Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for his leadership. There are a lot of different individuals here on many different committees that after September 11 did an assessment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman, also did his assessment. At the same time so were other committees. The real question right now is over the issue on redundancy. I want to applaud the chairman for having his bill passed and it is authorized. The real question now is on the funding and the timeliness of that funding. I recognize the present objection of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. With regard to some of the comments from my other colleagues with regard to whether the funding has been underfunded or not and we have been citing back to when we did eligibility reform here on the House floor, I want everybody to note this, that during that time period, the Congressional Budget Office and GAO provided testimony to the House and the Senate. They said, if you change eligibility from the core competencies of the VA and let non- service-connected disabled veterans be treated the same in line with combat- or peace-disabled veterans, you will open up the system and you will have a tremendous cost impact. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff and members on the House and the Senate did not agree with what the recommendations were nor testimony of CBO and OMB. As a matter of fact, the veterans service community and organizations, some in particular mocked CBO and OMB for their testimony. Their testimony was correct. We were wrong. So what we are doing today is we are trying to now catch up. Members may ask, what do you mean catch up? In the last 5 years in which the gentleman from New York has chaired the subcommittee, we have increased the health budget in the VA 50 percent. Members might say, my gosh, 50 percent, why? Because the category 7's and 8's are rushing into the system. Today we have a system called a no-shame system. A no-shame system. There are things in our society, if you are in a food line and you have already eaten and there are people that have not eaten, do you get in line and cut before them? No, that is shameful. What happens today is that you have individuals who are non-service-connected disabled veterans who are in line before combat-disabled veterans. I think that is shameful. Others can disagree with that, but I think that is. Today this present theme has become that every veteran is a veteran is a veteran. That is the present theme, because we do not want to look back and see what the mistakes were that we made. No one in this House wants to accept the responsibility for having gotten it wrong: Oh, please, Steve, don't tell us the mistakes that we made. Just fund it. Just throw more money at it. Folks, we are creating a problem. If we do not accept some responsibility here, I am fearful of what is happening to the VA. We need to restore the core competencies of the VA in those categories 1 through 6. I want to applaud the chairman for his work along with the ranking member. It is quality work.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mitchell, Indiana, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of its founding. On September 29, 2003, the City of Mitchell will celebrate the establishment and naming of the town of Mitchel after Ormsby McKnight Mitchel. The origins of Mitchell, Indiana dates back to the beginnings of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad. George Cochran, a merchant from Cincinnati, wanted a more direct route to ship his merchandise, having previously shipped goods via the Mississippi River. On September 29, 1853, Cochran purchased the land that would become Mitchell from local landowner, John Sheeks. Shortly thereafter, Cochran contracted Ormsby McKnight Mitchel to survey a new route for a railroad to run through the land. As a part of the deal, Mitchel requested the new town be named after him. The second ``l'' in Mitchell would be added later due to a typographical error. Mitchell developed as a ``railroad town.'' Mitchell remained mostly agricultural until the early 1900s. There were several small manufacturing enterprises in town, but in 1902 Lehigh Portland Cement Company opened its first plant, changing the town from agricultural to industrial. Lehigh Portland Cement Company remains one of the area's largest employers. Mitchell is also home to Dana Corporation as well as Regal Beloit who are major employers in the community today. Mitchell is a place where a sense of small town charm can be felt through its historic buildings and shops in the downtown area. The town of Mitchell is known for its production of cement, which has been used to build the historic downtown buildings and sidewalks where residents gather to share persimmon pie and cobbler with family and friends at the annual Persimmon Festival. In the early 1990s, the downtown area of Mitchell was designated a Historic District. Most notably, Mitchell was the hometown of U.S. Astronaut Virgil ``Gus'' Grissom. NASA selected Grissom as one of the original seven Mercury astronauts in 1959. Grissom was one of three astronauts who perished in a fire in the early days of the Apollo program. The citizens of Mitchell have dedicated a memorial to his memory. I am pleased to join with the citizens of Mitchell in celebrating its 150th Anniversary. I am pleased to give special recognition to Jeff Routh and the members of the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce, as well as those others who made it possible for present and future generations to enjoy the history of Mitchell through their research.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am quite bothered that someone would actually come to the floor and denigrate the great minds of the world that come to the only free market, America. And these individuals improve the quality of our life, not only just us, but around the world. This debate needs to be elevated, elevated, because other countries out there who call themselves friends of America are taking advantage of those manufacturers. This is a serious trade issue, and we think we can only address it by addressing price? I do not know where you all went to school. You cannot address it just on price. This is safety. We have a closed system. When you take that pill, you have trust and confidence that it will do exactly what the label will say. Somebody brought up the issue of chain of custody. When those drugs end up, and we create a very wide berth and a very wide channel for drugs, we lose that chain of custody. We do not know what it is going to do. You can go to Canada, but it will not have the labeling. This is very serious.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. I fully support the effort to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. The successes in modern medicine that we see today can be partly attributed to the advent of safer and more effective pharmaceutical drug therapy. Illnesses and serious diseases that often required hospitalization 40 years ago, when Medicare was created, can now be treated with outpatient care and pharmaceuticals. This is a testament to the many scientists in numerous companies that toil daily to find compounds to treat and manage disease. The pharmaceutical industry is a testament to the free market system of the United States that rewards hard work, initiative, and enterprise. As the great minds of the world push the bounds of modern science, new discoveries in pharmacology lead to the betterment of mankind. While H.R. 1 has some positive features, including addressing medical doctor and dentist provider reimbursement concerns and regulatory impediments, an insurance product built and guaranteed by the government is not the approach to provide a drug benefit under Medicare. And, make no mistake, we MUST get it right. I have serious levels of concern. First, the legislation before us has the government assuming 73 percent of the risk of offering the insurance, 43 percent of the initial benefit and 30 percent of reinsurance retrospectively. This is the floor! We must all understand that the taxpayer's exposure to risk can only increase. The bill permits the government to assume more risk, up to 99.9 percent if it is necessary to entice an insurance product into a region. And this is an unknown factor. We simply do not, nor cannot, know what this provision will cost the taxpayers. Today, Medicare already consumes nearly 12 percent of the federal budget. It is expected to be 30 percent or 35 percent of the federal budget in 2030 without the addition of prescription drugs, or any other benefit. It is irresponsible of this Congress to simply add a prescription drug benefit without also addressing the budgetary impact of this benefit. H.R. 1 leaves the federal budget and the taxpayers exposed to unknown expenditure levels in the future. I do not believe that this drug bill will remain within the proposed budget of $400 billion over the next 10 years. Second, there is no provision in the House bill on how to provide a benefit to seniors in areas where two insurance products are not available in January 2006. It is simply neither realistic, nor fair, for seniors in one region to have products available and seniors in another region to not have choice because two plans have not been forthcoming. Furthermore, I am adamantly opposed to the proposal by some, especially in the other body, that the government provide this coverage. This will only lead to the government determining what prescription drugs a senior can have and ultimately the imposition of price controls that will have a chilling effect upon research and development of pharmaceutical therapies. Third, the premium charged to seniors for the drug-only insurance plan is estimated to be $35 per year initially. This premium number is not found in the bill--it is an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. What if it is more? Will seniors decide that this premium is worth the benefit they will receive under a drug insurance plan? There will be a great deal of kitchen table math being done by seniors in 2005 to decide whether this new benefit meets their drug needs and their wallet realities. I am also concerned about a number of modifications made under the bill to reimbursement for providers and to the last minute inclusion of language regarding the Patent Term Restoration Act, the so-called Hatch-Waxman legislation. Although some very necessary provider reimbursement changes were made in the bill, particurlary regarding doctors and rural areas, nonetheless, I am concerned about the changes to the market basket update for hospitals, as well as the changes to skilled nursing facilities and home health care providers. In addition, I share the concern of others regarding the sufficiency of the reimbursement to oncologists. It is very true that the Congress needed to address the use of the ``average wholesale price,'' which was neither average nor wholesale, and left Medicare beneficiaries paying 20 percent of an inflated drug price, but oncologists need to be reasonably compensated for the level of care they provide to Medicare patients. I am not convinced that this has been sufficiently addressed. I also have grave reservations over the inclusion of provisions regarding patent term and generic drugs, the changes to the Hatch- Waxman law. Initiating more litigation of patent rights is not conducive to encouraging innovation in pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, this is exactly what this provision will do. The vast majority of seniors have drug coverage today through either an existing government program or through the private sector. However, 27 percent of seniors have nothing. These seniors pay the highest prices when they go to the pharmacy because they have no means to bargain for lower costs. These seniors also tend to be those between 100 percent and 175 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). A Medicare drug benefit should not displace existing coverage and should address the needs of those seniors who do not have coverage. The government should encourage employers, families and others to help seniors with the purchase of expensive prescription drugs. It is time that we admit that no proposal that comes to the House floor that meets the budget requirements will fully address all the prescription drug requirements of seniors. Every plan will have a ``so-called donut hole.'' There should be a way to tackle this without putting our heads in the sand and expecting it to simply ``work out.'' We live by a system of checks and balances. We run into the limitations with everything that we do. How can we then create a system that is dependent upon the unknown? The government's assistance to beneficiaries should be a defined contribution. This type of benefit would be manageable and known. I am committed to providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Seniors should have access to the same mechanisms that are available in the private sector to drive down costs and improve health care services. Along with four of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, we submitted legislation, that would address these issues and provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I testified before the Rules Committee to request a vote on our bill. The request was denied. This benefit would have been delivered through a prescription drug discount, or value, card that would be available to all seniors on a voluntary basis for an annual $30 fee. This is an approach that has been recommended by the President. Any entity qualified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could offer a drug value card to seniors. Card issuers would negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers for discounts on drug utilizing the same techniques that are found in the marketplace today. These discounts would range from 15 percent to 35 percent of current retail prices. The competition among these card issuers would result in attractive offerings to beneficiaries. Recognizing that some beneficiaries need financial assistance to pay for prescription drugs, this legislation would tie the drug value card to an account to which the federal government would provide assistance related to the income of the beneficiary. Others could add contributions on a tax preferred basis up to $5,000 for a beneficiary and family; and $5,000 for an employer. Non-profit organizations, like local churches, and State pharmaceutical assistance programs could add contributions to the accounts. Contributions on the accounts would roll over from year to year. Protection from catastrophic drug expenses would also be offered at $10,000 through the private sector, with federal subsidies on the premium for those with low incomes. In my opinion, this delivery mechanism for a prescription drug benefit works best for the beneficiary, and best for the taxpayers. Beneficiaries would have access to negotiated discounts and some financial assistance to buy drugs. The taxpayers would have a defined contribution that could be planned from year to year in the federal budget. My colleagues, this has been a long road for us all. But, it is nothing compared to what could happen if Congress gets this wrong. Please be mindful of our obligations to our nation, not just to seniors. It is my opinion that Congress needs to grasp this opportunity to provide a prescription drug benefit with a full appreciation of the duty and responsibility this nation has to our seniors, taxpayers, and future generations. To do anything less, we break the trust of all Americans. Because the margin for error is so thin, my hope is that the majority is right. However, my intellect and instincts tell me that this bill will not fulfill the desired result. I must vote against final passage of this measure.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether or not this fits the proper decorum of the House and whether this is a proper utilization of a prop. My question is whether this meets the decorum of the House.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BUYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House currently to discuss the Medicare issue, and this is a tough issue that is facing us. It is one whereby Members can choose a political route, or they can choose a route of policy. The numbers that are presently in front of us cannot lie. These numbers are cold. They will not go away, and that is that we have this: the demographics, the baby boomers when they become seniors, there is a smaller population behind them, and the present Medicare model as we know it cannot exist unless we go to a 20 percent payroll tax. There is a desire here within Congress to deliver a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Well, if we just add prescription drugs to Medicare without addressing the long-term solvency, we have only exasperated the insolvency of Medicare as we know it. Therein lies our challenge. So I believe if we just added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare without making this long-term solution to the solvency of Medicare, that is a very faulty approach. Right now within the Republican Caucus there is a discussion about two approaches on how to do this. These are two completely different approaches. The country has had an opportunity to see the approach sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, because Congress has passed this measure two other times, and that is an insurance-based product, a defined benefit. We provide a cash assistance to beneficiaries to help them manage their drug bill and to make that assistance then targeted to those who need it. We create this insurance pool for the purchase of drugs-only insurance which the Federal Government would then underwrite. These are two different approaches. The first approach that I mentioned, really, is there are five of us that have come together and have drafted this approach. This insurance- based approach, though, really begins to concern us. It concerns us because there are not any willing carriers out there who are going to step forward and say, well, we believe that there is insurable risk here and we will offer this product. Really? They will offer the product if the government becomes the guarantor, and then the real question is, well, then does THE government have to become the guarantor in order for them to make a profit and deliver it? We have a great concern about the viability of an insurance-based product, and that is the reason five Members of Congress have come together and we have drafted a completely different approach. What I would like to do is share the principles of our approach. Our Medicare prescription drug package proposes, number one, a generous assistance to low-income seniors and the disabled, a defined contribution. We have a specifically defined assistance to all seniors that rely on income. We also have family-friendly participation through a tax benefit. We also encourage participation by employers through a tax benefit, and we also have a stop-loss coverage for high-risk drugs to all seniors. We also provide a bridge to comprehensive reform for long-term solvency that we call enhanced Medicare, and what we are tying to do is provide choices for seniors with lower prices in a private sector approach. What does all this mean? All this means is that what we hope to accomplish is that we turn to those in the private sector to have what we call a value card, and these different groups, companies could be approved by CMS, and they then, by virtue of their membership and their purchasing power, they provide discounts. An individual would have a discount card. They are automatically enrolled. They can opt out, but they are automatically in. It costs $30, and then government, based on their income, adds dollars to their card, and then they are able to take this card and they can swipe it down at the drugstore and they keep track of the drugs for which they purchase. Where we want to be family friendly is often we say, parents, get active in the lives of your children. Well, I also want to turn and say, children, get active in the lives of your parents. So if you have an elderly parent who also needs assistance to buy drugs, I do not know why children are not getting more involved in the lives of their parents. What they can do is they can get a $4,000 tax deduction, and they can add $4,000 then to their parents' drug card. We think this is being very family friendly. We also have a catastrophic coverage and we think that is important. And tomorrow, hopefully, there will be a Republican conference to cover both these proposals.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this constitutional amendment to empower Congress to enact legislation to protect Old Glory from desecration. This is not an issue about what people can say about the flag, the United States, or its leaders. Those rights are fully protected. The issue here is that the flag, as a symbol of our Nation, is so revered that Congress has a right and an obligation, to prohibit its willful and purposeful desecration. It is the conduct that is the focus. After September 11, Old Glory of any size, any fabric, including ones made by school children from construction paper; those stuck in flower pots, pinned on lapels, or decals posted in the back window of pickup trucks were displayed everywhere. On the news, Tom Brokaw referred to this phenomenon ``like countless bandages of patriotism covering a nation's wounds--a reassuring symbol'' of what it means to be an American. It represents the physical embodiment of everything that is great and good about our nation--the freedom of our people, the courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our people to protect our freedoms from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not a coincidence that when others seek to criticize America, they burn the American flag. Old Glory is the embodiment of all that is America--the freedoms of the Constitution, the pride of her citizens, and the honor of her soldiers, not all of whom make it home. I have seen the Stars and Stripes on a distant battlefield. Across the river from here is a memorial of another battlefield and to the valiant efforts of our fighting men to raise the flag at Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of cloth that rose on that day over 50 years ago. It was the physical embodiment of all we, as Americans, treasure--the triumph of liberty over totalitarianism; the duty to pass the torch of liberty to our children undimmed. The flag is worth protecting, defending. I urge the adoption of the Amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, as Representatives in the United States Congress, we are tasked with finding solutions to problems that face our constituents. Sometimes these problems take a series of phone calls to the appropriate agencies for action; sometimes the solution is more complicated and requires legislative action. This is one such problem. Earlier this year, I learned that the town of Clermont, Indiana had been a victim of embezzlement. The former treasurer of the town embezzled over seventy thousand dollars. A small amount when this body deals in billions of dollars, but I assure you Mr. Speaker it is a significant sum of money to Clermont. The town's treasurer was subsequently prosecuted, found guilty and charged with financial restitution to the Town in the amount of over fifty-one thousand dollars. As of the end of 2002, the Town received only five hundred and ten dollars in restitution. The former employee has a private pension as his only source of income. He has no incentive to find work, as any wages would be garnished. Under ERISA, civil judgment for restitution cannot be attached to the pension. So, Clermont loses out on fifty thousand dollars and the guilty avoids complying with the judgment. The legislation I am offering, the ``Public Employer's Restitution Act of 2003'' is a narrowly tailored bill that would allow States and local governments to obtain restitution for the embezzlement of State and local funds. Mr. Speaker, while we cannot make Clermont whole again, this legislation will prevent other small towns and communities across the countries from being a victim of a circumvention of the law.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, before I address this issue, I would say to the gentlewoman that just spoke, I want to give people a job. I do not want to give people an unemployment check. Get them a job. Vote for the President's economic plan. So you can have your constituent get into the details of the plan. Right now I rise to talk about the rule for H.R. 1000, and, more importantly, on the opportunity Members of Congress have to make a change in law. The purpose of the Federal Government is to help those who cannot help themselves. Earlier this year, a case was brought to my attention in Clermont, Indiana, that needs to be addressed. An employee of the town embezzled $70,000, an amount that may not seem like a lot of money to some of us here when our daily discussions revolve around billions of dollars and millions; but this is a significant sum to a very small town. After the former employee was found guilty, the town obtained a civil judgment for restitution for $51,000. So far the employee has paid only $510 in restitution. The former employee has a private pension. No other form of compensation. That is it. Under ERISA, the restitution order attained by the town cannot be attached to the pension, so the town loses out on $50,000 and the guilty avoids complying with the judgment. How can we allow the law to be manipulated like this? Clearly, there is a hole in the justice system that needs to be filled. The pension law is being used to avoid making victims whole. In this case, the victim is government. I had hoped to offer an amendment in the Committee on Rules to fill this hole. However, the amendment was not made in order. This amendment would permit States and local governments to obtain restitution from private pensions pursuant to court-ordered restitution for the embezzlement of State and local funds. Those communities, including Clermont, are true victims of embezzlement. This is a narrowly drafted amendment. And the very purpose of the restitution order is to make victims whole. So when you think about this, how is justice being served by allowing our present system to stay in place? Look at an example of an individual that is sentenced to 10 years to prison. Maybe they have a $20,000 pension that goes into an account, so when they get out of prison after a two-for-one good time, after 5 years they have $100,000 sitting in an account. That is money which can make individuals whole, except under present law you cannot attach a garnishment to that civil order. I think that is wrong. I know that there was an effort to make this ``a clean bill,'' and nobody wanted to have amendments to the bill. I think our job is to choose the harder right over the easier wrong. So what? If it is hard, do that which is hard, and make justice serve those of whom have been victimized. I am on the floor today greatly disappointed that we just wanted to get something done quickly rather than address a hole in the law. I am not pleased at all that this amendment was denied, but what I am most hopeful is that the committee of jurisdiction actually examines this, because I am not going to let this one go. I think this one, in fact, we have to address, and I will stand down to the Committee on Rules at this point. I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the Members because my little town of Clermont, I am sure, is highly representative of other towns and communities, States and Federal and local governments of whom have been victimized by some form of embezzlement.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of American service personnel serve our Nation proudly around the world in the name of freedom. In Indiana alone, over 4,000 National Guard and Reserve units have been called to active duty in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as homeland security. Over the past several months, many of us have been asked by constituents what they can do to help lessen the burden on our military personnel and their families. Today, by voting in support of H.R. 100, each of us has an opportunity to make a real difference. This legislation strengthens and expands protections to our service personnel and their families during Presidential call-ups like those in place today. Specifically, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: (1) Provides some protections to the families of our armed forces from eviction due to nonpayment of rent while on active duty--up to certain limits; (2) provides automatic stays on civil court proceedings while on active duty; and (3) provides a ceiling on interest of 6 percent on outstanding loans while they are on active duty. While this legislation does provide some measures of reprieve, I support Chairman Smith's efforts in this bill which reflects the need to be fair to all parties involved by imposing on the courts the obligation to determine whether the military service of the individual had a material effect on his/her ability to protect the rights or to meet financial obligations. This legislation also includes substantive changes I sought to address concerns regarding protections to services members and their families who fall behind on car lease payments while called to active duty. However, not all my concerns could be addressed. I am working with my colleagues as well as the private sector including the Automobile Alliance to address this matter in another form. Finally, while this measure provides substantive economic protections to those who serve and their families, those in the private sector should realize that this bill and other federal laws merely set ceilings and not floors. Specifically, we set the ceiling of 6 percent on the amount of interest on loans that were incurred before entering military service. Those who have answered our President's call to serve are doing so at some financial burden--in some cases at a great financial burden-- though they do so willingly and are making this Nation proud. To that end, a grateful Nation comes to them on bended knee in appreciation. Therefore, I challenge those in the financial services sector to match what some have done on their own, like the Congressional Federal Credit Union, and lower their interest rate on existing loans to 0 percent while our men and women are carrying out their missions both here and abroad. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 100 and for the private sector to meet the challenge I have set forth.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee, for their hard work, including the staff. Hopefully, we can get it done this time. We have gone down this path once before; I think this is the sequel. Mr. Chairman, our country, as the sole remaining superpower, needs a broad-based and balanced portfolio with regard to our energy resources. Imports of oil is a reality. Anybody can give a speech about how we are to lower the dependence. There are some things we also have to address. We have to address exploration. We have to be able to utilize what we have in our own country with regard to natural gas and coal. Clean coal technologies will be extremely important, and I am hopeful that the House will be receptive to that discussion at the conference. We also have to recognize that we have not even built a nuclear facility in our country in the last 20 years. Let us also get back on the glidepath on conservation and renewable sources of energy, whether it be by solar or wind, soy, diesel, ethanol, et cetera. So I want to compliment the chairman for his hard work. It will pay great dividends for the country.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to establish an office to oversee research compliance and assurance within the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am pleased that this legislation has bipartisan support, including Chris Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Representative Lane Evans, Ranking Democratic Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Representative Terry Everett, the former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; Representative Michael Bilirakis, Vice Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Committee; Representatives Michael Michaud, Julia Carson, Bob Filner, Michael McNulty, Bob Beauprez, Jeff Miller, John Boozman, Cliff Stearns, John Sweeney, Jack Quinn, Henry Brown, Ginny Brown-Waite, and John McHugh. The VA has made tremendous contributions in the field of medical research. I think we all recognize the many accomplishments made by the VA in discovering new drug therapies and developing medical devices that have benefited not only veterans but all Americans. For instance, the VA invented the implantable cardiac pacemaker, developed the nicotine patch, performed the first successful liver transplant, and assisted in the development of the first oral vaccine for smallpox. The intent of this legislation is to ensure that all research funds are directed with focus and accountability. It does not seek to impede the VA from continuing with the research it conducts. Before I summarize the bill, I want to provide some pertinent background information as to why this legislation is necessary. In April 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to examine violations of human research protections that occurred in the West Los Angeles and Supulveda Veterans Affairs medical facilities that resulted in the shutdown of all research activity at those two facilities. These violations were traced as far back as 1993 and came to light in 1998. The subcommittee's hearing reviewed what happened and what was being done to correct the situation. At the hearing, the VA announced that it had created a new Office of Research Compliance and Assurance (ORCA). Then-Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer stated at the April 1999 hearing, ``I want to emphasize that this new Office of Research Compliance will be an independent, objective, and unbiased entity in its compliance and oversight activities.'' Dr. Kizer also said, ``By placing the Office of Research Compliance outside of the Research Office, and directly reporting to top management within the Veterans Health Administration, it is my intention to minimize any real or perceived weakness of this type.'' In subsequent hearings, Dr. Thomas L. Garthwaite, who succeeded Dr. Kizer as Under Secretary for Health, and Dr. Robert H. Roswell, the current Under Secretary both echoed the sentiments expressed by Dr. Kizer in his April 1999 testimony. ORCA served as the primary advisory component for the Under Secretary for Health on all matters affecting the integrity of research in the protection of human subjects and welfare of laboratory animals, promoting enhancements in the ethical conduct of research in conformance with regulations and policies and investigating any allegations of research improprieties and scientific misconduct. ORCA's major responsibilities included providing direction, guidance, and oversight to its field offices that perform their delegated roles and responsibilities, in promotion of the office's mission. ORCA conducted a follow-up review of the Greater Los Angeles Health Systems Research Program and recommended lifting its probationary status. The review also made recommendations for improvements in the research programs. ORCA oversaw the implementation of these recommendations. Further oversight hearings conducted by my subcommittee produced GAO recommendations on necessary VA actions to strengthen the protection of human research subjects. GAO recommended that VA identify adequate funding levels needed to support human subject protection activities at medical centers and ensure an appropriate allocation of funds to support the activities. The VA's Office of Research Development also provided preliminary guidance to VISN Directors on the needed Independent Review Board, IRB, staffing levels. The IRBs approve and monitor research protocols for all projects at the facility level. In January, 2003, it came to the committee's attention that the VA intended to combine the oversight responsibility for all human and animal research within the Office of Research Development, ORD, the very body it was supposed to oversee. I, along with several other members of the Oversight Subcommittee, including Representative Lane Evans, strongly objected to the proposal and requested the Department review its decision and brief the subcommittee before any further action was taken. The move to combine ORCA with ORD came after a report of alleged research misconduct involving human subjects at the VA medical center in Albany, NY. My colleagues and I want to insure that oversight of human subject research remains truly independent. The bill I am introducing would: First, create an independent office to oversee research compliance and assurance. Second, require that the new office have a director who reports directly to the Under Secretary for Health. Third, provide that the missions of the new office be to offer regular counsel to the Under Secretary for Health on all matters related to the protection of human research subjects, research misconduct, laboratory animal welfare and bio-safety; to promote and enhance the ethical conduct of research; to investigate allegations of research impropriety and misconduct; to suspend, restrict, or modify research to ensure the safety, and ethical treatment of human subjects; to preserve integrity and validity of research; to prevent mistreatment of laboratory animals used in research; and to assure compliance in the conduct of research. The bill would require that the director of the office conduct periodic inspections at research facilities; observe external accreditation site visits; investigate allegations of research improprieties, research misconduct, and non-compliance with research policies and regulations. The bill would also require the immediate notification of the Under Secretary for Health when endangerment of human research subjects is evident or suspected and requires that Congress be notified when impropriety of misconduct of research conducted by the Department has been found. The bill will provide that funding for the new office would come from the medical care account of the Veterans Health Administration rather than from ORD funding. Finally, the legislation mandates that the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study of the effectiveness of the new office and submit a report to Congress by January 1, 2005. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation to improve protection for our Nation's veterans who participate in VA medical research

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, legislation to ensure that patients have access to quality medical care by bringing balance to our medical liability system. The purpose of the medical liability system is to provide a remedy for patients who have been harmed by negligent actions on the part of providers. But excessive litigation, legal action filed without legitimate cause, can lead to patient harm. Women who cannot find obstetricians for high risk pregnancies, and trauma patients who do not have access to appropriate medical care, suffer when doctors have been driven from practice due to high litigation expense. Doctors who must practice defensive medicine increase the cost of health care for everyone and put their patients through unnecessary procedures. Many States have struggled to bring reforms to their liability systems. Indiana, fortunately, has not been one of them. Over 20 years ago, Indiana reformed its medical liability system. Today, patients are compensated quickly without endless litigation, doctors have reasonable malpractice insurance rates and the medical community provides quality care to Hoosier patients. It is my understanding that under H.R. 5 Indiana will be able to retain the core aspects of its medical liability system. These include, the medical review panel requirement, the total compensation cap, and the limit on providers' liability. It is also my understanding that there is nothing in H.R. 5 that would prevent other States from adopting a medical liability system that includes such elements. I urge the adoption of H.R. 5 to bring common sense back to our medical liability system.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, beginning with the threat, I think is probably the right place for us to start this discussion here today. A report released on September 9, 2002, from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an independent research organization, concludes that Saddam Hussein at that time, actually Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain the fissile material. Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. We all know about the aluminum tubes, the dual-use material and technologies that he has been trying to obtain. So the gentleman's comments with regard to time, it is true; and I do not know why some people are unwilling to acknowledge this individual's ambitions. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past few years, signaling his continued interest in developing a nuclear weapons program. With regard to chemical munitions, Iraq admits but UNSCOM cannot confirm the destruction of 6,500 chemical-weapon bombs filled with 1,000 tons of agent, over 3,000 tons of chemical warfare agents, 614 tons of precursor chemicals used to make the most toxic nerve agent, VX, 550 artillery munitions, 155 millimeter, filled with mustard and chemical warfare agent, and 31,658 empty and filled chemical weapons munitions. Iraq continues to rebuild and expand the dual-use infrastructure that could quickly divert from chemical weapons production such as chlorine and phenol plants. Iraq is seeking also to purchase chemical weapons, agents, precursors, and applicable production equipment and is making an effort, obviously, to hide those facilities while inspections even continue. With regard to biological weapons, Iraq admits, but the U.N. cannot confirm, the destruction of 8,500 liters of anthrax, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial-growth media, enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 5,500 liters of aflatoxin.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to cover two points. One will cover recent rulings in the FCC regarding the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the other is we are going to talk about our foreign policy with Iraq. Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Telecommunications Act was heralded as a grand attempt to move the telecom markets toward competition. I was a conferee on that bill. It was a great compromise between the House and the Senate. That bill was greatly heralded by many people, but 7 years later the Act's intent has been overrun by the FCC's recent decision that has effectively blocked competition and created disincentives for investment by maintaining the UNE-P status quo. It is not only the intent of the act that is being circumvented. More tangibly, the already-fragile telecom industry has suffered another financial setback. In response to the FCC's decision, many of Wall Street's analysts have made their voices heard on the negative effects that the decision will have on the economy, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and others. An analogy of the FCC's decision would be to allow McDonald's, or Burger King, a competitor, to come into their restaurants and use their entire facilities. You bring your meat, you fry it up, you bring your own drinks, you use it all, you use their advertising, you use their building, you use their drive-up window, you use their cash registers, and you are in competition with the McDonald's or Burger King franchise? No one in America would ever allow a competitor to do such a thing. But that is what is happening in the telecommunications industry. What incentive is there at all to allow investment, if that in fact is what is going to occur? As a matter of public policy, the FCC's decision simply makes no sense. On one hand, the commission deregulates broadband, and on the other hand it complicates and multiplies regulation on UNE-P. Last year, this body passed the Tauzin-Dingell broadband legislation, 273 to 157. I think we could argue that the will of the Congress had an impact on how the FCC views broadband. Do we now pass another bill to show the FCC that further regulation on UNE-P offers no help to the Nation's economy? Mr. Speaker, if that is what it takes, then I say, let us do it. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services has joined us here for this Special Order on behalf of the Republican leadership. There were some what I call the voices of dissent that came to the floor, the voice of dissent with regard to war. I call it the sounds of freedom. One was asking, please give peace a chance. The other one was saying I am concerned about the long-term damage to our alliances if we do not follow what Germany, Russia, China, and France are asking for. The other says we just need to continue our diplomacy and we should follow the lead of the French. That was the voice of dissent that came here to the floor today. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), to those voices out there that say give peace a chance, it is easy to say that when you sit in freedom, and peace is truly the consequence of freedom. America represents freedom, and we export hope and opportunity; and Iraq and some of the sub-national terrorist organizations that represent tyranny, they export fear and terror. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is this the same nuclear reactor that was built by the French?

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Speaker. There have been over 17 resolutions before the United Nations in which Saddam Hussein continues his open defiance. The first resolution was November 29 of 1990, that said Iraq must comply fully with Resolution 660 regarding the illegal invasion of the country of Kuwait. The next resolution was number 686, on March 2 of 1991. It says Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War. Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. Iraq must accept the liability from international law for damages during its illegal invasion of Kuwait. He has not done anything about that. The next resolution, number 687 on April 3 of 1991, Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removing and rendering harmless under international supervision of chemical and biological weapons, all stocks of agents, and all related subsystems and components of all research development, support, and manufacturing facilities. This was in 1991. Iraq must unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons-usable material, or any research, development, or manufacturing facilities. It continues, recalcitrant. Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal and rendering harmless under international supervision all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. Now he is destroying missiles; this was back on April 3 of 1991. The list goes on and on under that resolution. The next resolution out of the U.N. Security Council was number 688 on April 5 of 1991. It condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security. Iraq must immediately end repression of the civilian population, and Iraq must allow immediate access of international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance. It never happened. Those were the words of the U.N. April 5 of 1991. The next resolution came from the U.N. Security Council, number 707, on August 15 of 1991. It condemned Iraq's serious violation of resolution 687. It condemned Iraq's noncompliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance. August 15 of 1991. Never happened. The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council, No. 715, October 11 of 1991, said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Never happened. The next resolution from the U.N. Security Council, No. 949, October 15 of 1994, condemns Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait. Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations in Iraq. Iraq must fully cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq. Never happened. The next U.N. Security Council resolution was No. 1051 on March 27, 1996. They said Iraq must report shipments of dual-use end items related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and these agency inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access. It never happened. The next U.N. Security Council resolution, 1060, on June 12, 1996. It deplores Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and Iraq's clear violations of previous U.N. resolutions. Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate unconditional and unrestricted access. It never happened. The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council was No. 1115 on June 21 of 1997. It condemns repeated refusal of Iraq authorities to allow access to U.N. inspectors which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of U.N. resolutions 687, 707, 715 and 1061. Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. Iraq must give immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom the U.N. inspectors want to interview. It never happened. The next U.N. Security Council resolution was 1134 on October 23, 1997. It condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to all access to the U.N. inspectors which constitutes a flagrant violation, again, of resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1061. It says Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access. Boy, this sounds like a broken record. Iraq must give immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview. It never happened. The next resolution came from the U.N. Security Council on November 12, 1997. It condemned the continued violations by Iraq of previous U.N. resolutions including the implicit threat of safety of aircraft operated by U.N. inspectors and the tampering of U.N. inspectors' monitoring equipment. It reaffirmed Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of U.N. inspectors, and Iraq must fully comply with U.N. inspections and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access. It never happened. The next U.N. Security Council resolution was 1154 on March 2, 1998. They said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access and notes that any violation would have the severest of consequences for Iraq. That was in 1998. Do you think Iraq was scared? These words are beginning to get very, very empty if you say them over and over again. The next resolution was 1194, September 9 of 1998. It condemned the decision by Iraq on the 5th of August 1998 to suspend cooperation with the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, which constitutes a ``totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations under the U.N. resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.'' And they said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access. The next resolution came on the 5th of November of 1998. It was resolution 1205 of the U.N. Security Council. It condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the U.N. inspectors as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 and other resolutions. And they said Iraq must immediately and completely and unconditionally cooperate with the U.N. and IAEA inspectors. It never happened. The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council was No. 1284, December 17, 1999. It created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission to replace previous weapons inspection teams. And they said Iraq must allow this new inspection team the immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi officials and its facilities. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners, this is 1999, and calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination. It never happened. The next resolution then was the one which is presently being discussed, 1441. This resolution was meant to be different from all of these that I just mentioned. Because this resolution was by its very nature words that were negotiated painstakingly to give a final opportunity for Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations under all these relevant resolutions by the council. During that same time, Congress decided it would also exercise a voice. In 1998 there was H.R. 4655, a sense of the Congress that U.S. policy is regime change and democracy for Iraq. That was during the Clinton administration, October 5 of 1998. On December 20 of 2001, House Joint Resolution 75, Congress spoke and said Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. It passed this House by a vote of 390 to 12. The next resolution that came from this House was on October 10, 2002, which authorized military force in Iraq and passed this House by a vote of 296 to 132. So we have had a continued decade of deception and defiance that has been noted. The decade of deception and defiance continues. I went through this long litany. Sure, it may have taken 15 minutes, but it was 10 years of work and labor by the U.N. The time for the U.N. in its relevancy and materiality of this present is before us. Are the words going to have meaning? The President has come forward and made that point very clear to the United Nations. My hope is that the U.N. stands firm and gives definition to their meaning. Saddam Hussein has had a long history of complying with inspectors on a very small and technical scale, and then he continues to cheat inspectors on a very large scale. His tactical concessions are designed to buy time and ease pressure on his regime and to split the international community and to hopefully end resolve. Since 1991 Saddam has presented no fewer than six, six full and final and complete declarations of his illegal biological weapons programs alone. Each of these has been an outward lie and has failed to account for large stockpiles of prohibited materials. The United Nations has worked with three countries to give very good examples of cooperative disarmament. Those countries would be South Africa, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. And there are three very basic elements of cooperation. One is a decision must be made at the highest level to disarm. Next would be you have to state your national intentions. And third is you cooperate with international efforts to verify the disarmament behavior and that it is open and it is transparent, not secretive. Iraq with regard to its highest level, their efforts are concealment. Iraq also tasked its key institutions toward thwarting the inspectors, and instead of transparency, Iraq chooses to conceal and lie. That is very, very different from what we have seen. So the cosmetic compliance that is presently going on is nothing new. With regards to Dr. Blix, I want to extend my thanks. He has a very difficult job to do. He is trying to make Saddam Hussein comply. Knowing that this track record that we have laid out, knowing the little games he plays, and the cheat and retreat strategy that he has, Dr. Blix has a tremendous job. But Dr. Blix was never meant there to be a detective. He was meant there to work with a country cooperatively in a transparent effort to disarm the country that was meant to comply with all of these resolutions. So almost what has happened is that the world has placed an unrealistic expectation upon Dr. Blix. We cannot do that and should not do that to him. That is why resolution 1441, it demands nothing less than the full and immediate disarmament by Iraq. So this report that is going to be presented tomorrow is extremely important. I believe that no one can say that Iraq's cooperation has been full and immediate because the regime has submitted a false declaration, it has blocked private interviews. Only 5 of the 30 requested UNMOVIC have even taken place. They have threatened witnesses and their families with death, and they have hidden documents and concealed materials from inspectors. The ``why now'' question for me is obvious. For others who perhaps do not know about all these resolutions and what has gone on, it is a good question to ask. The President has come forward with a preemptive doctrine. Some maybe do not understand what a preemptive doctrine is. What is extremely important is after September 11 is that we have a right of self-defense. We also should be taking our defenses in doubt. What that means is you do not just say we are only going to focus on homeland security. We are going to cower in our defenses and seek the security because we feel unsecure. No. You take it to where the threat is. So whether it is in Afghanistan or whether it is in the Horn of Africa or wherever al Qaeda is trying to hide, you work cooperatively with nations; you take it to the terrorist organizations. Likewise, with Saddam Hussein, who poses a threat to destabilize the region of the Middle East, the United States as a superpower, some people are uncomfortable with that word, but it is true. The United States is the sole remaining superpower. We have a responsibility to regional stability in the world. Saddam Hussein has been recalcitrant to the world, and his threats will continue along with his cooperation with these terrorist organizations. Now, I am a father, like many. My son is 17. I love Ryan. But if I said, Ryan, you know, you have got a curfew and he violated his curfew 17 times and I did nothing, and I see he is getting ready to go out tomorrow night and I said, Ryan, remember your curfew, what do you think he is going to do? He is going to come home whenever he pleases. Why? Because my words are hollow. They mean nothing. I say them, but he will not follow them because they have no meaning or definition, therefore, no consequence for the recalcitrant act. That is Saddam Hussein. So all these resolutions that I talked about, great words. They are firm. But if the U.N. is not going to give meaning and definition to the words, who will? Who will stand up and exercise the might to make right? Once again, the United States, we have seen this before. We have been there before. We are going to do it again. I think about my comrades who find themselves on the desert floor. I remember very much what it was like. One thing I can share and to the mothers and fathers who have their loved ones who are about to be in harm's way is that not only has this Congress taken the appropriate resources to help train and equip these men and women over the last decade, this force is better than the force that I fought with in the Gulf War. I am so proud of them. When I see them, they give me chills. They represent the very best of America. I will never forget the scene in the Indianapolis airport of a young sailor who was getting ready to be shipped off, and he has his sisters with him, his very young brother, his parents are standing there and his grandparents are also standing there, and he is standing there in a sailor's uniform. His youngest brother is holding the sailor's cap as if it were a crown, and it is a scene unlike many scenes all across the country. Now this Congress has done its duty. It has been vigilant to make sure that this force is prepared. It will be highly lethal, it will be highly mobile, and it has very precise munitions. With regard to the enemy for which they are about to face, I remember the Iraqi people themselves, to include the conscripts. I interrogated many of them during the Gulf War. They do not like Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a very wealthy country, and Saddam only takes the wealth of that country to the benefit of a very few as he suppresses other tribes within Iraq. They do not like Saddam Hussein. One of the individuals I was interrogating had, under his blouse, I saw this red and blue sort of semicircle. I could not understand exactly what it was. I asked him to undo his blouse and it was a Chicago Cubs T-shirt. He had relatives that lived in Michigan, and they were fans of the Cubs, and so he tried to track the Chicago Cubs. One other story. In order to help bring calm and peace at the Western antiwar camp, we gave the Iraqi prisoners, over 46,000 of them, what they wanted to hear. They wanted to listen to Madonna. So we piped in Madonna music. They are more Western than one can imagine, and they do like America, and they do not like Saddam Hussein. With regard to the leadership, I came out of the interrogation tent. My interpreter at the time was former King Fahd's grandson, Bandar, and as I come out of this tent, there is an Iraqi general officer sitting on the desert floor. He is sitting there with his legs crossed. His elbows are on his knees. His hands are in his face, and he is weeping like a child so hard that his shoulders are actually shaking. I stood there and I looked at this and behind are his army. I walked up to the gentleman, and I kicked the sole of his boot. I then ordered him to stand at attention. Through the interpreter he tells the general man to stand up. I got really close to him, looked at him, asked if he was a general officer. He asked him and acknowledged and shook his head and said yes, and I told him then act like one. Now think about this scene. I am a United States Army captain, telling an Iraqi general officer how to act. Why? Why would a United States Army captain have to do such a thing? Because he was not a general officer because of his strategic mind and his tactics. He was a general officer because of his loyalties and relationships to Saddam Hussein. So, with regard to ``the enemy'' in which we are about to face, they are not led by great military minds. So it would be no wonder why the conscripts and others will fold quickly. I also believe that he was weeping, not for his men which stood behind him, he was weeping for himself because he knew that upon repatriation, Saddam Hussein would probably execute him. That is the repression of Saddam Hussein. The Kurds and the Shi-ites have been waiting a long time for this day. I know that in my own sense and feeling of having gone through what no differently that my ancestors have gone through for freedom and liberty in this country, I know about the consequences of war. I know about the long dark shadows of horror. I know about things that are unimaginable and things one does not speak of and things that we see we just cannot believe. War is inhumane toward mankind and I cannot believe in this day and age, for all of our sophistication and technological advances, that man still yet has not found a way to resolve our differences. The bottom line is this is not up to us. This is now up to Saddam Hussein. I still hold out the hope that there is a country out there that is willing to take him in and that we can actually move in peacefully and change the regime. That is my desire, that is my hope. It is my prayer and I know that the soldiers that are standing there feel the same way. They pray for peace, even though they are prepared for war because they are the ones that gave an oath to give their life to defend the Constitution and our very liberties and freedom. So let me end where we started, with the voice of dissent. I acknowledge the voice of dissent as constructive to the discussion. I find what is not constructive are those in an antiwar message that would also be ``un-American.'' Do not go out and burn the flag. Do not say and be obnoxious and do something stupid. If a person has got something that is constructive that can bring peace and tranquillity to this world, step forward and say it, but they can do so in a manner without being un-American or being disrespectful of individuals of whom have lost loved ones, or even have someone who finds themselves in harm's way in the very next few days. I think what we should do is go find something and send it to a soldier that is in the desert. Pick it out, support the troops that are over there. Believe me, it is a very lonely place, the Saudi Arabia and Iraqi and Kuwaiti desert. Just to glance upon the American flag is something that will give a chill because it is the only thing out there that that can strike a memory of home and of loved ones. I know that the decision that President Bush has in front of him is one that he understands the burden of the decision because he also understands the opportunity that the peace will bring, not only to the regional stability, but the opportunities and new alliances and greater heights for freedom.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, to support the gentleman's position on a preemptive strike, I think it has been clear that Saddam Hussein's efforts to circumvent the economic sanctions has proven itself very successful. Saddam has illegally imported hundreds of billions of dollars in goods, in violation of economic sanctions, and even outside of the U.N.'s oil for food program. For example, Iraq has imported a fiberoptic communications system that supports the Iraqi military. It has diverted dual use end items obtained under the oil-for-food program for military purposes. For example, Iraq diverted U.N.-approved trucks for humanitarian relief purposes for military purposes, and has used construction equipment to rebuild weapons of mass destruction-affiliated facilities. They came to Iraq under the dual use program. Saddam Hussein also has about $3 billion in illegal proceeds that he is able to use with these items. He is contracting with over 75 nations around the world, and he is giving priority contracts to France, Germany, and Russia in return for their support in this very difficult time. Does the gentleman have any comments he would like to add?

Mr. BUYER. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), since we talked about the present threat, let us spend a little time on what Saddam Hussein has done from 1991 to present. With regard to his repression of the Iraqi people themselves, there is his refusal to admit human rights monitors; continued torture; the executions and repression of political opposition; disappearances of people in the night; withholding of food and medicine in the food for peace program; the mass murder of Iraqi Kurds and Iraq Shi'a Muslims. He continues to support international terrorist organizations, which has been well known. He also has refused to account for Gulf War prisoners. In his failure to account, Saddam Hussein has been unwilling to come forward on 609 cases of missing Gulf War prisoners of war and missing in action representing 14 nationalities, including one American pilot. We also have Saddam Hussein failing to return and account for a large number of Kuwaiti citizens and citizens of other countries who were detained during the Iraqi occupation. Also, Saddam Hussein has refused to return stolen property from Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein has continued his efforts to circumvent the economic sanctions. So for those who are saying give peace a chance, let us let the economic sanctions work, are they working, I ask the gentleman from California?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I come to the floor as the proud son of an army sergeant, and I have a brother who is a colonel on active duty in the United States Army. Mr. Speaker, I have served our Nation for 22 years, in war and in peace, and I think of my comrades who now find themselves once again on the desert floor. And I think not only about them, but those who also control the sky, who own the sea, who will take control of the beachheads, and also those who will build the theater of operations and those who support them Stateside and in other countries dispersed around the world. I also come to the floor not only thinking of them, about also about the families that they leave behind, the loved one that keeps the watch fires burning, the children who are anxious for mom or dad to come home. While we think of them, I want the country to focus on two individuals that are helping set the pace, and that is the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). These are two individuals that lead the best bipartisan committee in the United States Congress; it is because of their leadership. The work that the gentlemen did after the Gulf War, all those hearings, all of their dedication to try to get the force structure right, to ensure the right munitions, to move from analog to digital, to make sure that the forces are highly mobile and very lethal, and that those munitions go downrange and hit their targets with precision, all that work the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) did will see great dividends. The world saw some of those dividends with regard to Afghanistan. The leadership of the gentlemen to make sure that those forces and special operations were trained and funded, believe me, it saved lives. So as today we want to pay respect and appreciation to those who find themselves in harm's way and to appreciate the sacrifice of the loved ones, I want to say thank you to the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the staff that work for them, because the things that they have done when nobody was watching is going to save lives not only in Afghanistan, it could be on the Horn of Africa, it could be in the deserts of Iraq once again. I cannot say enough to pay respect to both gentlemen for what they have done.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this measure. The only difference between human cloning to produce a cloned baby and human cloning for research is whether the cloned embryo is implanted in the uterus or destroyed. The scientific procedure to create the clone is the same. H.R. 534 would prevent cloned human embryos from being used as human guinea pigs. Without this legislation, human life could be copied, manufactured in a laboratory, in a petri dish, for the sole purpose of harvesting cells and then destroying the clone. The mass production of human clones solely for the purpose of human experimentation demeans us all. The simple, most effective way to stop this process is to ban it, deterring its use. H.R. 534 does nothing to prohibit appropriate scientific research. It fully permits research that clones molecules, or DNA, tissues, organs, plants, or non-human animals. So-called therapeutic cloning has not produced a single cure in animal models for any disease, nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials. In the area of human embryo cloning, the ends do not justify the means.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I could not resist this tribute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). When I think of many of America's heroes, individuals who were challenged, when you give your reflection, you know you were challenged. When America's children ask the questions: Who are our heroes? Do mentors still exist? Are there living idols? The answer is yes. Sam lived his life in such a manner that his character is formed with the virtues and values that have been tested. I am privileged to serve here in this body with him, and I know that he represents a lot of his comrades who served with him, some of whom were not the lucky ones because they did not get to come home. I know Sam holds them close to his breast in memory, along with their families. It is a true and distinct honor to serve in this body with you, Sam. Godspeed, my friend.