Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, in my home State of Indiana, our own no- call registry has been met with great success. While in Indiana there are over 6 million people, a little over 1.2 million phone lines in Indiana have registered to stop these unwanted telephone solicitations. I want to thank Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter for not only his leadership but also his persistence to succeed in this endeavor on behalf of consumers. I am very pleased that the Federal Government is now responding to the concerns of consumers with legislation that will work to restrict these unwanted callers. It is my understanding that Indiana's no-call registry is more stringent than the Federal guidelines that are presently being proposed. It is also my understanding that those agencies crafting the Federal no-call guidelines, the FTC and the FCC, have no intent to preempt State law. I would urge both agencies to abide by this understanding. Last July, I wrote a letter to FTC Chairman Muris asking that any creation of a Federal do-not-call registry would clearly express that the Federal rule would in no way preempt State law. And last month the entire Indiana delegation sent a letter to FCC Chairman Powell making the very same request. So while the creation of a national do-not-call registry delivers to the consumer the assurance that they may once again answer the phone in peace, I do hope that those States that have created their own do-not-call registries for the benefit of consumers will not be negatively affected in this rule-making process.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Lee amendment. This amendment is another abdication of the United States' leadership in the world. It is tantamount to saying that Congress should contract out decisions on national security to foreign governments: Paris, Beijing, Damascus. The United Nations is not an autonomous authority. It is a place to conduct diplomacy between nations. Our Nation's security and sovereignty are inextricably intertwined. We do not subrogate our sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States, as the sole remaining superpower, must have a policy of restraint to international conflict management, but we never give up our ability to act unilaterally in the world if we must move into a region to bring stability. This amendment ties the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. We should never, ever do that. The President has spoken prudently, talking about bilateral action, meaning bringing other nations with us. Those who have been speaking here for the last hour in support of this amendment have been talking as if the United States is somehow wanting to unilaterally march off to war. They use the phrase ``give peace a chance.'' Mr. Speaker, we are the peaceful Nation. We want to work cooperatively with other nations around the world, and that is what the President is going to do. So when my colleagues say ``give peace a chance,'' it has been 10 years. We have these 16 U.N. resolutions. Let us go back into this regime of the United Nations and weapons inspections. When we look at that, the U.N. was and is hesitant to back up the violations of these 16 U.N. resolutions. Their response has been tepid. Also, I would ask my colleagues to look with regard to how the inspectors were undermined, as Iraq would appeal directly to the sympathetic Council members and to the Secretary General. Iraq worked consistently to erode the credibility and the positions of these U.N. inspectors over the last 10 years. They would complain to the Security Council, and then the challenges of the claims of the weapons inspectors would suffice. Unfettered access was strictly a myth. Respect for Iraqi concerns relating to national security, sovereignty and dignity took precedence over the findings and destroying of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. Effectively, the actions of the Secretary General, when he intervened, made the Iraqis and the inspectors equal in presenting their case before the Security Council. With regard to Saddam Hussein's motive for having weapons of mass destruction, he believes that they are vital to his power. The regime has two experiences in which it feels its very survival is linked to the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz pointed out that hitting cities deep in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war with long-range missiles and countering human wave attacks with the massive use of chemical munitions saved Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, Baghdad believes that its possession of biological and chemical weapons during the 1991 Gulf War helped deter the United States from marching on to Baghdad. Now, that is their dimension. That is their understanding. So Saddam will do everything he possibly can to maintain a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. So this thing about give peace a chance, well, we have given peace a chance. The President has also used words of saying that military force will be the means of last resort. So I think the President has been very clear. We will show the United States has the resolve and power to stand up against Iraq, seek their compliance, force their word in their violations of the cease-fire; but if they do not, then the world will act and disarm Saddam Hussein and change the regime, if necessary, to bring peace and stability to the Middle East as a region. We should vote down the Lee amendment and support the sovereignty and national dignity of this country.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Defending America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is the first and fundamental purpose of the Federal Government. Once, it took countries of great economic wealth to field a powerful military, to threaten the United States, and to place our people in fear. The threat of this new century has now changed, because we have individuals that truly hate us and can use something as simple as box cutters to place our people in fear and terror. With regard to the threat of Saddam Hussein, it must be recognized for what it is: a deliberate and patient campaign by Saddam to terrorize free people and undermine the very foundations of liberty. I am sufficiently convinced without hesitation that Saddam represents a clear and present danger. As a Gulf War veteran, I am filled with emotion to contemplate that my comrades will once again be upon the desert floor. I submit that it is easier to be ordered to war than to vote that someone else may go in my place. However, now is the time for our Nation to in fact be vigilant and to authorize the President to preserve freedom through military action, if necessary, and to take our foreign policy as defense in depth. In many respects, this resolution represents a continuation of the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein agreed to provisions of the cease-fire. He has violated his cease-fire, he has been flagrant in his violations, and the hostility is now open and notorious. After a decade of denial, deception, and hostility toward the world, it is time to seek Iraq's compliance and, if necessary, remove this despotic dictator, his weapons of mass destruction, and the terrorists he supports and harbors. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party rule Iraq through terror and fear. I will share some personalized stories. Through interrogations at the enemy prisoner of war camp during the Gulf War, having done these interviews with Iraqi high command conscripts, I learned several things: number one, the Iraqi people do not like Saddam because he, in fact, keeps the great wealth to himself, keeps different tribes in ignorance, to the pleasure of his own tribe. In fact, one of the conscripts that I interrogated was scared to death of an American soldier. Why? Because they had been told that if you are captured by Americans, that you, in fact, would be quartered, your body would be quartered. Over 90,000 Iraqis that were held in two prisoner of war camps, I say to my colleagues, have had the opportunity to tell the stories of how well they were treated by Americans and, in fact, they called the prisoner of war camps ``the hotel.'' Let me tell about their leadership. Before the interrogation of a two-star Iraqi general, he was sitting with his legs crossed on the desert floor with his hands in his face weeping like a child. I had an interpreter with me. When I walked up, I kicked the bottom of his boot and, through the interpreter, I asked him to stand at attention. He stood up and I asked him if he was an Iraqi general. He responded and said yes, he was. Here I am, an American captain in the Army, and I told him, then if you are an Iraqi general, then act like one. Mr. Speaker, why would an Iraqi general be weeping upon the desert floor? Because Saddam hand-selects his general officers. They do not earn it. The men who serve in their military have not earned the trust and confidence. Also, what will be told is the lethality of American combat troops. They know exactly what happened in the short war of the gulf. The operations with regard to any military action that may occur in the Gulf War, I say to my colleagues, is so completely different than the operations of 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the Iraqi people because I also remember them. Do my colleagues know what their request was at the prisoner of war camp to bring calm? They just wanted to listen to Madonna. So that is what we did. We piped in Madonna. They wanted to listen to ``The Material Girl.'' Their culture is far more Westernized than we could ever imagine, and they like Americans. This is not against the Iraqi people. This is any action to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the cease-fire to disarm; and if, in fact, he does not, then force is the means of last resort. And the soldiers, while they prepare to fight and win the Nation's wars, they are the ones who have taken the oath to lay down their life for the Constitution, and they do not want to fight. In fact, they want peace. But if called upon, they, in fact, will serve. So I will vote for this resolution, and I will think about my comrades who may be placed in harm's way, and I also will think of the children that are left behind and the spouses who will keep the watch fires burning for their loved ones. Support the resolution.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act addresses three crucial interests of the medical device community and the patients and providers it serves. First, it has been recognized for some time that the Food and Drug Administration is not reviewing medical device applications in a timely fashion. For this to happen, FDA needs adequate resources to have personnel who have the necessary expertise to conduct reviews. This bill would address this matter by imposing user fees on the medical device community for the first time, to provide FDA additional funding for hiring and maintaining a highly skilled workforce and to implement infrastructure improvements. The FDA will also pledge to enhance its performance in reviewing and evaluating device applications. Second, the device community would like to see more utilization of expert third parties in quality assurance of facilities and manufacturing processes and review of applications. This measure will provide flexibility in regard to inspection while retaining FDA's authority in device manufacturing. Finally, the bill addresses concerns over the labeling and reuse of medical devices. On the whole I think this is a balanced bill. The agreement on these provisions was reached after much hard work and it is my view that all parties negotiated in good faith to achieve the best agreement. I am very appreciative of the adoption of several suggestions I have made to ensure that children are well served by this bill. I am pleased that the bill excludes from user fees those devices, both PMAs and 510(k)s, that are intended solely for a pediatric population. Hopefully this will provide some incentive for manufacturers to address needs in the pediatric population that cannot be met by devices used in adults. I must also express my concerns over the user fee provisions. While I will support the bill, I am troubled by the level at which the bill defines a ``small'' company. The bill recognizes that there are differences in large and small companies and their ability to pay user fees. The ``two-tiered'' approach to take in the application of user fees is the correct approach to take. However, the bill defines a ``small'' manufacturer as one with revenues of $10 million annually or less. This will capture only around 8 percent of medical device companies. In my opinion, this is too low and not adequate to meet the needs of small manufacturers. A more appropriate level for a ``small'' manufacturer would be around $25 to $30 million in annual revenue, companies that have 50-70 employees. The resources that must be invested in research and the testing necessary before a company even goes to FDA with an application is significant. There are individual innovators who have started companies based upon their own hard work and research. . . . modern day Thomas Edisons. While I would not say that they work out of their garages, it is true that many ideas and advances in technology have come from hard working individuals, who take the risk of starting their own medical device company. I do not want to have the federal government enact legislation that will stifle this innovation or make it impossible for the small companies to become big companies. This past summer, I met with the representatives of many small medical device manufacturers based in Indiana. All these companies wanted is a chance to develop their products and to compete. They are very willing to play by the rules of safety and effectiveness that we impose on all manufacturers as good public policy. But because of their more limited resources, they do not want to be disadvantaged from the big companies. I agree with their concerns and, therefore, I am troubled by the level set in this bill. Nonetheless, I intend to support the bill and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4600 because it strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of patients who have been harmed to seek redress and the needs of all patients to have access to health care. I note my colleague from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), was concerned about whether premiums would go down or not. I would welcome him to read the Congressional Budget Office's report that was ordered by the Committee on the Judiciary. CBO estimates that under this bill premiums for medical malpractice ultimately would go down on an average of 25 to 30 percent. So I would welcome the gentleman to read that. I also particularly support section 11 that provides flexibility to the States. I think that is smart to do that. Indiana has a very good law that has been in place for over 3 decades. It is comprehensive medical malpractice reform. The system works well. It has a medical review panel. It also limits recovery from lawyers. The total recovery is capped. Attorney's fees are capped. We have a compensation fund managed by the State, and injured patients receive compensation in a timely fashion. I would like to thank the chairman for permitting this flexibility in the bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3253, as amended, which reflects the House-Senate compromise that was reached. This legislation was originally introduced by Chairman Chris Smith to establish at least four medical emergency preparedness centers at designated VA medical centers. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in moving this important legislation towards final passage. I also want to thank Chairman Smith, members, and staff in both chambers for preserving H.R. 3254, the Medical Education for National Defense (MEND) for the 21st Century in the final package. That language is incorporated in Section 3 of H.R. 3253, as amended, and is entitled: Education and Training Programs on Medical Responses to Consequences of Terrorist Activities. Section 3 of H.R. 3253, as amended, would establish an education program to be carried out through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The education and training curriculum developed under the program shall be modeled upon the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine of the Department of Defense's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) core curriculum, which includes a program to teach its students how to diagnose and treat casualties that have been exposed to chemical, biological, or radiological agents. As a Nation, we must be prepared for the new face of terror that we have been forced to confront in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. What has become all too clear is that our health care providers are not resourced or trained with the proper tools to diagnose and treat casualties in the face of biological, radiological, and chemical weapons. It is imperative that such a program be disseminated to the Nation's medical professionals and current medical students. This section of the bill takes advantage of the nexus that already exists between the medical education community and the VA. Currently, 107 medical universities are affiliated with a VA medical center. This nexus is already in place and that is what we plan to exploit. The VA's extensive infrastructure of 163 medical centers, 800 clinics, and satellite broadcast capabilities, will enable the current and future medical professionals in this country to become knowledgeable and medically competent in the treatment of casualties that we all hope will never materialize. We cannot afford to assume that our country will never again experience a biological, chemical, or radiological attack on the American people. We must, as elected Representatives, act to ensure that if the worst of our fears are realized that the country's medical professionals will be ready and able to deal with these situations. It is not the intent of this legislation to create new community standards of practice. We must recognize that diseases such as smallpox, botulism, and the plague are not normally treated or recognized in this country. It is extremely important that all of our health care professionals are familiar with and able to diagnose and treat suspected exposure to weapons of mass destruction. The American Medical Association endorsed H.R. 3254, and the American Association of Medical Colleges has thrown its full support behind this plan. These two organizations know how vital it is to receive this important educational curriculum that addresses the medical aspects of biological chemical and radiological attacks, and they have recognized that the VA is in a unique position to assist with the dissemination of this information to the Nation's medical community. It is often said that knowledge is power, and in this instance nothing could be more accurate. The knowledge that would result from the implementation of this act is critical. Our medical professionals need to be offered training methods that would enable them to save lives . . . and I can think of no greater power than that. Please, join with me and support final passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act, and am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the legislation. With this legislation, we will organize and focus on the resources of the executive branch of the federal government on the task of ensuring the security and safety of our citizens inside our borders. While many of the functions of the new Department have been performed by dedicated federal employees for many years, such as insuring the quality of imported food and public health needs, a new dimension will be added to the tasks of the new Department: that of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing the vulnerability of the United States to further terrorist attacks. This is a high calling. I am pleased that the Select Committee maintained the transfer of the Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the new Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard will play a significant role in maintaining the security of our borders, the longest of which is our coastlines. It is also crucial that FEMA's expertise be tapped by the Department when plans are developed to respond quickly to the damage and recover of local communities. Let me also express my support for provisions in the legislation that give the new Department the authority to assist with the cybersecurity of information systems of federal agencies. The Secretary will have the duty to evaluate the security of federal systems; assist federal agencies with the identification of risks; and conduct research and development on security techniques. I commend the Majority Leader for working through the difficult issues in the creation of the new Department and I believe he has brought to the floor a product worthy of our consideration and passage.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, First, I want to thank our Full Committee Chairman Chris Smith and the Health Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran for all their hard work on the bills before us today. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3645, the ``Veterans Health Care and Procurement Improvement Act of 2002,'' introduced by Representative Lane Evans. H.R. 3645, as amended, would, among other things, provide for improved management of the purchasing of medical and surgical supply equipment through the Federal Supply Schedule as prescribed by the VA Procurement Task Force. The bill ensures that current and future VA-DOD sharing initiatives would not be impacted by passage of this measure. The legislation also increases health care benefits to certain World War If Filipino veterans; authorizes dental care and services for all former POWs; and provides the authority to allow DOD to purchase medical supplies through VA's revolving supply fund; provides for the renaming of the VA community outpatient clinic in New London, Connecticut by designating it as the John J. McGuirk outpatient clinic. There is one provision, in particular, that I would like to talk about. Section 7 of the bill provides for greater accountability for VA Research and Education Corporations. This provision is legislation I introduced, H.R. 5084, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Research Corporations Accountability Act of 2002,'' which was incorporated into H.R. 3645. I introduced H.R. 5084 because we need to insure that the strictest set of accounting measures are in place to make sure we know how funding to these corporations is being administered. It's important to point out that these corporations were established by Congress in 1988 to provide a flexible funding mechanism for approved research being performed at medical centers. Prior to giving VA this authority, any funding received from private sources,, such as pharmaceutical companies, was placed in a General Post fund. However, it became virtually impossible to track the funding stream. There was no way to identify the source of the funding, nor how the money was being spent. The impetus behind establishing the research corporations was to create an accounting mechanism whereby the VA would submit to Congress an annual report on the number and location of corporations established and the amount of contributions made to each such corporation. Earlier this year, the Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations and Health held a hearing on VA Research Corporations. We heard from the VA's Assistant Inspector General for Auditing that during the years 1994 through 1997, that his office published three reports which identified the need for stricter accountability and oversight with regard to the administration of funds by the Veterans Health Administration research corporations. For instance, in 1994, the IG audit of a million dollars of the $3.6 million in expenditures spent at three research corporations and identified approximately $625,000 that was spent on salaries of medical residents, staff travel not clearly related to research or administration. Funds were also spent for non- research related conferences, honorary gifts, awards, entertainment, other than non-research expenditures. This is just one example of how money can be misspent when in this case the corporation is not held accountable. Under current law, the VA nonprofit research corporations are required to provide Congress with an annual report summarizing their activities and accomplishments. These reports have turned out to be nothing more than bare bones financial statements. The VA Research Corporation Accountability Act amends section 7366 of Title 38 of the United States Code to require each VA corporation to submit a detailed statement that includes the corporation''s operations, activities, and accomplishments during the preceding year to the Secretary of the VA. The report should include the amount of funds received along with the source of funding; and an itemized accounting of all disbursements. Those corporations with funding in excess of $300,000 must obtain an audit of the corporation for that year, corporations with funding totaling less than $300,000 must obtain an audit every three years. These audits must be conducted by an independent auditor and shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. The VA's Inspector General will be required to randomly review audits to determine whether or not they were carried out in accordance with the auditing standards outlined in the legislation. My bill would also extend the life of the corporations by providing authority to establish such corporations until December 31, 2006. 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 the development of the first oral vaccine for smallpox. It is not my intention to prevent VA research from continuing to make great strides as it has in the past, but we must ensure that all research funds are directed with focus and accountability. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3645, which was favorably reported by the full VA committee and has widespread support among our nation's veterans.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Research Corporation Accountability Act of 2002.'' In 1988 Congress enacted Public Law 100-322, the Veterans' Benefits and Services Act, which included a provision that gave the VA the authority to establish nonprofit research corporations. This was done to provide a flexible funding mechanism for the conduct of approved research at medical centers. Prior to giving VA this authority any funding received from private sources such as pharmaceutical companies was placed in a General Post fund. However, it became virtually impossible to track the funding stream. There was no way to identify the source of the funding, nor how the money was being spent. The impetus behind establishing the research corporations was to create an accounting mechanism whereby the VA would submit to Congress an annual report on the number and location of corporations established and the amount of contributions made to each such corporation. Unfortunately, these reports have turned out to be nothing more than ledger sheets with numbers with little or no detail. Earlier this year, my Subcommittee held a hearing on VA Research Corporations and we heard from the VA's Assistant Inspector General for Auditing that during the years 1994 through 1997, that his office published three reports that identified the need for stricter accountability and oversight with regard to the administration of funds by the Veterans Health Administration research corporations. For instance, in 1994, the IG audit of a million dollars of the $3.6 million in expenditures spent at three research corporations and identified approximately $625,000 that was spent on salaries of medical residents, staff travel not clearly related to research or administration. Funds were also spent for non-research related conferences, honorary gifts, awards, entertainment, other than non- research expenditures. This one but one example of how money can be misspent when in this case the corporation is not held accountable. Under current law, the VA nonprofit research corporations are required to provide Congress with an annual report summarizing their activities and accomplishments. These reports have turned out to be nothing more than bare bones financial statements. The legislation I have introduced today amends section 7366 of Title 38 of the United States Code to require each VA corporation submit a detailed statement that includes the corporation's operations, activities, and accomplishments during the preceding year to the Secretary of the VA by not later than March 1 of each year. The report should include the amount of funds received along with the source of funding; and an itemized accounting of all disbursements. Those corporations with funding in excess of $300,000 must obtain an audit of the corporation for that year, corporations with funding totaling less than $300,000 must obtain an audit every three years. These audits must be conducted by an independent auditor and shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. The VA's Inspector General will be required to randomly review audits to determine whether or not they were carried out in accordance with the auditing standards outlined in the legislation. My bill would also extend the life of the corporations by providing authority to establish such corporations until December 31, 2006. 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 the development of the first oral vaccine for smallpox. It is not my intention to prevent VA research from continuing to make great strides as it has in the past, but we must ensure that all research funds are directed with focus and accountability.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, it took me 3 years to redesign the pharmacy benefit of military health delivery system. As the only Member of this body in this Congress to offer a prescription drug bill that has been passed and signed into law, I want to share a few observations. Number one, I want to thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) because we worked in a bipartisan fashion, something that has not occurred here. Secondly, we were able to modernize a program without dulling the cutting edge of new prescription drugs. Missing from this debate is the celebration of capitalization, a free enterprise system that avails the great minds of the world, the incentives to form at-risk entities to push the bounds of modern medicine and pharmacology to the benefit of our people and the improvements in their quality of life. Please do not demonize these scientists and those in the medical community. Americans are living longer with many chronic illnesses. Why? Because modern medicine and the best health care system in the world is giving them that chance. Access to these drugs is what is important. That is what the Republican drug plan is going to do. Please vote for this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 217. I inadvertently voted ``yea.'' I meant to vote ``no.'' I have been a strong supporter of eliminating the death tax.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for their diligence and hard work on the conference report. Also after September 11 as we were coming together to put together a bioterrorism bill, Chairman Tauzin gave me an assignment. Given my expertise with regard to the Department of Defense military health delivery system and the VA, it was to actually draft a medical education piece, a component of this bill. The expertise with regard to how to identify and treat chemical and radiological agents and biological toxins and pathogens rests with the Department of Defense. We have taken this knowledge from the DOD and moved it into the VA because of the VA's nexus as teaching hospitals. We are not going to establish new community standards of medical practice, that is what is extremely important here, but we are going to make sure that our first responders, our doctors, are able to identify and treat these new threats in the future. That is what this bill does. I want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from Michigan for their hard work at the conference, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). I appreciate their work.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3253, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Research, Education, and Bio-Terrorism Prevention Act of 2002,'' introduced by Chairman Chris Smith. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in moving this legislation forward. H.R. 3253 will establish at least four medical emergency preparedness centers at designated VA medical centers. These centers will be charged with carrying out research related to bio-terrorist activities such as the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of chemical, biological, and radiological threats posed by these agents. Section 3 incorporates legislation that I introduced--H.R. 3254, the ``Medical Education for National Defense (MEND) Act in the 21st Century.'' I want to thank Chairman Smith for incorporating this language into H.R. 3253. I also want to thank the members who cosponsored my original piece of legislation, Chairman Smith, and Representatives Michael Bilirakis, John McHugh, Vic Snyder, Cliff Stearns, Dave Weldon, Robert Underwood, Mark Kirk, and Ellen Tauscher. This provision would establish an education program to be carried out through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The education and training curriculum developed under the program shall be modeled after the F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine of the Department of Defense's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) core curriculum, which includes a program that teaches its students how to diagnose and treat casualties that have been exposed to chemical, biological, or radiological agents. As a nation, we must be prepared for the new face of terror as we confront the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. What has become all too clear is that our health care providers are neither resourced nor trained with the proper tools to diagnose and treat casualties in the face of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is imperative that a program be disseminated to the nation's medical professionals and current medical students. This bill takes advantage of the nexus that already exists between the medical education community and the VA. Currently, 107 medical universities are affiliated with a VA medical center. This nexus is already in place and that is what we plan to tap into. The VA's extensive infrastructure of 163 medical centers, 800 clinics, and satellite broadcast capabilities, will enable the current and future medical professionals in this country to become knowledgeable and medically competent in the treatment of casualties that we all hope they will never materialize. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to assume that our country will never again experience a biological, chemical, or radiological attack on the American people. We must, as elected Members, sent by our constituents to Washington to represent their interests, act to ensure that if the worst of fears are realized, our medical professionals will be ready and able to deal with these situations. It is not the intent of this legislation to create new community standards of practice. We must recognize that diseases such as smallpox, botulism, and the plague are not normally seen around the country. I think it is extremely important that we disseminate the expertise that we have, so that doctors, in their diagnostic analysis, begin to think about other things from what they normally see in their family practices. The American Medical Association endorsed H.R. 3254, and the American Association of Medical Colleges has thrown its full weight behind this plan. These two organizations know how vital it is to receive an educational curriculum, and they have recognized that the VA is in a unique position to be able to disseminate this information to the Nation's medical community. It is often said that knowledge is power, and in this instance nothing could be truer. The knowledge resulting from the implementation of this act is critical. Our medical professionals need to be exposed to training methods that would enable them to save lives . . . and I can think of no greater power than that. Please, join with me and support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act, H.R. 4737. In keeping with the strong welfare reform principles outlined by President Bush, this legislation would reauthorize a very successful program that encourages personal responsibility and work. H.R. 4737 builds upon the successful reforms instituted in 1996 that I was pleased to support. Welfare rolls have sharply declined since reform was enacted in 1996. Poverty rates have declined, employment rates have climbed and wages have increased. H.R. 4737 will build on those successes. This legislation will maintain full funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), increase funding by $2 billion for improved child care programs over the next 5 years, increase State flexibility in use of welfare funding, and promote individuals in job preparation, work, and marriage. Building on the successful work requirements of the 1996 reform, H.R. 4737 requires welfare recipients to work 40 hours per week, either at a job or in a program designed to help them gain independence. This is important legislation in the monumental task of bringing Americans out of poverty into independence by raising expectations for work and personal responsibility. H.R. 4737 will further strengthen this nation's economy and workforce to prepare all our citizens for the future. I urge the House to approve this legislation so that the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act can be reauthorized without delay.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for all his hard work. I served with the gentleman when he chaired the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I think it is appropriate that this defense bill is named after him. And I would say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), you two together have put before this Congress another quality product on behalf of the men and women who serve our Nation. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), as chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I co-chaired the Guard and Reserve Caucus for many years, and serve in that caucus, and a big part of our mark was accepted, just like the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) used to do for us, and there are so many Guard and Reserve. There are so many things for the active force. So it is not only the procurement mark, but also military construction, and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) did with regard to end strength, I thank the gentlemen. It is a very good mark. I ask all Members to support the product of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It is quality work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546; the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. America is at war, our military personnel are in harm's way, and our Nation is facing dangerous and difficult threats. September 11, 2001, now marks the most lethal single attack on the United States in our Nation's history. The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act demonstrates strong bipartisan commitment to America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are fighting the global war against terrorism. President George W. Bush stated and I quote, Nothing is more important than the national security of our country, nothing is more important. So nothing is more important than our defense budget. I strong agree. This National Defense Authorization Act goes beyond the President's request to improve homeland security, support U.S. service members, and increase military readiness and modernization. It is fitting that this Defense Authorization Act; the largest real increase to defense spending since 1966; be named after my good friend, Chairman Bob Stump. I have had the privilege of working along side Bob, and the opportunity to witness his steadfast support of our Nation's military. We share the same values and beliefs; duty, honor, courage, and commitment to God, country, family, and our fellow man. His leadership will be missed. Equally fitting is the support H.R. 4546 provides to addressing the needs of the National Guard and Reserves. Today, there are over 80,000 Reservists and National Guard personnel on active duty from 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico supporting the global war on terrorism. They are a critical component of the total force and vital for our homeland's security. On behalf of Congressman Taylor and myself as cochairs of the National Guard & Reserve Components Caucus, we extend our thanks to the subcommittee chairman and ranking members for their support to the National Guard and Reserves. The National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, representing 158 Members of Congress, has organized member support for legislative initiatives dealing with Reserve Components, operations, programs, and policies. Now in its seventh year, the Reserve Components Caucus, has a proven history of working with and assisting the House Armed Services Committee. H.R. 4546 goes a long way to support National Guard and Reserve personnel, readiness, modernization, and military construction. National Guard and Reserve Force personnel strength is increased by adding more than 2,450 full-time military personnel to support the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. Additionally, it increases Naval Reserve unit strength by 800 part-time military personnel. H.R. 4546 also addresses significant personnel, compensation and benefits improvements including a minimum 4.1 percent pay raise for all active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel. It extends the eligibility period for Selected Reservists' use of the Montgomery GI bill an additional 4 years. H.R. 4546 also directs a comprehensive study of the rights, benefits and entitlements of Reservists and their dependents. National Guard and Reserve quality of life improvements in this Defense Authorization Act also include over $510 million for military construction. National Guard and Reserve Equipment requirements still reflect a $9 billion shortfall, however, H.R. 4546 provides over $470 million for Guard and Reserve equipment procurement above the President's Budget submission. On behalf of the Reserve Components Caucus, I thank Chairman Weldon for his support in improving Guard and Reserve modernization. This bill sends a strong signal to the world and recognizes the sacrifice and unselfish commitment of our service men and women in protecting America's cherished freedoms and liberties. In short, this bill says to the American people that military service; active and reserve service, is critical for our Nation's security. It is clearly another giant step in our continued efforts to improve quality of life, modernize the force, and improve readiness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. To those who have walked into this body and were going to support the Buyer-Towns amendment to the Conyers-Cannon amendment, let me share what I believe is about to happen and what I believe Members should do. If they support the Buyer-Towns amendment, vote no on the previous question; vote no on the previous question, vote yes when I have the opportunity to amend the recommit after the previous question is defeated. So they will vote yes on the Buyer-Towns amendment to the recommital, vote yes on the amended motion to recommit, and vote yes on final passage.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the yielding of time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BUYER. It would be in order. I thank the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BUYER. This is the Cannon amendment that the gentleman is offering on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, while we were in the Committee of the Whole I asked a question of the Chairman which he said he could not answer. At that time, under the rule an amendment was designated. Neither the author nor a designee offered that amendment. Therefore, the Buyer-Towns amendment could not be offered. The Conyers-Cannon amendment is now being considered in the recommittal motion, so the only opportunity that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and I now have procedurally would be to defeat the previous question, and then in the motion to recommit we make an amendment to the recommittal motion. Would that be in order?

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts, is this the Cannon amendment?

Mr. BUYER. It is not. So the Members have to stay here during the reading of this amendment?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am hopeful that no one does object. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.