands are white, because the baby grips and clenches his or her fist because of the pain. That's not child abuse? That's not violence against children? I strongly urge Members to vote no on the Sanchez amendment. Don't turn our medical facilities overseas into abortion mills. Make them places of healing and nurture. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I am certainly pleased to be a cosponsor of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. Actually, I did not recognize the amendment when I heard my good friend from New Jersey speak about it, because actually what the amendment would do would be to restore a provision, a regulation that had been there earlier, to allow U.S. servicewomen stationed overseas access to the Department of Defense health facilities and allowing them to use their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women serving in the military overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical care. They may be stationed in areas where local health care facilities are inadequate, and this ban that we currently have might cause a woman who needs an abortion to delay the procedure while she looks for a safe provider or may force a woman to seek an illegal unsafe procedure locally. I want to point out that women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many of their freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country, and they should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose. The amendment is about women's health, it is about fairness, and it is also about economic fairness. An officer may be able to fly home or fly one's wife or daughter home to seek abortion services, if necessary, but for an enlisted personnel, the burden of the ban may not be possible to overcome. The amendment does not allow taxpayer funded abortions at military hospitals, I emphasize that, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996. So I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring servicewomen's constitutional rights by supporting the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton with the provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of rape or incest. The provision reversed a Clinton Administration policy that was instituted on January 22, 1993, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. The Sanchez amendment, which would repeal the pro-life provision, reopens this issue and attempts to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. The House rejected this same amendment last year. We rejected it in committee this year. We should reject it again today. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, all military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Sanchez amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, resources would be used to search for, hire and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. Military treatment facilities, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in the womb. I urge Members to maintain current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. This amendment, strongly supported by the Department of Defense, would provide fairness to female service members of the military assigned to duty overseas. Mr. Chairman, the facts of this amendment are simple. First, no Federal funds would be used to perform these service. Individuals who decide to have these procedures would use their own money. Second, health care professionals who object to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so. Finally, the amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the well-respected gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it always is a mystery to me why so many good people, and the advocates of this amendment are as good as they get, can support such a hollow cause as killing an unborn child. That is the what an abortion is. Do you ever hear the saying, get real? Well, they talk about euphemisms, about choice. We are all for choice, but there is only one choice, whether it is in a military hospital or in an abortion clinic; it is a live baby, or a dead baby. That is the choice they are opting for. Mr. Chairman, military facilities are paid for by taxpayers, and they do not want the facilities used to kill unborn children. The phrase ``terminate a pregnancy,'' that is fraudulent. You exterminate a [[Page H3349]] pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months. No, our military is to defend life, not to exterminate defenseless, powerless, unborn life. I know lots of tough situations occur where a pregnancy is terribly awkward. It can even threaten your health. Those are serious and we cannot minimize them. But I will tell you what is serious; taking a little life that has a future and exterminating it for any reason other than to save another life. So if abortion is just another procedure, and getting rid of the child is no big deal because it is really not a member of the human family, it is a thing, it is expendable, then, fine, this is probably a good idea. But if you think human life is something that is special, something that is sacred, if you think that all people are possessed of inalienable rights, the first of which is life, then it would seem to me, do not use taxpayer facilities. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez-Morella- Lowey amendment, and I want to thank them for their leadership. Together they consistently fight for equal treatment for women in the military. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is all about, equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This amendment is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their country abroad the same constitutional protections that women have here at home. In 1995 the Republicans told servicewomen stationed overseas that they could not spend their own money on abortion services in military hospitals. This message is loud and clear to each American servicewoman, that a political agenda here in the House of Representatives is more important than a woman's health and safety. Mr. Chairman, these brave military women serve overseas to safeguard our freedom. They deserve the right to choose how to safeguard their own health. These women stand up for our freedom every day. Let us not take away their freedom. Vote for the Sanchez amendment. {time} 1345 Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the House Committee on Armed Services. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in this debate by the proponents that somehow there is a different standard in the military than there is in the rest of society. I think that is true. I think, in fact, it is a higher standard, and interestingly, when polls are taken among the American people about which institutions they respect the most, the American military is number one, because the American military does have higher standards in a number of areas and this is one of those areas. It is absolutely true, if one listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a former military physician, that military physicians come in with a sense of honor to serve their country, to save lives, and it is an enormous imposition on them to ask them to carry out the social dictates of a few folks who would devalue, in my estimation, devalue human life. So let us keep that high standard, duty, honor, country, for the American military. Let us not drag them down into the abortion mess. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues to think about the double standard that we are imposing on these women. How can we expect women to serve their country if their country strips them of their rights of healthcare. Mr. Chairman, this issue is an issue of fairness. We have more than 100,000 women serving our country overseas and these women are entitled to the same freedom as all other American women. The Department of Defense supports this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me just make one point. I serve on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the same problems that the women in the military are having are the same ones that the veterans' women have. This is why we cannot have comprehensive healthcare because of the same controlling, narrow-minded, one-sided philosophy of we are going to control what happens to women, and the healthcare of women, and the veterans' women, that is the problem that the military women are having and the veteran women are having. Let me say I am hoping that women take control of what happens in this Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair would notify Members that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has one-half minute remaining and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has the right to close. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), do not question our reverence for life, including the lives of women and including the lives of the 100,000 women active service members, spouses and dependents of military personnel who live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their healthcare. The current ban on privately-funded abortions discriminates against these women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally protected right to choose, simply because they are stationed overseas. The bottom line is, prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain services at overseas military services endangers women's health and lives. Vote yes on Sanchez-Morella-Lowey. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, since the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was brought up in the well of the House, I yield 1 minute to him to respond. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), no one attacks anyone's reverence for life. I attack killing unborn children, however, and I will defend them. Secondly, no one is stopping a woman from exercising her constitutional right to have an abortion because of Roe versus Wade. Under the law, women have that right but they do not have the right to have the government pay for any part of it. We have a right of free speech. That does not mean the government has to buy someone a megaphone or a typewriter. People can exercise it. Taxpayers' funds are expended when military facilities are used and there is no constitutional right to that, and so that is the difference. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the words fairness, double standard, discrimination, narrow-minded. I mean, we could go down the list. I suppose to articulate debates one can choose these types of words. One thing that is real that one cannot get away from is the Supreme Court over there permits Congress to set the rules for the military, and we discriminate all the time: How tall one can be; how short; how heavy; how light; one cannot even be color blind. We discriminate all the time, so that argument is rather foolish. Narrow-minded? Guilty. So narrow that the interests for which we seek to protect are twofold. Number one, life. If we in this country cannot be the defenders of life, then what are we as a society? If that is narrow-minded, guilty. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment and thank the gentlewoman for her hard work in support of the women who serve our Nation overseas. This amendment would extend to the more than 100,000 women who live on American military bases abroad the right to make health decisions and access available care as they would be able to do here at home. This amendment would not commit public funds, not one taxpayer dollar, for abortion. It would simply allow [[Page H3350]] servicewomen--or the spouses or dependents of servicemen--to use their own funds to pay for an abortion which would be legal if they were stationed in the United States. We all have our own views on the issue of abortion. But the fact remains that it remains a legal option for American women. Unarguably, women serving in our armed forces are entitled to all the constitutional rights they work each day to defend and protect. To deny them the right to use their own money to obtain health care on their base if it is available is unfair to those committed service women. Many times these women are stationed in hostile nations where they may not know the language and have few or no civil rights. Denying our female soldiers or the wives of make soldiers the safe and quality health care they could have on base could in fact be putting them in danger. This amendment is about preserving the rights of American soldiers and their families serving abroad. It is not about promoting or considering the legality of abortion. A vote for the Sanchez amendment is a vote to support these servicewomen stationed far from home. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, but with deep disappointment that this issue must be subject to debate. Today, we must debate whether or not the women serving this country overseas will fall into the same category as female prisoners as a class of women who cannot exercise the same right as free women in this country to access a safe and legal abortion. This amendment simply restores access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents abroad. We are not even debating funding this medical service with taxpayer dollars, and still this is subject to debate. As much as the other side would like to make this debate about the practice of abortion, this debate is about equal treatment for women who put their lives on the line for this country all across the globe. I support the Sanchez amendment because current law jeopardizes the health of the 100,000 U.S. servicewomen and military dependents who live on military bases overseas. It denies a woman her constitutional right to choose and punishes her for her military service. This amendment ensures that our servicewomen are not forced into dangerous back alley abortions in unsafe, unsanitary, inhospitable locales. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, and it should be legal for an American woman serving her country overseas. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment to the Fiscal 2001 Department of Defense authorization which would restore equal access to health services for servicewomen stationed overseas by reversing the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases. More than 100,000 women--some active service members, some the wives of military personnel--live on American military bases overseas. These brave women risk their lives to protect our freedom, often in lands with laws and customs very different from those we know and cherish in the United States. The availability of abortion services in their host countries varies widely according to many factors--location, individual physician practices, command interpretations and practices, and that nation's rules and laws. Our soldiers and their families deserve equal access to the same spectrum and quality of health care procedures that we enjoy in the United States. Under current law, however, these women are denied this access, effectively putting their lives and health in harm's way. The Sanchez amendment would rectify this grievous inequity by allowing women stationed overseas and their dependents to use their own funds to pay for abortion services at U.S. military bases, thereby providing them with access to constitutionally protected health care. The facts of this amendment are clear--Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to choose, and if abortion is legal for women on the American mainland, it should be legal for women living on American bases abroad. No federal funds would be used, and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle are not required to do so. This is a health issue, and we should be making sure that this procedure is safe, legal and available for our military women and dependents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is the 145th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have documented each of these votes in my choice scorecard, which is available on my website: www.house.gov/maloney. This common-sense amendment offered by Ms. Sanchez, lifts the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. It is bad enough that current law prohibits a woman from using her own funds at all military facilities overseas to get an abortion. But I want to point out although there is an exception when a woman's life is in danger, abortion is not even covered for cases of rape and incest. How can anyone interfere with a woman's right to choose under these extreme circumstances? Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who is raped is not entitled to sue in Federal court for civil damages. Too often in our society, women who are raped are victimized a second time by the judicial system. Failure to pass this amendment doubly victimizes a women who is raped. Why doesn't this Republican majority take rape seriously? I believe that the underlying law is discriminatory. While a woman may serve overseas defending our Constitutional rights, and defending our freedom, this Republican-led Congress is busily working to undermine hers. I cannot think of a men's medical procedure that is not covered. I cannot imagine a situation where a man would be told that a certain medical procedure was prohibited at overseas military hospitals. In fact, when the drug Viagra came on the market, DoD quickly decided to cover it. This amendment is simple. This amendment will not cost the Federal Government one dime. This amendment is about fairness. This amendment simply allows privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. This amendment protects women's rights. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moakley. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Moakley: Strike section 908 (page 285, line 6 through page 289, line 8) and insert the following: SEC. 908. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS. (a) Closure of School of the Americas.--The Secretary of the Army shall close the United States Army School of the Americas. (b) Repeal.--(1) Section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 407 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 4415. (c) Limitation on Establishment of New Education and Training Facility.--No training or education facility may be established in the Department of Defense for Latin American military personnel (as a successor to the United States Army School of the Americas or otherwise) until the end of the ten-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Task Force.--(1) There is established a task force to conduct an assessment of the kind of education and training that is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide to military personnel of Latin American nations. (2) The task force shall be composed of eight Members of Congress, of whom two each shall be designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate. (3) Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to Congress a report on its assessment as specified in paragraph (1). The report shall include-- (A) a critical assessment of courses, curriculum and procedures appropriate for such education and training; and (B) an evaluation of the effect of such education and training on the performance of Latin American military personnel in the areas of human rights and adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. [[Page H3351]] (4) In this subsection, the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner, in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for their tremendous support of this bill last year. Last year, 230 Members of this body joined me in voting against the School of the Americas and today, Mr. Chairman, I am asking them to do the same again. A lot of people are surprised to see a Boston Congressman working to close a school, a military school, in Fort Benning, Georgia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have my reasons. Ten years ago, Speaker Foley asked me to head up a congressional investigation of the Jesuit murders in El Salvador and what I learned during the course of that investigation I will never forget. On November 6, 1989, at the University of Central America in San Salvador, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her 15-year-old daughter were pulled from their beds in the middle of the night, armed only with Bibles and their rosary beads, forced to lie on the ground and they were executed in cold blood by a military cabal. These murders shocked the entire country, the entire world, and at that point the United States Government had sent the Salvador military a total of $6 billion, with a ``B,'' and Congress wanted to get to the bottom of this killing. So my top staffer at the time, who is now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I traveled to El Salvador dozens of times over the next 2 years to get to the bottom of those very, very heinous murders. After these 2 years, we learned an awful lot. We learned that 26 Salvadoran soldiers committed the massacre and 19 of the 26 were graduates of the School of the Americas. Mr. Chairman, up until that point I had never heard of the School of the Americas, but what I learned quickly convinced me that the school had no place as part of the United States Army. The School of the Americas is an Army-run school at Fort Benning, Georgia, that every year trains about 1,000 Latin American soldiers in commando tactics, military intelligence, combat arms, and all this, Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $20 million of the United States taxpayers' dollars. I am not saying that everyone who graduates from the School of the Americas has gone on to murder civilians and I do not want to let anybody in this place believe that for one moment, but, Mr. Chairman, after investigation, many of them have. It is those who bring disgrace to the school. Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega went to the School of the Americas, along with one-third of General Pinochet's officials. The architect of the genocide campaign in Guatemala, General Hector Gramaho, went to the School of the Americas. As so did the murderers of 900 unarmed Salvadorans who were killed in El Mozote and then buried in a big, huge ditch, and also the perpetrators of the chainsaw massacre at El Trujillo. The rapists and murderers of the four American church women killed in El Salvador also went to the School of the Americas. The crimes are not just in the past, Mr. Chairman. As recently as March of 1999, Colombian School of the America graduates Major Rojas and Captain Rodriguez were cited for murdering a peace activist and two others as they tried to deliver ransom money for a kidnapping victim. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas has been associated with some of the most heinous crimes that this hemisphere has ever endured. These crimes are so awful, Mr. Chairman, that approximately 10,000 people every year march on the school in protest. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the United States to remove this blemish on our human rights record. It is time once again, Mr. Chairman, for the House to pass the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell-McGovern amendment. Our amendment will close the School of the Americas as it exists today, and create a Congressional task force to determine what sort of training we should provide to our Latin American neighbors. My colleagues who support the School of the Americas may say that the school got the message last year and made some changes. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those changes do not amount to much more than a new coat of paint. It will still be at Fort Benning, Georgia. It will still inadequately screen soldiers who attend. It will still not monitor graduates for human rights abuses and it will still train Latin American soldiers in commando tactics and combat arms. These changes that they made, Mr. Chairman, are like putting a perfume factory on top of a toxic waste dump. We believe that any school with such an infamous list of graduates needs more than a few cosmetic changes. Mr. Chairman, Latin America needs us. They need us to help shore up their judicial systems. They need us to strengthen their electoral system. They need us to work with their police. They do not need the School of the Americas teaching their militaries how to wage war more effectively, especially when the vast majority of Latin America wars are conflicts with their own peoples. It is time to move in a new direction. It is time to close the School of the Americas and start over. So I urge my colleagues to continue what we began last year and support the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell- McGovern amendment to close the School of the Americas and create a Congressional task force to determine what should take its place. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized for 20 minutes in opposition. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, times have not changed in so much of this debate. Our Nation cannot walk away from its obligation to lead our hemisphere in preserving regional stability, conducting counternarcotics operations, providing disaster relief and promoting democratic values and respect for human rights. Our military and the School of the Americas, in particular, have been a forefront of these efforts. {time} 1400 Ironically, the amendment before us would actually strike a provision of H.R. 4205 that would reform the School of the Americas and address key concerns that have been raised over the years by the school's critics. Specifically, transitioning the school into the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, it requires a minimum of 8 hours of instruction per student in human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society, and creating a board of visitors with a broad mandate to oversee the activities and curriculum of the Institute, and requires the board to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress. These are fundamental changes to the program that are intended to ensure continued education and training of the military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel from Latin America while enhancing transparency. Passage of this amendment would undo the important reforms contained in this bill, and would eliminate the School of the Americas altogether. This would be a regrettable step backwards and would disregard the significant contributions of our military in fostering democracy throughout America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [[Page H3352]] Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley amendment. Today, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is in focus. History teaches us that graduates from the School of the Americas have returned to their home countries and committed some of the worst atrocities this hemisphere has ever seen. Finally Congress responded accordingly and reasonably in cutting funds for the School of the Americas during the debate of the defense authorization bill last summer. Unfortunately, the will of the House was disregarded in conference. No doubt the U.S. military has good intentions and regrets the behavior of those trained at the School of the Americas. But we have many higher education institutions that do not have such a bad track record. Let us utilize them, and let us eliminate the School of the Americas. Now, in the face of pressure, of course, the Army has attempted to add new language that would simply rename the School of the Americas the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. It has a nice ring to it. That idea provides no substantive reform or constructive policy path that would address the real problems of this institution's troubled history. This would be really a victory of symbolism over substance. Last year when they talked about course work, they offered all these courses, but unfortunately, nobody was taking them, the human rights courses specifically. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this would be a victory of symbolism over substance. The reality is that the day after the name is changed, the school would continue to operate and it would be business as usual. Most would agree we need to engage in a comprehensive approach to military training and aid for Latin America, but the U.S. military training for Latin America must go far beyond the School of the Americas, and certainly in a different direction. It is time that we fully reassess our military engagement policies and take a closer look at results. The Moakley amendment would address the question, first, of closing the School of the Americas and placing any new training institute on hold until a bipartisan task force reviews and make recommendations for U.S. military training and relations in Latin America. This is a reasonable approach, a policy path that our constituents could understand and support. The Army's attempts at reform are too little, too late. This existing initiative in the bill at best reflects cosmetic changes. Real reform in my judgment would encompass alternatives to military aid, such as economic assistance, microcredit loans, and the other alternatives that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, outlined. I would urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and implement this new approach, real reform. Let us not let the Army buy off on an unworkable, easy route. Vote for the Moakley amendment. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes an important bipartisan proposal that squarely addresses the concerns of critics of the United States Army School of the Americas. This bill will create the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation to replace the United States Army School of the Americas. This modern institution will have a new charter and a mission that is fully consistent with the U.S. military training efforts worldwide. Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned by a number of the allegations that were leveled at the School of the Americas. I believe, however, based on repeated staff visits to Fort Benning, that the school now has bent over backwards to resolve those issues. I cannot support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my good friend. However, we should note that the language in the bill before the House today addresses a major concern behind the Moakley amendment. A new board of visitors, including Members of Congress, will be established to conduct the oversight and pragmatic review that the gentleman from Massachusetts has advocated in his amendment. H.R. 4205 differs, however, in one fundamental respect, from the Moakley amendment. It reaffirms that the U.S. Army is a force for good in the world, and it recognizes that our men and women in uniform can make a difference by helping other militaries undertake an important professional reform. The Moakley amendment would force an unwelcome hiatus in our U.S. Army's efforts to help Latin American armies become more professional and to respect human rights and civilian control of the military. The creation of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation addresses the criticisms leveled at the School of the Americas. The Moakley amendment would unnecessarily be disruptive of our Armed Forces training programs. I have met with a number of good people from my own congressional district who have urged that the School of the Americas should be closed. As I understood their views, they believe that Latin American countries do not need and should not have armies. For better or worse, most Latin American countries do have armies, and we are not in a position to dictate that they should abolish those institutions. As long as those nations choose to keep their military, their people and our Nation will be far better served if our decent, honorable soldiers are able to exercise a positive influence on their soldiers. It is abundantly clear that there are nefarious forces, including narcotics trafficking syndicates, that are waiting in the wings to fill the void if we decide here today to end our efforts to influence these armies for the good. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who have loyally served our Nation with honor and distinction in the U.S. Army School of the Americas. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4205 and to oppose the Moakley amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If the School of the Americas closed tomorrow, there would still be 9,000 Latin American soldiers getting some kind of training in this country from the U.S. Army, so it is not the only school. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who was my chief investigator into the killings in El Salvador. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley amendment to close the School of the Americas and initiate a bipartisan review of U.S. military education and training for our Latin American partners. This amendment is a reasonable solution to the longstanding questions regarding the School of the Americas. This is a sensible solution to identifying our priorities in education and training and determining how best we can achieve these goals, and whether that requires a school or an institute. I am sure that my colleagues are aware that the School of the Americas has provided less than 10 percent of the education and training the U.S. provides Latin American military personnel; let me repeat that, less than 10 percent. But the school has certainly provided most of the scandal, most of the debate, most of the horror stories, most of the controversy. That history will not go away by hanging a sign with a new name over the same entry gate to the School of the Americas. The stains of blood will not fade away when we train Latin American military officers on the very same ground where we trained the people who murdered Archbishop Romero, Bishop Gerardi, the six Jesuit priests [[Page H3353]] of El Salvador, and massacred literally thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Colombians, and other Latin Americans. Those scandals will not disappear with a few minor changes in the curriculum. The controversy will continue. There has to be a clean break with the past, not cosmetic changes, although some of the changes are interesting in what they reveal. The U.S. Army has now finally and openly admitted that human rights, rule of law, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military were not part of the school's curriculum. But do we need a newly-named school, the so-called Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, to teach those courses? I do not think so. That training is covered under our extended IMET program. We do not need to subsidize junkets to Georgia for this training. Well- established, well-funded programs at scores of U.S. institutions are already available to our Latin American partners on these subjects. We do not need to send them to a scandal-ridden school with no history or expertise in teaching these courses. The new School of the Americas will continue to emphasize counterdrug operations, military education, and leadership development, all areas of the curriculum that helped develop some of the worst human rights violators of the hemisphere in the past. Why should we believe it will be any different now? Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon already has a huge budget for training Latin American military in counterdrug operations. I was looking at a list of over 100 counterdrug programs we did last year for 1,200 Mexican military personnel. We do not need redundant counterdrug programs at the old or new School of the Americas. Not even the Pentagon knows fully what military education and training programs it is engaged in. What information the Pentagon does have comes from policy groups that took the time to go through the programs and add up the numbers. What information the Pentagon does have also comes from a congressionally mandated report on foreign military training. Support the Moakley amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Moakley amendment. I have visited El Salvador 40 or 50 times. The School of the Americas is something we need. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moakley amendment. As you should know, the School of the Americas has trained over 54,000 graduates, including ten presidents, 38 ministers of defense and state, 71 commanders of armed forces, and 25 service chiefs of staff in Latin America. Since the school began training national leaders of South and Central American countries, military or totalitarian regimes in that region have declined and have been replaced with democracies. Right now, Cuba remains as the sole dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Not so ironically, Cuba does not participate in the School of the Americas program. This amendment attempts to close the school based on 10-20-year-old assumptions about the school. Although there may have been questionable practices taught at the school in the past, these have all been corrected years ago. Without the training from the School of the Americas, there never would have been peace in El Salvador. The FMLN rebels demanded that the military leadership resign before they would negotiate for a peace settlement. Armed with the lessons taught at the school, these leaders decided to resign. This was not because they were losing, but because President Christiani had urged them to do it. And with that resignation, the peace process began. You see, yielding to civilian leadership is a principle taught at the School of the Americas, as has occurred just lately in the county of Columbia. Students from our southern neighbors are learning about democracy and becoming our friends of the future. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic education of these officers provided by the school by defeating this amendment. By the way, the former commanding general of the Salvadoran Army is now running a filling station in San Salvador. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), whose district includes the School of the Americas. (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, for many years we have been engaged in a debate over whether or not the School of the Americas has faithfully carried out its mission of teaching human rights and principles of democracy to visiting students from Latin America in addition to their military training. Opponents have accused the school of all kinds of misdeeds, and those of us supporting the school and its mission have presented documented evidence which we believe thoroughly refutes these allegations. Nevertheless, the same old charges and countercharges are revived year after year, time and again. I am not interested in rehashing the same old debate. What I am interested in is focusing on the substantive changes that are proposed today, changes that opponents have called for and which the supporters of the school also believe can be helpful. Opponents wanted to change the name, claiming the existing one has been tainted. The plan before us would do that. Opponents want stronger oversight, and the plan proposed shifts the oversight responsibility to the Cabinet level by placing it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretary of the Army, and by establishing the Independent Board of Visitors, which includes prominent human rights activists as part of this law. Opponents wanted more emphasis on human rights, and the plan makes instruction in human rights and democratic principles mandatory by law for every student. Anyone who supports the long-standing U.S. policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations, the policy of helping Latin American democracies develop professional military forces that are committed to serving under civilian authority, should be for these changes. The leaders of the School of the Americas Watch oppose this policy, so it is not surprising that this movement does not support the proposed reorganization of the school. The opponents of the School of the Americas have publicly stated that they want weak military forces in Latin America, even for democracies. The real issue we are debating today is whether the U.S. should promote weaker military forces for emerging democracies which the Moakley Amendment does, or whether we should help these democracies become more secure--and whether we should sustain an instrument like the school at Fort Benning to actively carry out this policy. A vote for this program is a vote for sound policy--and a vote for truth. {time} 1415 Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year, the House voted overwhelmingly 230 to 197 to stop funding the Army School of the Americas. We voted that way because this House finally decided that the record of atrocities of murders and mayhem committed by graduates of that school can no longer be ignored or condoned. Does the Pentagon believe that renaming the school will fool those of us who voted against funding it last year? Mr. Chairman, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This new school proposed by the Pentagon would have the same mission, the same grounds, the same commanders, the same purpose but a different name. The Army claims it would teach human rights, but there is no credibility to that school teaching human rights. If the Army thinks that the Latin American officers being trained by the United States should be trained in human rights, they should require all students to take courses sponsored by nongovernmental organizations that are qualified to do that. The gross violations of human rights and the murders perpetrated by graduates of this school argue convincingly that we must not be fooled, we should again vote to remove funds for this school from the budget, to close it down once and for all, so that the [[Page H3354]] American role of Latin America can once again be an honorable role and the shameful record of some of the graduates of this school can no longer besmirch the honor of the United States. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because I think we need to refute some of the slander that is being perpetuated by some of the opponents of the School of the Americas, and that is that the United States Army systematically teaches its foreign students how to violate human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Army and this school has never taught torture techniques. Yes, some graduates of the School of America have subsequently been guilty of human rights abuses. So have some graduates from schools like Harvard. In those cases, the training did not take. But only 100 or 200 out of 58,000 graduates have documented human rights abuses. Let us not forget the other 57,800 plus graduates. Over 100 School of Americas graduates serve or served their Nation and its people from the highest levels of civilian and military office, from chief executive to commander of major military uni

Summary:

All articles in House section

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
(House of Representatives - May 18, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3346-H3397] FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4205. {time} 1322 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 503 had been completed. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except amendments printed in House Report 106-624 and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member. Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Each amendment shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified in the report and except that the chairman and ranking minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. [[Page H3347]] The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sanchez Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Sanchez: At the end of title VII (page 247, after line 9), insert the following new section: SEC. 7____. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES. Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking out ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--''; and (2) by striking out subsection (b). The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each will control 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I join the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to offer this amendment. This amendment repeals a provision of the fiscal year 1996 defense bill which bars women serving overseas in the U.S. military from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and they risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights because of a policy that has no valid military purpose. This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations are often not equipped to handle procedures, and medical standards may be far lower than those in the United States. In other words, we are putting our soldiers at risk. This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment. They only expect the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade at their own expense. My amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortions on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. My amendment reinstates the same policy that we had as a Nation from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 until 1996. This has received bipartisan support from the House and from the House Committee on Armed Services. It also has strong support from the health care community; namely, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And my amendment is supported by the Department of Defense. If the professionals who are responsible for our Nation's armed services support this policy change, then why would Congress not? I urge my fellow colleagues to vote for the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the access to abortion services as may be claimed here on the House floor. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of host nations regarding abortions. Second, the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform such procedures, even though we then enacted a conscience clause. The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. This language was defeated previously. It almost feels as though it is political theater year in and year out as we go through these abortion amendments. I would note that in overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available, the beneficiaries have options of using space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. But if we are going to subject our military facilities by military doctors who have taken a pledge and focus all of their energies toward military medical readiness, which means the saving of life, that is what our military doctors do. Military medical readiness is that they focus the performance of their duties to take care of soldiers who are wounded in accidents and, more particular, in battlefield injuries. Now to say, ``Well, we're going to take that same doctor and, oh, by the way, now we're going to say it's okay to let him perform abortions,'' I think not. The House has been heard on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1330 Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country, and yet these women, for the past 4 years, have been denied the very constitutional rights they fight to protect. Mr. Chairman, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on United States soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, especially as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide, we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions, because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to, because they are protected by a conscience clause. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to privacy and access to safe and legal abortion services. In the past, I have expressed my exhaustion with the anti-choice majority's continued attempts to strip women of their right to choose. Well, yes, I am tired of revisiting these now familiar battles, and so, too, are the American people. Their message is clear: Do not make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Instead, they have asked this body to find ways to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion by encouraging responsibility and making contraception affordable and accessible to all women. That is why in the 105th Congress I worked tirelessly to secure passage of my provision. Mr. Chairman, not one of these restrictions does anything to make abortion less necessary. I urge Members to support the Sanchez amendment and join me in my effort to make abortion less necessary. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman by saying if she is fatigued in these types of battles, then join in the cause of the celebration for life. [[Page H3348]] Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Sanchez amendment is to facilitate the destruction of unborn babies by dismemberment and chemical poisoning. Of course, my friend and colleague from California does not present her case to us in this way, my friend instead sanitizes a terrible reality. The difficult unavoidable consequence of enactment of her amendment is to facilitate the violent death of babies. Mr. Chairman, with each passing day, more Americans in their heart of hearts know that abortion is violence against children. The stark, horrific reality of partial-birth abortion has shattered forever the unsustainable myth that abortion procedures are somehow benign and benevolent acts. The scrutiny that partial-birth abortion has received has helped peel away the layers upon layers of euphemisms, disinformation and lies to show abortion for what it is, child abuse and violence against children. Mr. Chairman, the most commonly procured method of abortion in America today and most likely to be facilitated by this amendment is the dismemberment of babies. The Sanchez amendment will prevent razor blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household vacuum cleaner to be used in military health facilities to pulverize the child's arms, legs, torso and head. The baby who gets killed in the hideous fashion is turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about and a vote in favor of Sanchez will result in more kids being murdered in this way. Abortion methods also include injecting deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions, into the child's amniotic fluid or into the baby. That too would be facilitated by Sanchez. This barbaric type of child abuse usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and anybody who has ever seen a picture of a child killed by a saline abortion quickly takes note of the red/black badly burned skin of the victim child. The whole baby's body is badly burned from the corrosive action of the high dose of salt, but the palms of the child's hands are white, because the baby grips and clenches his or her fist because of the pain. That's not child abuse? That's not violence against children? I strongly urge Members to vote no on the Sanchez amendment. Don't turn our medical facilities overseas into abortion mills. Make them places of healing and nurture. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I am certainly pleased to be a cosponsor of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. Actually, I did not recognize the amendment when I heard my good friend from New Jersey speak about it, because actually what the amendment would do would be to restore a provision, a regulation that had been there earlier, to allow U.S. servicewomen stationed overseas access to the Department of Defense health facilities and allowing them to use their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women serving in the military overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical care. They may be stationed in areas where local health care facilities are inadequate, and this ban that we currently have might cause a woman who needs an abortion to delay the procedure while she looks for a safe provider or may force a woman to seek an illegal unsafe procedure locally. I want to point out that women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many of their freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country, and they should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose. The amendment is about women's health, it is about fairness, and it is also about economic fairness. An officer may be able to fly home or fly one's wife or daughter home to seek abortion services, if necessary, but for an enlisted personnel, the burden of the ban may not be possible to overcome. The amendment does not allow taxpayer funded abortions at military hospitals, I emphasize that, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996. So I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring servicewomen's constitutional rights by supporting the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton with the provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of rape or incest. The provision reversed a Clinton Administration policy that was instituted on January 22, 1993, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. The Sanchez amendment, which would repeal the pro-life provision, reopens this issue and attempts to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. The House rejected this same amendment last year. We rejected it in committee this year. We should reject it again today. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, all military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Sanchez amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, resources would be used to search for, hire and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. Military treatment facilities, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in the womb. I urge Members to maintain current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. This amendment, strongly supported by the Department of Defense, would provide fairness to female service members of the military assigned to duty overseas. Mr. Chairman, the facts of this amendment are simple. First, no Federal funds would be used to perform these service. Individuals who decide to have these procedures would use their own money. Second, health care professionals who object to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so. Finally, the amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the well-respected gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it always is a mystery to me why so many good people, and the advocates of this amendment are as good as they get, can support such a hollow cause as killing an unborn child. That is the what an abortion is. Do you ever hear the saying, get real? Well, they talk about euphemisms, about choice. We are all for choice, but there is only one choice, whether it is in a military hospital or in an abortion clinic; it is a live baby, or a dead baby. That is the choice they are opting for. Mr. Chairman, military facilities are paid for by taxpayers, and they do not want the facilities used to kill unborn children. The phrase ``terminate a pregnancy,'' that is fraudulent. You exterminate a [[Page H3349]] pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months. No, our military is to defend life, not to exterminate defenseless, powerless, unborn life. I know lots of tough situations occur where a pregnancy is terribly awkward. It can even threaten your health. Those are serious and we cannot minimize them. But I will tell you what is serious; taking a little life that has a future and exterminating it for any reason other than to save another life. So if abortion is just another procedure, and getting rid of the child is no big deal because it is really not a member of the human family, it is a thing, it is expendable, then, fine, this is probably a good idea. But if you think human life is something that is special, something that is sacred, if you think that all people are possessed of inalienable rights, the first of which is life, then it would seem to me, do not use taxpayer facilities. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez-Morella- Lowey amendment, and I want to thank them for their leadership. Together they consistently fight for equal treatment for women in the military. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is all about, equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This amendment is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their country abroad the same constitutional protections that women have here at home. In 1995 the Republicans told servicewomen stationed overseas that they could not spend their own money on abortion services in military hospitals. This message is loud and clear to each American servicewoman, that a political agenda here in the House of Representatives is more important than a woman's health and safety. Mr. Chairman, these brave military women serve overseas to safeguard our freedom. They deserve the right to choose how to safeguard their own health. These women stand up for our freedom every day. Let us not take away their freedom. Vote for the Sanchez amendment. {time} 1345 Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the House Committee on Armed Services. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in this debate by the proponents that somehow there is a different standard in the military than there is in the rest of society. I think that is true. I think, in fact, it is a higher standard, and interestingly, when polls are taken among the American people about which institutions they respect the most, the American military is number one, because the American military does have higher standards in a number of areas and this is one of those areas. It is absolutely true, if one listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a former military physician, that military physicians come in with a sense of honor to serve their country, to save lives, and it is an enormous imposition on them to ask them to carry out the social dictates of a few folks who would devalue, in my estimation, devalue human life. So let us keep that high standard, duty, honor, country, for the American military. Let us not drag them down into the abortion mess. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues to think about the double standard that we are imposing on these women. How can we expect women to serve their country if their country strips them of their rights of healthcare. Mr. Chairman, this issue is an issue of fairness. We have more than 100,000 women serving our country overseas and these women are entitled to the same freedom as all other American women. The Department of Defense supports this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me just make one point. I serve on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the same problems that the women in the military are having are the same ones that the veterans' women have. This is why we cannot have comprehensive healthcare because of the same controlling, narrow-minded, one-sided philosophy of we are going to control what happens to women, and the healthcare of women, and the veterans' women, that is the problem that the military women are having and the veteran women are having. Let me say I am hoping that women take control of what happens in this Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair would notify Members that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has one-half minute remaining and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has the right to close. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), do not question our reverence for life, including the lives of women and including the lives of the 100,000 women active service members, spouses and dependents of military personnel who live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their healthcare. The current ban on privately-funded abortions discriminates against these women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally protected right to choose, simply because they are stationed overseas. The bottom line is, prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain services at overseas military services endangers women's health and lives. Vote yes on Sanchez-Morella-Lowey. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, since the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was brought up in the well of the House, I yield 1 minute to him to respond. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), no one attacks anyone's reverence for life. I attack killing unborn children, however, and I will defend them. Secondly, no one is stopping a woman from exercising her constitutional right to have an abortion because of Roe versus Wade. Under the law, women have that right but they do not have the right to have the government pay for any part of it. We have a right of free speech. That does not mean the government has to buy someone a megaphone or a typewriter. People can exercise it. Taxpayers' funds are expended when military facilities are used and there is no constitutional right to that, and so that is the difference. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the words fairness, double standard, discrimination, narrow-minded. I mean, we could go down the list. I suppose to articulate debates one can choose these types of words. One thing that is real that one cannot get away from is the Supreme Court over there permits Congress to set the rules for the military, and we discriminate all the time: How tall one can be; how short; how heavy; how light; one cannot even be color blind. We discriminate all the time, so that argument is rather foolish. Narrow-minded? Guilty. So narrow that the interests for which we seek to protect are twofold. Number one, life. If we in this country cannot be the defenders of life, then what are we as a society? If that is narrow-minded, guilty. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment and thank the gentlewoman for her hard work in support of the women who serve our Nation overseas. This amendment would extend to the more than 100,000 women who live on American military bases abroad the right to make health decisions and access available care as they would be able to do here at home. This amendment would not commit public funds, not one taxpayer dollar, for abortion. It would simply allow [[Page H3350]] servicewomen--or the spouses or dependents of servicemen--to use their own funds to pay for an abortion which would be legal if they were stationed in the United States. We all have our own views on the issue of abortion. But the fact remains that it remains a legal option for American women. Unarguably, women serving in our armed forces are entitled to all the constitutional rights they work each day to defend and protect. To deny them the right to use their own money to obtain health care on their base if it is available is unfair to those committed service women. Many times these women are stationed in hostile nations where they may not know the language and have few or no civil rights. Denying our female soldiers or the wives of make soldiers the safe and quality health care they could have on base could in fact be putting them in danger. This amendment is about preserving the rights of American soldiers and their families serving abroad. It is not about promoting or considering the legality of abortion. A vote for the Sanchez amendment is a vote to support these servicewomen stationed far from home. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, but with deep disappointment that this issue must be subject to debate. Today, we must debate whether or not the women serving this country overseas will fall into the same category as female prisoners as a class of women who cannot exercise the same right as free women in this country to access a safe and legal abortion. This amendment simply restores access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents abroad. We are not even debating funding this medical service with taxpayer dollars, and still this is subject to debate. As much as the other side would like to make this debate about the practice of abortion, this debate is about equal treatment for women who put their lives on the line for this country all across the globe. I support the Sanchez amendment because current law jeopardizes the health of the 100,000 U.S. servicewomen and military dependents who live on military bases overseas. It denies a woman her constitutional right to choose and punishes her for her military service. This amendment ensures that our servicewomen are not forced into dangerous back alley abortions in unsafe, unsanitary, inhospitable locales. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, and it should be legal for an American woman serving her country overseas. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment to the Fiscal 2001 Department of Defense authorization which would restore equal access to health services for servicewomen stationed overseas by reversing the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases. More than 100,000 women--some active service members, some the wives of military personnel--live on American military bases overseas. These brave women risk their lives to protect our freedom, often in lands with laws and customs very different from those we know and cherish in the United States. The availability of abortion services in their host countries varies widely according to many factors--location, individual physician practices, command interpretations and practices, and that nation's rules and laws. Our soldiers and their families deserve equal access to the same spectrum and quality of health care procedures that we enjoy in the United States. Under current law, however, these women are denied this access, effectively putting their lives and health in harm's way. The Sanchez amendment would rectify this grievous inequity by allowing women stationed overseas and their dependents to use their own funds to pay for abortion services at U.S. military bases, thereby providing them with access to constitutionally protected health care. The facts of this amendment are clear--Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to choose, and if abortion is legal for women on the American mainland, it should be legal for women living on American bases abroad. No federal funds would be used, and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle are not required to do so. This is a health issue, and we should be making sure that this procedure is safe, legal and available for our military women and dependents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is the 145th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have documented each of these votes in my choice scorecard, which is available on my website: www.house.gov/maloney. This common-sense amendment offered by Ms. Sanchez, lifts the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. It is bad enough that current law prohibits a woman from using her own funds at all military facilities overseas to get an abortion. But I want to point out although there is an exception when a woman's life is in danger, abortion is not even covered for cases of rape and incest. How can anyone interfere with a woman's right to choose under these extreme circumstances? Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who is raped is not entitled to sue in Federal court for civil damages. Too often in our society, women who are raped are victimized a second time by the judicial system. Failure to pass this amendment doubly victimizes a women who is raped. Why doesn't this Republican majority take rape seriously? I believe that the underlying law is discriminatory. While a woman may serve overseas defending our Constitutional rights, and defending our freedom, this Republican-led Congress is busily working to undermine hers. I cannot think of a men's medical procedure that is not covered. I cannot imagine a situation where a man would be told that a certain medical procedure was prohibited at overseas military hospitals. In fact, when the drug Viagra came on the market, DoD quickly decided to cover it. This amendment is simple. This amendment will not cost the Federal Government one dime. This amendment is about fairness. This amendment simply allows privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. This amendment protects women's rights. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moakley. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Moakley: Strike section 908 (page 285, line 6 through page 289, line 8) and insert the following: SEC. 908. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS. (a) Closure of School of the Americas.--The Secretary of the Army shall close the United States Army School of the Americas. (b) Repeal.--(1) Section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 407 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 4415. (c) Limitation on Establishment of New Education and Training Facility.--No training or education facility may be established in the Department of Defense for Latin American military personnel (as a successor to the United States Army School of the Americas or otherwise) until the end of the ten-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Task Force.--(1) There is established a task force to conduct an assessment of the kind of education and training that is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide to military personnel of Latin American nations. (2) The task force shall be composed of eight Members of Congress, of whom two each shall be designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate. (3) Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to Congress a report on its assessment as specified in paragraph (1). The report shall include-- (A) a critical assessment of courses, curriculum and procedures appropriate for such education and training; and (B) an evaluation of the effect of such education and training on the performance of Latin American military personnel in the areas of human rights and adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. [[Page H3351]] (4) In this subsection, the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner, in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for their tremendous support of this bill last year. Last year, 230 Members of this body joined me in voting against the School of the Americas and today, Mr. Chairman, I am asking them to do the same again. A lot of people are surprised to see a Boston Congressman working to close a school, a military school, in Fort Benning, Georgia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have my reasons. Ten years ago, Speaker Foley asked me to head up a congressional investigation of the Jesuit murders in El Salvador and what I learned during the course of that investigation I will never forget. On November 6, 1989, at the University of Central America in San Salvador, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her 15-year-old daughter were pulled from their beds in the middle of the night, armed only with Bibles and their rosary beads, forced to lie on the ground and they were executed in cold blood by a military cabal. These murders shocked the entire country, the entire world, and at that point the United States Government had sent the Salvador military a total of $6 billion, with a ``B,'' and Congress wanted to get to the bottom of this killing. So my top staffer at the time, who is now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I traveled to El Salvador dozens of times over the next 2 years to get to the bottom of those very, very heinous murders. After these 2 years, we learned an awful lot. We learned that 26 Salvadoran soldiers committed the massacre and 19 of the 26 were graduates of the School of the Americas. Mr. Chairman, up until that point I had never heard of the School of the Americas, but what I learned quickly convinced me that the school had no place as part of the United States Army. The School of the Americas is an Army-run school at Fort Benning, Georgia, that every year trains about 1,000 Latin American soldiers in commando tactics, military intelligence, combat arms, and all this, Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $20 million of the United States taxpayers' dollars. I am not saying that everyone who graduates from the School of the Americas has gone on to murder civilians and I do not want to let anybody in this place believe that for one moment, but, Mr. Chairman, after investigation, many of them have. It is those who bring disgrace to the school. Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega went to the School of the Americas, along with one-third of General Pinochet's officials. The architect of the genocide campaign in Guatemala, General Hector Gramaho, went to the School of the Americas. As so did the murderers of 900 unarmed Salvadorans who were killed in El Mozote and then buried in a big, huge ditch, and also the perpetrators of the chainsaw massacre at El Trujillo. The rapists and murderers of the four American church women killed in El Salvador also went to the School of the Americas. The crimes are not just in the past, Mr. Chairman. As recently as March of 1999, Colombian School of the America graduates Major Rojas and Captain Rodriguez were cited for murdering a peace activist and two others as they tried to deliver ransom money for a kidnapping victim. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas has been associated with some of the most heinous crimes that this hemisphere has ever endured. These crimes are so awful, Mr. Chairman, that approximately 10,000 people every year march on the school in protest. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the United States to remove this blemish on our human rights record. It is time once again, Mr. Chairman, for the House to pass the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell-McGovern amendment. Our amendment will close the School of the Americas as it exists today, and create a Congressional task force to determine what sort of training we should provide to our Latin American neighbors. My colleagues who support the School of the Americas may say that the school got the message last year and made some changes. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those changes do not amount to much more than a new coat of paint. It will still be at Fort Benning, Georgia. It will still inadequately screen soldiers who attend. It will still not monitor graduates for human rights abuses and it will still train Latin American soldiers in commando tactics and combat arms. These changes that they made, Mr. Chairman, are like putting a perfume factory on top of a toxic waste dump. We believe that any school with such an infamous list of graduates needs more than a few cosmetic changes. Mr. Chairman, Latin America needs us. They need us to help shore up their judicial systems. They need us to strengthen their electoral system. They need us to work with their police. They do not need the School of the Americas teaching their militaries how to wage war more effectively, especially when the vast majority of Latin America wars are conflicts with their own peoples. It is time to move in a new direction. It is time to close the School of the Americas and start over. So I urge my colleagues to continue what we began last year and support the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell- McGovern amendment to close the School of the Americas and create a Congressional task force to determine what should take its place. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized for 20 minutes in opposition. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, times have not changed in so much of this debate. Our Nation cannot walk away from its obligation to lead our hemisphere in preserving regional stability, conducting counternarcotics operations, providing disaster relief and promoting democratic values and respect for human rights. Our military and the School of the Americas, in particular, have been a forefront of these efforts. {time} 1400 Ironically, the amendment before us would actually strike a provision of H.R. 4205 that would reform the School of the Americas and address key concerns that have been raised over the years by the school's critics. Specifically, transitioning the school into the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, it requires a minimum of 8 hours of instruction per student in human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society, and creating a board of visitors with a broad mandate to oversee the activities and curriculum of the Institute, and requires the board to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress. These are fundamental changes to the program that are intended to ensure continued education and training of the military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel from Latin America while enhancing transparency. Passage of this amendment would undo the important reforms contained in this bill, and would eliminate the School of the Americas altogether. This would be a regrettable step backwards and would disregard the significant contributions of our military in fostering democracy throughout America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [[Page H3352]] Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley amendment. Today, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is in focus. History teaches us that graduates from the School of the Americas have returned to their home countries and committed some of the worst atrocities this hemisphere has ever seen. Finally Congress responded accordingly and reasonably in cutting funds for the School of the Americas during the debate of the defense authorization bill last summer. Unfortunately, the will of the House was disregarded in conference. No doubt the U.S. military has good intentions and regrets the behavior of those trained at the School of the Americas. But we have many higher education institutions that do not have such a bad track record. Let us utilize them, and let us eliminate the School of the Americas. Now, in the face of pressure, of course, the Army has attempted to add new language that would simply rename the School of the Americas the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. It has a nice ring to it. That idea provides no substantive reform or constructive policy path that would address the real problems of this institution's troubled history. This would be really a victory of symbolism over substance. Last year when they talked about course work, they offered all these courses, but unfortunately, nobody was taking them, the human rights courses specifically. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this would be a victory of symbolism over substance. The reality is that the day after the name is changed, the school would continue to operate and it would be business as usual. Most would agree we need to engage in a comprehensive approach to military training and aid for Latin America, but the U.S. military training for Latin America must go far beyond the School of the Americas, and certainly in a different direction. It is time that we fully reassess our military engagement policies and take a closer look at results. The Moakley amendment would address the question, first, of closing the School of the Americas and placing any new training institute on hold until a bipartisan task force reviews and make recommendations for U.S. military training and relations in Latin America. This is a reasonable approach, a policy path that our constituents could understand and support. The Army's attempts at reform are too little, too late. This existing initiative in the bill at best reflects cosmetic changes. Real reform in my judgment would encompass alternatives to military aid, such as economic assistance, microcredit loans, and the other alternatives that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, outlined. I would urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and implement this new approach, real reform. Let us not let the Army buy off on an unworkable, easy route. Vote for the Moakley amendment. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes an important bipartisan proposal that squarely addresses the concerns of critics of the United States Army School of the Americas. This bill will create the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation to replace the United States Army School of the Americas. This modern institution will have a new charter and a mission that is fully consistent with the U.S. military training efforts worldwide. Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned by a number of the allegations that were leveled at the School of the Americas. I believe, however, based on repeated staff visits to Fort Benning, that the school now has bent over backwards to resolve those issues. I cannot support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my good friend. However, we should note that the language in the bill before the House today addresses a major concern behind the Moakley amendment. A new board of visitors, including Members of Congress, will be established to conduct the oversight and pragmatic review that the gentleman from Massachusetts has advocated in his amendment. H.R. 4205 differs, however, in one fundamental respect, from the Moakley amendment. It reaffirms that the U.S. Army is a force for good in the world, and it recognizes that our men and women in uniform can make a difference by helping other militaries undertake an important professional reform. The Moakley amendment would force an unwelcome hiatus in our U.S. Army's efforts to help Latin American armies become more professional and to respect human rights and civilian control of the military. The creation of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation addresses the criticisms leveled at the School of the Americas. The Moakley amendment would unnecessarily be disruptive of our Armed Forces training programs. I have met with a number of good people from my own congressional district who have urged that the School of the Americas should be closed. As I understood their views, they believe that Latin American countries do not need and should not have armies. For better or worse, most Latin American countries do have armies, and we are not in a position to dictate that they should abolish those institutions. As long as those nations choose to keep their military, their people and our Nation will be far better served if our decent, honorable soldiers are able to exercise a positive influence on their soldiers. It is abundantly clear that there are nefarious forces, including narcotics trafficking syndicates, that are waiting in the wings to fill the void if we decide here today to end our efforts to influence these armies for the good. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who have loyally served our Nation with honor and distinction in the U.S. Army School of the Americas. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4205 and to oppose the Moakley amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If the School of the Americas closed tomorrow, there would still be 9,000 Latin American soldiers getting some kind of training in this country from the U.S. Army, so it is not the only school. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who was my chief investigator into the killings in El Salvador. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley amendment to close the School of the Americas and initiate a bipartisan review of U.S. military education and training for our Latin American partners. This amendment is a reasonable solution to the longstanding questions regarding the School of the Americas. This is a sensible solution to identifying our priorities in education and training and determining how best we can achieve these goals, and whether that requires a school or an institute. I am sure that my colleagues are aware that the School of the Americas has provided less than 10 percent of the education and training the U.S. provides Latin American military personnel; let me repeat that, less than 10 percent. But the school has certainly provided most of the scandal, most of the debate, most of the horror stories, most of the controversy. That history will not go away by hanging a sign with a new name over the same entry gate to the School of the Americas. The stains of blood will not fade away when we train Latin American military officers on the very same ground where we trained the people who murdered Archbishop Romero, Bishop Gerardi, the six Jesuit priests [[Page H3353]] of El Salvador, and massacred literally thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Colombians, and other Latin Americans. Those scandals will not disappear with a few minor changes in the curriculum. The controversy will continue. There has to be a clean break with the past, not cosmetic changes, although some of the changes are interesting in what they reveal. The U.S. Army has now finally and openly admitted that human rights, rule of law, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military were not part of the school's curriculum. But do we need a newly-named school, the so-called Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, to teach those courses? I do not think so. That training is covered under our extended IMET program. We do not need to subsidize junkets to Georgia for this training. Well- established, well-funded programs at scores of U.S. institutions are already available to our Latin American partners on these subjects. We do not need to send them to a scandal-ridden school with no history or expertise in teaching these courses. The new School of the Americas will continue to emphasize counterdrug operations, military education, and leadership development, all areas of the curriculum that helped develop some of the worst human rights violators of the hemisphere in the past. Why should we believe it will be any different now? Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon already has a huge budget for training Latin American military in counterdrug operations. I was looking at a list of over 100 counterdrug programs we did last year for 1,200 Mexican military personnel. We do not need redundant counterdrug programs at the old or new School of the Americas. Not even the Pentagon knows fully what military education and training programs it is engaged in. What information the Pentagon does have comes from policy groups that took the time to go through the programs and add up the numbers. What information the Pentagon does have also comes from a congressionally mandated report on foreign military training. Support the Moakley amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Moakley amendment. I have visited El Salvador 40 or 50 times. The School of the Americas is something we need. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moakley amendment. As you should know, the School of the Americas has trained over 54,000 graduates, including ten presidents, 38 ministers of defense and state, 71 commanders of armed forces, and 25 service chiefs of staff in Latin America. Since the school began training national leaders of South and Central American countries, military or totalitarian regimes in that region have declined and have been replaced with democracies. Right now, Cuba remains as the sole dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Not so ironically, Cuba does not participate in the School of the Americas program. This amendment attempts to close the school based on 10-20-year-old assumptions about the school. Although there may have been questionable practices taught at the school in the past, these have all been corrected years ago. Without the training from the School of the Americas, there never would have been peace in El Salvador. The FMLN rebels demanded that the military leadership resign before they would negotiate for a peace settlement. Armed with the lessons taught at the school, these leaders decided to resign. This was not because they were losing, but because President Christiani had urged them to do it. And with that resignation, the peace process began. You see, yielding to civilian leadership is a principle taught at the School of the Americas, as has occurred just lately in the county of Columbia. Students from our southern neighbors are learning about democracy and becoming our friends of the future. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic education of these officers provided by the school by defeating this amendment. By the way, the former commanding general of the Salvadoran Army is now running a filling station in San Salvador. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), whose district includes the School of the Americas. (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, for many years we have been engaged in a debate over whether or not the School of the Americas has faithfully carried out its mission of teaching human rights and principles of democracy to visiting students from Latin America in addition to their military training. Opponents have accused the school of all kinds of misdeeds, and those of us supporting the school and its mission have presented documented evidence which we believe thoroughly refutes these allegations. Nevertheless, the same old charges and countercharges are revived year after year, time and again. I am not interested in rehashing the same old debate. What I am interested in is focusing on the substantive changes that are proposed today, changes that opponents have called for and which the supporters of the school also believe can be helpful. Opponents wanted to change the name, claiming the existing one has been tainted. The plan before us would do that. Opponents want stronger oversight, and the plan proposed shifts the oversight responsibility to the Cabinet level by placing it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretary of the Army, and by establishing the Independent Board of Visitors, which includes prominent human rights activists as part of this law. Opponents wanted more emphasis on human rights, and the plan makes instruction in human rights and democratic principles mandatory by law for every student. Anyone who supports the long-standing U.S. policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations, the policy of helping Latin American democracies develop professional military forces that are committed to serving under civilian authority, should be for these changes. The leaders of the School of the Americas Watch oppose this policy, so it is not surprising that this movement does not support the proposed reorganization of the school. The opponents of the School of the Americas have publicly stated that they want weak military forces in Latin America, even for democracies. The real issue we are debating today is whether the U.S. should promote weaker military forces for emerging democracies which the Moakley Amendment does, or whether we should help these democracies become more secure--and whether we should sustain an instrument like the school at Fort Benning to actively carry out this policy. A vote for this program is a vote for sound policy--and a vote for truth. {time} 1415 Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year, the House voted overwhelmingly 230 to 197 to stop funding the Army School of the Americas. We voted that way because this House finally decided that the record of atrocities of murders and mayhem committed by graduates of that school can no longer be ignored or condoned. Does the Pentagon believe that renaming the school will fool those of us who voted against funding it last year? Mr. Chairman, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This new school proposed by the Pentagon would have the same mission, the same grounds, the same commanders, the same purpose but a different name. The Army claims it would teach human rights, but there is no credibility to that school teaching human rights. If the Army thinks that the Latin American officers being trained by the United States should be trained in human rights, they should require all students to take courses sponsored by nongovernmental organizations that are qualified to do that. The gross violations of human rights and the murders perpetrated by graduates of this school argue convincingly that we must not be fooled, we should again vote to remove funds for this school from the budget, to close it down once and for all, so that the [[Page H3354]] American role of Latin America can once again be an honorable role and the shameful record of some of the graduates of this school can no longer besmirch the honor of the United States. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because I think we need to refute some of the slander that is being perpetuated by some of the opponents of the School of the Americas, and that is that the United States Army systematically teaches its foreign students how to violate human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Army and this school has never taught torture techniques. Yes, some graduates of the School of America have subsequently been guilty of human rights abuses. So have some graduates from schools like Harvard. In those cases, the training did not take. But only 100 or 200 out of 58,000 graduates have documented human rights abuses. Let us not forget the other 57,800 plus graduates. Over 100 School of Americas graduates serve or served their Nation and its people from the highest levels of civilian and military office, from chief executive to commander of major military units. Furt

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
(House of Representatives - May 18, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3346-H3397] FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4205. {time} 1322 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 503 had been completed. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except amendments printed in House Report 106-624 and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member. Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Each amendment shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except as specified in the report and except that the chairman and ranking minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. [[Page H3347]] The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sanchez Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Sanchez: At the end of title VII (page 247, after line 9), insert the following new section: SEC. 7____. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES. Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking out ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--''; and (2) by striking out subsection (b). The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each will control 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I join the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to offer this amendment. This amendment repeals a provision of the fiscal year 1996 defense bill which bars women serving overseas in the U.S. military from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and they risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights because of a policy that has no valid military purpose. This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations are often not equipped to handle procedures, and medical standards may be far lower than those in the United States. In other words, we are putting our soldiers at risk. This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment. They only expect the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade at their own expense. My amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortions on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. My amendment reinstates the same policy that we had as a Nation from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 until 1996. This has received bipartisan support from the House and from the House Committee on Armed Services. It also has strong support from the health care community; namely, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And my amendment is supported by the Department of Defense. If the professionals who are responsible for our Nation's armed services support this policy change, then why would Congress not? I urge my fellow colleagues to vote for the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the access to abortion services as may be claimed here on the House floor. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of host nations regarding abortions. Second, the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform such procedures, even though we then enacted a conscience clause. The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. This language was defeated previously. It almost feels as though it is political theater year in and year out as we go through these abortion amendments. I would note that in overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available, the beneficiaries have options of using space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. But if we are going to subject our military facilities by military doctors who have taken a pledge and focus all of their energies toward military medical readiness, which means the saving of life, that is what our military doctors do. Military medical readiness is that they focus the performance of their duties to take care of soldiers who are wounded in accidents and, more particular, in battlefield injuries. Now to say, ``Well, we're going to take that same doctor and, oh, by the way, now we're going to say it's okay to let him perform abortions,'' I think not. The House has been heard on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1330 Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country, and yet these women, for the past 4 years, have been denied the very constitutional rights they fight to protect. Mr. Chairman, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on United States soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, especially as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide, we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions, because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to, because they are protected by a conscience clause. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to privacy and access to safe and legal abortion services. In the past, I have expressed my exhaustion with the anti-choice majority's continued attempts to strip women of their right to choose. Well, yes, I am tired of revisiting these now familiar battles, and so, too, are the American people. Their message is clear: Do not make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Instead, they have asked this body to find ways to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion by encouraging responsibility and making contraception affordable and accessible to all women. That is why in the 105th Congress I worked tirelessly to secure passage of my provision. Mr. Chairman, not one of these restrictions does anything to make abortion less necessary. I urge Members to support the Sanchez amendment and join me in my effort to make abortion less necessary. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman by saying if she is fatigued in these types of battles, then join in the cause of the celebration for life. [[Page H3348]] Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Sanchez amendment is to facilitate the destruction of unborn babies by dismemberment and chemical poisoning. Of course, my friend and colleague from California does not present her case to us in this way, my friend instead sanitizes a terrible reality. The difficult unavoidable consequence of enactment of her amendment is to facilitate the violent death of babies. Mr. Chairman, with each passing day, more Americans in their heart of hearts know that abortion is violence against children. The stark, horrific reality of partial-birth abortion has shattered forever the unsustainable myth that abortion procedures are somehow benign and benevolent acts. The scrutiny that partial-birth abortion has received has helped peel away the layers upon layers of euphemisms, disinformation and lies to show abortion for what it is, child abuse and violence against children. Mr. Chairman, the most commonly procured method of abortion in America today and most likely to be facilitated by this amendment is the dismemberment of babies. The Sanchez amendment will prevent razor blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household vacuum cleaner to be used in military health facilities to pulverize the child's arms, legs, torso and head. The baby who gets killed in the hideous fashion is turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about and a vote in favor of Sanchez will result in more kids being murdered in this way. Abortion methods also include injecting deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions, into the child's amniotic fluid or into the baby. That too would be facilitated by Sanchez. This barbaric type of child abuse usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and anybody who has ever seen a picture of a child killed by a saline abortion quickly takes note of the red/black badly burned skin of the victim child. The whole baby's body is badly burned from the corrosive action of the high dose of salt, but the palms of the child's hands are white, because the baby grips and clenches his or her fist because of the pain. That's not child abuse? That's not violence against children? I strongly urge Members to vote no on the Sanchez amendment. Don't turn our medical facilities overseas into abortion mills. Make them places of healing and nurture. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), a cosponsor of this amendment. Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I am certainly pleased to be a cosponsor of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. Actually, I did not recognize the amendment when I heard my good friend from New Jersey speak about it, because actually what the amendment would do would be to restore a provision, a regulation that had been there earlier, to allow U.S. servicewomen stationed overseas access to the Department of Defense health facilities and allowing them to use their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women serving in the military overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical care. They may be stationed in areas where local health care facilities are inadequate, and this ban that we currently have might cause a woman who needs an abortion to delay the procedure while she looks for a safe provider or may force a woman to seek an illegal unsafe procedure locally. I want to point out that women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many of their freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country, and they should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose. The amendment is about women's health, it is about fairness, and it is also about economic fairness. An officer may be able to fly home or fly one's wife or daughter home to seek abortion services, if necessary, but for an enlisted personnel, the burden of the ban may not be possible to overcome. The amendment does not allow taxpayer funded abortions at military hospitals, I emphasize that, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996. So I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring servicewomen's constitutional rights by supporting the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, on February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Clinton with the provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of rape or incest. The provision reversed a Clinton Administration policy that was instituted on January 22, 1993, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. The Sanchez amendment, which would repeal the pro-life provision, reopens this issue and attempts to turn DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. The House rejected this same amendment last year. We rejected it in committee this year. We should reject it again today. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, all military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Sanchez amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, resources would be used to search for, hire and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. Military treatment facilities, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in the womb. I urge Members to maintain current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment. This amendment, strongly supported by the Department of Defense, would provide fairness to female service members of the military assigned to duty overseas. Mr. Chairman, the facts of this amendment are simple. First, no Federal funds would be used to perform these service. Individuals who decide to have these procedures would use their own money. Second, health care professionals who object to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so. Finally, the amendment simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the well-respected gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it always is a mystery to me why so many good people, and the advocates of this amendment are as good as they get, can support such a hollow cause as killing an unborn child. That is the what an abortion is. Do you ever hear the saying, get real? Well, they talk about euphemisms, about choice. We are all for choice, but there is only one choice, whether it is in a military hospital or in an abortion clinic; it is a live baby, or a dead baby. That is the choice they are opting for. Mr. Chairman, military facilities are paid for by taxpayers, and they do not want the facilities used to kill unborn children. The phrase ``terminate a pregnancy,'' that is fraudulent. You exterminate a [[Page H3349]] pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months. No, our military is to defend life, not to exterminate defenseless, powerless, unborn life. I know lots of tough situations occur where a pregnancy is terribly awkward. It can even threaten your health. Those are serious and we cannot minimize them. But I will tell you what is serious; taking a little life that has a future and exterminating it for any reason other than to save another life. So if abortion is just another procedure, and getting rid of the child is no big deal because it is really not a member of the human family, it is a thing, it is expendable, then, fine, this is probably a good idea. But if you think human life is something that is special, something that is sacred, if you think that all people are possessed of inalienable rights, the first of which is life, then it would seem to me, do not use taxpayer facilities. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez-Morella- Lowey amendment, and I want to thank them for their leadership. Together they consistently fight for equal treatment for women in the military. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is all about, equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This amendment is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their country abroad the same constitutional protections that women have here at home. In 1995 the Republicans told servicewomen stationed overseas that they could not spend their own money on abortion services in military hospitals. This message is loud and clear to each American servicewoman, that a political agenda here in the House of Representatives is more important than a woman's health and safety. Mr. Chairman, these brave military women serve overseas to safeguard our freedom. They deserve the right to choose how to safeguard their own health. These women stand up for our freedom every day. Let us not take away their freedom. Vote for the Sanchez amendment. {time} 1345 Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the House Committee on Armed Services. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in this debate by the proponents that somehow there is a different standard in the military than there is in the rest of society. I think that is true. I think, in fact, it is a higher standard, and interestingly, when polls are taken among the American people about which institutions they respect the most, the American military is number one, because the American military does have higher standards in a number of areas and this is one of those areas. It is absolutely true, if one listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a former military physician, that military physicians come in with a sense of honor to serve their country, to save lives, and it is an enormous imposition on them to ask them to carry out the social dictates of a few folks who would devalue, in my estimation, devalue human life. So let us keep that high standard, duty, honor, country, for the American military. Let us not drag them down into the abortion mess. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues to think about the double standard that we are imposing on these women. How can we expect women to serve their country if their country strips them of their rights of healthcare. Mr. Chairman, this issue is an issue of fairness. We have more than 100,000 women serving our country overseas and these women are entitled to the same freedom as all other American women. The Department of Defense supports this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me just make one point. I serve on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the same problems that the women in the military are having are the same ones that the veterans' women have. This is why we cannot have comprehensive healthcare because of the same controlling, narrow-minded, one-sided philosophy of we are going to control what happens to women, and the healthcare of women, and the veterans' women, that is the problem that the military women are having and the veteran women are having. Let me say I am hoping that women take control of what happens in this Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair would notify Members that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has one-half minute remaining and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has the right to close. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), do not question our reverence for life, including the lives of women and including the lives of the 100,000 women active service members, spouses and dependents of military personnel who live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their healthcare. The current ban on privately-funded abortions discriminates against these women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally protected right to choose, simply because they are stationed overseas. The bottom line is, prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain services at overseas military services endangers women's health and lives. Vote yes on Sanchez-Morella-Lowey. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, since the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was brought up in the well of the House, I yield 1 minute to him to respond. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), no one attacks anyone's reverence for life. I attack killing unborn children, however, and I will defend them. Secondly, no one is stopping a woman from exercising her constitutional right to have an abortion because of Roe versus Wade. Under the law, women have that right but they do not have the right to have the government pay for any part of it. We have a right of free speech. That does not mean the government has to buy someone a megaphone or a typewriter. People can exercise it. Taxpayers' funds are expended when military facilities are used and there is no constitutional right to that, and so that is the difference. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the words fairness, double standard, discrimination, narrow-minded. I mean, we could go down the list. I suppose to articulate debates one can choose these types of words. One thing that is real that one cannot get away from is the Supreme Court over there permits Congress to set the rules for the military, and we discriminate all the time: How tall one can be; how short; how heavy; how light; one cannot even be color blind. We discriminate all the time, so that argument is rather foolish. Narrow-minded? Guilty. So narrow that the interests for which we seek to protect are twofold. Number one, life. If we in this country cannot be the defenders of life, then what are we as a society? If that is narrow-minded, guilty. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment and thank the gentlewoman for her hard work in support of the women who serve our Nation overseas. This amendment would extend to the more than 100,000 women who live on American military bases abroad the right to make health decisions and access available care as they would be able to do here at home. This amendment would not commit public funds, not one taxpayer dollar, for abortion. It would simply allow [[Page H3350]] servicewomen--or the spouses or dependents of servicemen--to use their own funds to pay for an abortion which would be legal if they were stationed in the United States. We all have our own views on the issue of abortion. But the fact remains that it remains a legal option for American women. Unarguably, women serving in our armed forces are entitled to all the constitutional rights they work each day to defend and protect. To deny them the right to use their own money to obtain health care on their base if it is available is unfair to those committed service women. Many times these women are stationed in hostile nations where they may not know the language and have few or no civil rights. Denying our female soldiers or the wives of make soldiers the safe and quality health care they could have on base could in fact be putting them in danger. This amendment is about preserving the rights of American soldiers and their families serving abroad. It is not about promoting or considering the legality of abortion. A vote for the Sanchez amendment is a vote to support these servicewomen stationed far from home. Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, but with deep disappointment that this issue must be subject to debate. Today, we must debate whether or not the women serving this country overseas will fall into the same category as female prisoners as a class of women who cannot exercise the same right as free women in this country to access a safe and legal abortion. This amendment simply restores access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents abroad. We are not even debating funding this medical service with taxpayer dollars, and still this is subject to debate. As much as the other side would like to make this debate about the practice of abortion, this debate is about equal treatment for women who put their lives on the line for this country all across the globe. I support the Sanchez amendment because current law jeopardizes the health of the 100,000 U.S. servicewomen and military dependents who live on military bases overseas. It denies a woman her constitutional right to choose and punishes her for her military service. This amendment ensures that our servicewomen are not forced into dangerous back alley abortions in unsafe, unsanitary, inhospitable locales. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, and it should be legal for an American woman serving her country overseas. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment to the Fiscal 2001 Department of Defense authorization which would restore equal access to health services for servicewomen stationed overseas by reversing the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases. More than 100,000 women--some active service members, some the wives of military personnel--live on American military bases overseas. These brave women risk their lives to protect our freedom, often in lands with laws and customs very different from those we know and cherish in the United States. The availability of abortion services in their host countries varies widely according to many factors--location, individual physician practices, command interpretations and practices, and that nation's rules and laws. Our soldiers and their families deserve equal access to the same spectrum and quality of health care procedures that we enjoy in the United States. Under current law, however, these women are denied this access, effectively putting their lives and health in harm's way. The Sanchez amendment would rectify this grievous inequity by allowing women stationed overseas and their dependents to use their own funds to pay for abortion services at U.S. military bases, thereby providing them with access to constitutionally protected health care. The facts of this amendment are clear--Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to choose, and if abortion is legal for women on the American mainland, it should be legal for women living on American bases abroad. No federal funds would be used, and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle are not required to do so. This is a health issue, and we should be making sure that this procedure is safe, legal and available for our military women and dependents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This is the 145th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have documented each of these votes in my choice scorecard, which is available on my website: www.house.gov/maloney. This common-sense amendment offered by Ms. Sanchez, lifts the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. It is bad enough that current law prohibits a woman from using her own funds at all military facilities overseas to get an abortion. But I want to point out although there is an exception when a woman's life is in danger, abortion is not even covered for cases of rape and incest. How can anyone interfere with a woman's right to choose under these extreme circumstances? Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who is raped is not entitled to sue in Federal court for civil damages. Too often in our society, women who are raped are victimized a second time by the judicial system. Failure to pass this amendment doubly victimizes a women who is raped. Why doesn't this Republican majority take rape seriously? I believe that the underlying law is discriminatory. While a woman may serve overseas defending our Constitutional rights, and defending our freedom, this Republican-led Congress is busily working to undermine hers. I cannot think of a men's medical procedure that is not covered. I cannot imagine a situation where a man would be told that a certain medical procedure was prohibited at overseas military hospitals. In fact, when the drug Viagra came on the market, DoD quickly decided to cover it. This amendment is simple. This amendment will not cost the Federal Government one dime. This amendment is about fairness. This amendment simply allows privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. This amendment protects women's rights. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-624. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moakley. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Moakley: Strike section 908 (page 285, line 6 through page 289, line 8) and insert the following: SEC. 908. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS. (a) Closure of School of the Americas.--The Secretary of the Army shall close the United States Army School of the Americas. (b) Repeal.--(1) Section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed. (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 407 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 4415. (c) Limitation on Establishment of New Education and Training Facility.--No training or education facility may be established in the Department of Defense for Latin American military personnel (as a successor to the United States Army School of the Americas or otherwise) until the end of the ten-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Task Force.--(1) There is established a task force to conduct an assessment of the kind of education and training that is appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide to military personnel of Latin American nations. (2) The task force shall be composed of eight Members of Congress, of whom two each shall be designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate. (3) Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to Congress a report on its assessment as specified in paragraph (1). The report shall include-- (A) a critical assessment of courses, curriculum and procedures appropriate for such education and training; and (B) an evaluation of the effect of such education and training on the performance of Latin American military personnel in the areas of human rights and adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. [[Page H3351]] (4) In this subsection, the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner, in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for their tremendous support of this bill last year. Last year, 230 Members of this body joined me in voting against the School of the Americas and today, Mr. Chairman, I am asking them to do the same again. A lot of people are surprised to see a Boston Congressman working to close a school, a military school, in Fort Benning, Georgia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have my reasons. Ten years ago, Speaker Foley asked me to head up a congressional investigation of the Jesuit murders in El Salvador and what I learned during the course of that investigation I will never forget. On November 6, 1989, at the University of Central America in San Salvador, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her 15-year-old daughter were pulled from their beds in the middle of the night, armed only with Bibles and their rosary beads, forced to lie on the ground and they were executed in cold blood by a military cabal. These murders shocked the entire country, the entire world, and at that point the United States Government had sent the Salvador military a total of $6 billion, with a ``B,'' and Congress wanted to get to the bottom of this killing. So my top staffer at the time, who is now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I traveled to El Salvador dozens of times over the next 2 years to get to the bottom of those very, very heinous murders. After these 2 years, we learned an awful lot. We learned that 26 Salvadoran soldiers committed the massacre and 19 of the 26 were graduates of the School of the Americas. Mr. Chairman, up until that point I had never heard of the School of the Americas, but what I learned quickly convinced me that the school had no place as part of the United States Army. The School of the Americas is an Army-run school at Fort Benning, Georgia, that every year trains about 1,000 Latin American soldiers in commando tactics, military intelligence, combat arms, and all this, Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $20 million of the United States taxpayers' dollars. I am not saying that everyone who graduates from the School of the Americas has gone on to murder civilians and I do not want to let anybody in this place believe that for one moment, but, Mr. Chairman, after investigation, many of them have. It is those who bring disgrace to the school. Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega went to the School of the Americas, along with one-third of General Pinochet's officials. The architect of the genocide campaign in Guatemala, General Hector Gramaho, went to the School of the Americas. As so did the murderers of 900 unarmed Salvadorans who were killed in El Mozote and then buried in a big, huge ditch, and also the perpetrators of the chainsaw massacre at El Trujillo. The rapists and murderers of the four American church women killed in El Salvador also went to the School of the Americas. The crimes are not just in the past, Mr. Chairman. As recently as March of 1999, Colombian School of the America graduates Major Rojas and Captain Rodriguez were cited for murdering a peace activist and two others as they tried to deliver ransom money for a kidnapping victim. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas has been associated with some of the most heinous crimes that this hemisphere has ever endured. These crimes are so awful, Mr. Chairman, that approximately 10,000 people every year march on the school in protest. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the United States to remove this blemish on our human rights record. It is time once again, Mr. Chairman, for the House to pass the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell-McGovern amendment. Our amendment will close the School of the Americas as it exists today, and create a Congressional task force to determine what sort of training we should provide to our Latin American neighbors. My colleagues who support the School of the Americas may say that the school got the message last year and made some changes. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those changes do not amount to much more than a new coat of paint. It will still be at Fort Benning, Georgia. It will still inadequately screen soldiers who attend. It will still not monitor graduates for human rights abuses and it will still train Latin American soldiers in commando tactics and combat arms. These changes that they made, Mr. Chairman, are like putting a perfume factory on top of a toxic waste dump. We believe that any school with such an infamous list of graduates needs more than a few cosmetic changes. Mr. Chairman, Latin America needs us. They need us to help shore up their judicial systems. They need us to strengthen their electoral system. They need us to work with their police. They do not need the School of the Americas teaching their militaries how to wage war more effectively, especially when the vast majority of Latin America wars are conflicts with their own peoples. It is time to move in a new direction. It is time to close the School of the Americas and start over. So I urge my colleagues to continue what we began last year and support the Moakley-Scarborough-Campbell- McGovern amendment to close the School of the Americas and create a Congressional task force to determine what should take its place. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized for 20 minutes in opposition. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, times have not changed in so much of this debate. Our Nation cannot walk away from its obligation to lead our hemisphere in preserving regional stability, conducting counternarcotics operations, providing disaster relief and promoting democratic values and respect for human rights. Our military and the School of the Americas, in particular, have been a forefront of these efforts. {time} 1400 Ironically, the amendment before us would actually strike a provision of H.R. 4205 that would reform the School of the Americas and address key concerns that have been raised over the years by the school's critics. Specifically, transitioning the school into the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, it requires a minimum of 8 hours of instruction per student in human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society, and creating a board of visitors with a broad mandate to oversee the activities and curriculum of the Institute, and requires the board to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress. These are fundamental changes to the program that are intended to ensure continued education and training of the military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel from Latin America while enhancing transparency. Passage of this amendment would undo the important reforms contained in this bill, and would eliminate the School of the Americas altogether. This would be a regrettable step backwards and would disregard the significant contributions of our military in fostering democracy throughout America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [[Page H3352]] Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moakley amendment. Today, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is in focus. History teaches us that graduates from the School of the Americas have returned to their home countries and committed some of the worst atrocities this hemisphere has ever seen. Finally Congress responded accordingly and reasonably in cutting funds for the School of the Americas during the debate of the defense authorization bill last summer. Unfortunately, the will of the House was disregarded in conference. No doubt the U.S. military has good intentions and regrets the behavior of those trained at the School of the Americas. But we have many higher education institutions that do not have such a bad track record. Let us utilize them, and let us eliminate the School of the Americas. Now, in the face of pressure, of course, the Army has attempted to add new language that would simply rename the School of the Americas the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. It has a nice ring to it. That idea provides no substantive reform or constructive policy path that would address the real problems of this institution's troubled history. This would be really a victory of symbolism over substance. Last year when they talked about course work, they offered all these courses, but unfortunately, nobody was taking them, the human rights courses specifically. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this would be a victory of symbolism over substance. The reality is that the day after the name is changed, the school would continue to operate and it would be business as usual. Most would agree we need to engage in a comprehensive approach to military training and aid for Latin America, but the U.S. military training for Latin America must go far beyond the School of the Americas, and certainly in a different direction. It is time that we fully reassess our military engagement policies and take a closer look at results. The Moakley amendment would address the question, first, of closing the School of the Americas and placing any new training institute on hold until a bipartisan task force reviews and make recommendations for U.S. military training and relations in Latin America. This is a reasonable approach, a policy path that our constituents could understand and support. The Army's attempts at reform are too little, too late. This existing initiative in the bill at best reflects cosmetic changes. Real reform in my judgment would encompass alternatives to military aid, such as economic assistance, microcredit loans, and the other alternatives that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, outlined. I would urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and implement this new approach, real reform. Let us not let the Army buy off on an unworkable, easy route. Vote for the Moakley amendment. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes an important bipartisan proposal that squarely addresses the concerns of critics of the United States Army School of the Americas. This bill will create the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation to replace the United States Army School of the Americas. This modern institution will have a new charter and a mission that is fully consistent with the U.S. military training efforts worldwide. Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned by a number of the allegations that were leveled at the School of the Americas. I believe, however, based on repeated staff visits to Fort Benning, that the school now has bent over backwards to resolve those issues. I cannot support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my good friend. However, we should note that the language in the bill before the House today addresses a major concern behind the Moakley amendment. A new board of visitors, including Members of Congress, will be established to conduct the oversight and pragmatic review that the gentleman from Massachusetts has advocated in his amendment. H.R. 4205 differs, however, in one fundamental respect, from the Moakley amendment. It reaffirms that the U.S. Army is a force for good in the world, and it recognizes that our men and women in uniform can make a difference by helping other militaries undertake an important professional reform. The Moakley amendment would force an unwelcome hiatus in our U.S. Army's efforts to help Latin American armies become more professional and to respect human rights and civilian control of the military. The creation of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation addresses the criticisms leveled at the School of the Americas. The Moakley amendment would unnecessarily be disruptive of our Armed Forces training programs. I have met with a number of good people from my own congressional district who have urged that the School of the Americas should be closed. As I understood their views, they believe that Latin American countries do not need and should not have armies. For better or worse, most Latin American countries do have armies, and we are not in a position to dictate that they should abolish those institutions. As long as those nations choose to keep their military, their people and our Nation will be far better served if our decent, honorable soldiers are able to exercise a positive influence on their soldiers. It is abundantly clear that there are nefarious forces, including narcotics trafficking syndicates, that are waiting in the wings to fill the void if we decide here today to end our efforts to influence these armies for the good. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who have loyally served our Nation with honor and distinction in the U.S. Army School of the Americas. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4205 and to oppose the Moakley amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If the School of the Americas closed tomorrow, there would still be 9,000 Latin American soldiers getting some kind of training in this country from the U.S. Army, so it is not the only school. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who was my chief investigator into the killings in El Salvador. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley amendment to close the School of the Americas and initiate a bipartisan review of U.S. military education and training for our Latin American partners. This amendment is a reasonable solution to the longstanding questions regarding the School of the Americas. This is a sensible solution to identifying our priorities in education and training and determining how best we can achieve these goals, and whether that requires a school or an institute. I am sure that my colleagues are aware that the School of the Americas has provided less than 10 percent of the education and training the U.S. provides Latin American military personnel; let me repeat that, less than 10 percent. But the school has certainly provided most of the scandal, most of the debate, most of the horror stories, most of the controversy. That history will not go away by hanging a sign with a new name over the same entry gate to the School of the Americas. The stains of blood will not fade away when we train Latin American military officers on the very same ground where we trained the people who murdered Archbishop Romero, Bishop Gerardi, the six Jesuit priests [[Page H3353]] of El Salvador, and massacred literally thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Colombians, and other Latin Americans. Those scandals will not disappear with a few minor changes in the curriculum. The controversy will continue. There has to be a clean break with the past, not cosmetic changes, although some of the changes are interesting in what they reveal. The U.S. Army has now finally and openly admitted that human rights, rule of law, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military were not part of the school's curriculum. But do we need a newly-named school, the so-called Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation, to teach those courses? I do not think so. That training is covered under our extended IMET program. We do not need to subsidize junkets to Georgia for this training. Well- established, well-funded programs at scores of U.S. institutions are already available to our Latin American partners on these subjects. We do not need to send them to a scandal-ridden school with no history or expertise in teaching these courses. The new School of the Americas will continue to emphasize counterdrug operations, military education, and leadership development, all areas of the curriculum that helped develop some of the worst human rights violators of the hemisphere in the past. Why should we believe it will be any different now? Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon already has a huge budget for training Latin American military in counterdrug operations. I was looking at a list of over 100 counterdrug programs we did last year for 1,200 Mexican military personnel. We do not need redundant counterdrug programs at the old or new School of the Americas. Not even the Pentagon knows fully what military education and training programs it is engaged in. What information the Pentagon does have comes from policy groups that took the time to go through the programs and add up the numbers. What information the Pentagon does have also comes from a congressionally mandated report on foreign military training. Support the Moakley amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Moakley amendment. I have visited El Salvador 40 or 50 times. The School of the Americas is something we need. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moakley amendment. As you should know, the School of the Americas has trained over 54,000 graduates, including ten presidents, 38 ministers of defense and state, 71 commanders of armed forces, and 25 service chiefs of staff in Latin America. Since the school began training national leaders of South and Central American countries, military or totalitarian regimes in that region have declined and have been replaced with democracies. Right now, Cuba remains as the sole dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Not so ironically, Cuba does not participate in the School of the Americas program. This amendment attempts to close the school based on 10-20-year-old assumptions about the school. Although there may have been questionable practices taught at the school in the past, these have all been corrected years ago. Without the training from the School of the Americas, there never would have been peace in El Salvador. The FMLN rebels demanded that the military leadership resign before they would negotiate for a peace settlement. Armed with the lessons taught at the school, these leaders decided to resign. This was not because they were losing, but because President Christiani had urged them to do it. And with that resignation, the peace process began. You see, yielding to civilian leadership is a principle taught at the School of the Americas, as has occurred just lately in the county of Columbia. Students from our southern neighbors are learning about democracy and becoming our friends of the future. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic education of these officers provided by the school by defeating this amendment. By the way, the former commanding general of the Salvadoran Army is now running a filling station in San Salvador. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), whose district includes the School of the Americas. (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, for many years we have been engaged in a debate over whether or not the School of the Americas has faithfully carried out its mission of teaching human rights and principles of democracy to visiting students from Latin America in addition to their military training. Opponents have accused the school of all kinds of misdeeds, and those of us supporting the school and its mission have presented documented evidence which we believe thoroughly refutes these allegations. Nevertheless, the same old charges and countercharges are revived year after year, time and again. I am not interested in rehashing the same old debate. What I am interested in is focusing on the substantive changes that are proposed today, changes that opponents have called for and which the supporters of the school also believe can be helpful. Opponents wanted to change the name, claiming the existing one has been tainted. The plan before us would do that. Opponents want stronger oversight, and the plan proposed shifts the oversight responsibility to the Cabinet level by placing it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretary of the Army, and by establishing the Independent Board of Visitors, which includes prominent human rights activists as part of this law. Opponents wanted more emphasis on human rights, and the plan makes instruction in human rights and democratic principles mandatory by law for every student. Anyone who supports the long-standing U.S. policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations, the policy of helping Latin American democracies develop professional military forces that are committed to serving under civilian authority, should be for these changes. The leaders of the School of the Americas Watch oppose this policy, so it is not surprising that this movement does not support the proposed reorganization of the school. The opponents of the School of the Americas have publicly stated that they want weak military forces in Latin America, even for democracies. The real issue we are debating today is whether the U.S. should promote weaker military forces for emerging democracies which the Moakley Amendment does, or whether we should help these democracies become more secure--and whether we should sustain an instrument like the school at Fort Benning to actively carry out this policy. A vote for this program is a vote for sound policy--and a vote for truth. {time} 1415 Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year, the House voted overwhelmingly 230 to 197 to stop funding the Army School of the Americas. We voted that way because this House finally decided that the record of atrocities of murders and mayhem committed by graduates of that school can no longer be ignored or condoned. Does the Pentagon believe that renaming the school will fool those of us who voted against funding it last year? Mr. Chairman, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. This new school proposed by the Pentagon would have the same mission, the same grounds, the same commanders, the same purpose but a different name. The Army claims it would teach human rights, but there is no credibility to that school teaching human rights. If the Army thinks that the Latin American officers being trained by the United States should be trained in human rights, they should require all students to take courses sponsored by nongovernmental organizations that are qualified to do that. The gross violations of human rights and the murders perpetrated by graduates of this school argue convincingly that we must not be fooled, we should again vote to remove funds for this school from the budget, to close it down once and for all, so that the [[Page H3354]] American role of Latin America can once again be an honorable role and the shameful record of some of the graduates of this school can no longer besmirch the honor of the United States. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because I think we need to refute some of the slander that is being perpetuated by some of the opponents of the School of the Americas, and that is that the United States Army systematically teaches its foreign students how to violate human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Army and this school has never taught torture techniques. Yes, some graduates of the School of America have subsequently been guilty of human rights abuses. So have some graduates from schools like Harvard. In those cases, the training did not take. But only 100 or 200 out of 58,000 graduates have documented human rights abuses. Let us not forget the other 57,800 plus graduates. Over 100 School of Americas graduates serve or served their Nation and its people from the highest levels of civilian and military office, from chief executive to commander of major military uni