Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. When I look back now at the 1990s, I say as Congress sought to react to some of the personnel problems, we repealed the reduction, we reformed the retirement system, we made reforms in the pay tables, we increased military pay, we addressed the health care, we addressed the food stamp issue, so we focused a lot on personnel and people. Now we need to focus on all that deferred maintenance that is going to come crashing down upon us. And shame on us if we do not focus on it, because the gentleman is absolutely right, it is the water lines, it is the pipes, it is the roofs, it is the equipment, it is the automobiles, and the list goes on and on. I am most hopeful that it is something that the administration will be leaning forward on.

Mr. BUYER. The gentleman is bringing a defense bill to the floor next week. What are the major themes of that defense bill?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment eliminating the oxygenates requirement in reformulated gasoline. If this amendment is adopted, it will be bad for the environment, bad for consumers, and bad for our energy policy. Stand for clean air, clean water, and help our farmers. The supporters of the amendment are concerned about the fuel additive MTBE and its pollution of drinking water, and they have a right to be concerned. But we should not throw out the oxygenate requirement just because of the MTBE problems, especially when there is plenty of clean- burning low-cost ethanol to meet the requirement. There are plenty of corn growers prepared to help. Some people are saying that using ethanol will lead to shortages and higher prices. I would like to put their minds at ease and assure them, there is plenty of ethanol to go around, and ample shipping and storing capacity to accommodate the additional 600 million gallons of ethanol California will need. In fact, by 2003, more than 2 billion gallons of new ethanol production capacity will be online. Mr. Chairman, the oxygen requirement is important to protect our environment. The use of ethanol to meet the requirement is good energy policy. It would help save America's family farms. Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Issa

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey-Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to further increases in CAFE standards, and in defense of the common sense compromise that the Energy and Commerce Committee has included in the energy bill. Like most everyone, I support fuel conservation. Conservation can reduce dependence on foreign oil and enhance environmental protection. That's why the Committee developed a compromise that sets an achievable conservation goal while protecting jobs and safety. The compromise would produce substantial fuel savings by setting a goal of saving 5 billion gallons between 2004 and 2010. This is a good and balanced compromise. But some want to go beyond this compromise and set a new CAFE number. This would be a big mistake because this amendment will jeopardize jobs and public safety. Proponents of the amendment also seem to disregard these safety concerns. A strong and growing body of evidence indicates that increased CAFE standards result in increased traffic deaths. We shouldn't pass these kinds of huge increases without fully understanding or considering these safety concerns. Let's conserve fuel, but let's do it safely. Support the Committee's compromise, oppose further CAFE increases.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001. I also wish to extend my compliments to the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); also the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and also recognition to my Gulf War comrade, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). I am especially pleased with the compensation provision for Vietnam and Gulf War veterans. For too long the Vietnam veterans have been waiting for VA to recognize illnesses like diabetes melitus for compensation and pension benefits. I also clearly recall as a freshman in this Chamber in the 103rd Congress, it having only been a few months since I returned from the Persian Gulf, having to fight for my colleagues just to receive their medical attention as a result of military service. The concerns and appreciation of the country for their service was real, but the medical science to link causation to service in the Gulf War was severely lacking. In 1994, I recall Joe Kennedy and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and myself introducing something very radical. It was called compensation for an undiagnosed illness. As we were downsizing the military, we wanted to make sure that these Gulf War veterans received their medical attention, yet they were also in economic dire straits. So we also wanted to make sure their families were taken care of as we then focused and put millions of dollars into medical research to press the bounds of science. The VA then struggled with our initiatives. What they then learned was, simply put, that the VA over the last several years has narrowly interpreted congressional intent to provide for sick veterans with disability compensation that they so dearly earned and should receive. The VA failed to consider illnesses like fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and chronic multisymptom illnesses and other illnesses that cannot be clearly defined as having been attributed to service in the Persian Gulf. I am especially pleased that this bill will include a list of symptoms that the VA must recognize as being a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness. This bill will help clarify Congress's intent with regards to the benefits of sick Persian Gulf War veterans. I fully support this bill and look forward to referring the measure to the Senate.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute and in support of the gentleman from Florida's Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Members in opposition are using the substitute amendment and are trying to confuse the issue with medical research and stem cell research. The underlying bill bans cloning human beings. It is straightforward and narrowly drawn. It prohibits somatic cell nucleus transfer. The underlying bill does nothing to hinder medical research and in fact, it specifically permits technology to clone tissue, DNA, and non-embryonic cells in humans, and cloning of plants and animals. I urge my colleagues not to confuse a straightforward ban on banning cloning of human beings, with medical research. H.R. 2505 would prohibit human cloned embryos from being used as human guinea pigs. Without this legislation, human life could be copied, manufactured in a laboratory, in a petri dish. Cloned embryos would be devoid of all sense of humanity, treated as objects. 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. In the area of human embryo cloning, the end does not justify the means. I urge the defeat of the substitute and the adoption of H.R. 2505.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman. I rise to commend the chairman and ranking member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee for the funding levels in this bill for veterans programs. This measure provides $51.4 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and fully funds Veterans Medical Health Care by providing a $1 billion increase over last year. This increase comes on the heels of a $3.1 billion funding level for VA health care over the last two years. This funding is crucial to the veterans facilities in my district in Marion and Crown Point, and more importantly, to the veterans who utilize these facilities. This measure also increases veterans medical and prosthetic research by $20 million over FY02, to bring the FY02 funding to $371 million. The measure fully funds current and new cemetery operations and the National Shrine Initiative. It fully funds cost of living increases in compensation and pensions. The bill provides $300 million in new funding for the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act, which passed this House on March 27. Over the last several years, Congress has worked hard to ensure that veterans and their families receive the benefits they have earned. As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I continue to stress and advocate adequate funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet the standards and quality of health care that our veterans deserve. At a time when medical costs are rising and aging veterans health care needs are increasing, I am pleased that this Chamber continues to provide the necessary funding for veterans programs. The increase in funding is a testament to our commitment to the men and women who have served our nation proudly, sacrificing so much for the good of our country. I fully support this legislation on behalf of our nation's veterans, knowing that it is well deserved. This is a good bill for our veterans and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moran amendment. I support an instant check system for the purchase of a firearm. But instant should mean instant. Legal purchasers of firearms should not have their names and addresses floating around in some government computer. The Attorney General has underway efforts to make improvements in the National Instant Check System. The check system is only as good as the records it contains. The Attorney General is seeking to make the records in the system more complete and to increase the response level of the system. The Attorney General is directing the Justice Department to conduct a comprehensive, state-by-state review of missing or incomplete criminal history records, including adjudication records of cases of mental illness and domestic violence. This is appropriate. The Attorney General has also pledged to increase the enforcement of the law for those who falsify information in order to obtain a firearm. From 1994 through June 5th of this year, the FBI referred 217,000 attempted illegal gun purchases for investigation. Of these only 294 people have been convicted. I applaud the Attorney General's pledge to enforce our gun laws aggressively. But law abiding firearms purchasers should also be convinced of the background check system's integrity. Once a legal purchaser has cleared the instant check system, that should be the end of it. The Attorney General seeks improvements in the system so that the records of lawful approved gun purchases will be kept until the next business day after the transfer is approved to allow for real-time audits to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the results, a standard recommended by the computer industry. The Moran amendment seeks to reverse the improvements the Attorney General is seeking to make. Oppose the Moran amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moran amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 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. I have seen our flag on a distant battlefield. I understand what it represents . . . the physical embodiment of everything that is great and good about our Nation. It represents 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 no coincidence that when foreigners wish to criticize America, they burn the American flag. I am sure we all remember the searing images of the flag of our Embassy in Iran which was torn from its pole and burned on the street. They burned the flag because it is not just some piece of cotton or nylon with pretty colors. 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 made it home. Across the river from here is a memorial to the valiant efforts of our soldiers 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 a symbol worth defending. I urge the adoption of the flag protection amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I object.

Mr. BUYER. I object.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, there are some concerns that have been raised here by the DEA. They sent a letter to the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), dated July 11, 2001, which I will refer to and have placed in the record. When you look at the actual language, two of the concerns that they raise in the debate here today is this issue of appearance. Under the present law, the FDA can stop drugs at the border if they appear not to be approved. That is sensible and workable. But the new Gutknecht amendment shifts the burden. The Gutknecht amendment says the FDA cannot stop a drug if it appears to be in compliance. If it appears to be in compliance. Then it goes even one step further. It says you cannot prevent an individual who is not in the business of importing a prescription drug. This is going to be a safe haven for defense lawyers. They are going to love this. They are going to attack a lot of cases. Let me refer here to the DEA. DEA says, you know, this will create an undue burden on law enforcement to require the government to prove that someone is in the business of importing prescription drugs before even commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons will simply claim they are ``not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' in order to stifle investigations of potential criminal activity. Mr. Chairman, we try to create laws with the best of intentions, and we create loopholes in the process, because sometimes there are things that get beyond us. The last thing we want to do is to send a signal to the international drug cartels, stop hiding your cocaine and your heroin. I tell you what, just put it in the form of an aspirin, label it, and it will come into the country. That is the wrong thing that we do not want to do. I think this is a well-intentioned amendment, but completely misguided. Please vote against the Gutknecht amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC, July 11, 2001. Hon. W.J. Tauzin, Chairman, Hon. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Dingell: Thank you for asking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to comment on two certain proposed amendments to H.R. 2330. In furtherance of the efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the DEA is pleased to address the importation of drugs in the United States and submits the following comments on the proposed amendments. These proposed amendments would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from using any of its funds received under the Agriculture Appropriations Act to enforce certain provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that pertain to the importation of prescription drugs. We oppose both of these proposed amendments because they would hinder the ability of federal law enforcement officials to ensure that drugs are imported into the United States in compliance with long-standing federal laws designed to protect the public health and safety. One of the proposed amendments would prohibit the FDA from using any of its appropriated funds to prevent a person ``who is not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' from importing from certain specified countries ``FDA-approved'' prescription drugs that are not controlled substances. This proposal would be in conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is DEA's governing statute. The basic foundation of the CSA is the ``closed'' system of distribution of controlled substances, under which all persons in the legitimate distribution chain (manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers) must be registered with DEA and maintain strict accounting for all transactions. This regulatory scheme, administered by DEA, is designed to prevent diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels. However, DEA can maintain no control over the distribution chain and prevent diversion where American consumers purchase their drugs abroad. Somewhat similarly, the law that the FDA administers (the FDCA), cannot be effectuated where American consumers purchase their drugs abroad. Among the ways that the FDCA protects the American public is by requiring good manufacturing practices, proper labeling, and safe handling to prevent adulteration. There is no way to ensure such protections to American consumers if they are allowed to purchase drugs from foreign sellers without FDA oversight. We recognize that the proposed amendment states that it does not apply to controlled substances. However, despite this wording, the proposed amendment would provide a potential loophole that could be exploited by traffickers in controlled substances. Every day, prescription drugs, including controlled substances, are illegally shipped into the United States by mail or private carrier. Those who ship controlled substances in this fashion do not label their packages as containing controlled substances. Under the proposed amendment, drug traffickers could send shipments of controlled substances into the United States marked ``FDA- approved noncontrolled substance'' and the FDA would be powerless to take any investigative steps or to assist the United States Customs Service (USCS) or DEA in intercepting these illegal shipments. An additional concern with the proposal is the use of the phrase ``an individual who is not in the business of importing prescription drugs.'' This terminology is vague, impractical, and inconsistent with that used historically in American drug laws. The FDCA and the CSA have always used the concept of ``registration.'' Under the FDCA, only those manufacturers registered with the FDA may import prescription drugs. Under the CSA, persons must be registered with DEA to import controlled substances. Moreover, it would be an undue burden on law enforcement (and a benefit to traffickers) to require the government to prove that someone is ``in the business of importing prescription drugs'' before even commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons would simply claim they are ``not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' in order to stifle investigation of potential criminal activity. As with the proposed amendment described above, another proposal would likely be exploited by drug traffickers. This proposal would prevent the FDA from enforcing section 801(d)(1) of the FDCA (21 USC 381(d)(1)), which prohibits the reimportation into the United States of prescription drugs, except by the manufacturer of the drug. Under this proposal, a drug trafficker could stymie legitimate efforts by the FDA to assist in preventing illegal drug shipments into the United States simply by attaching a deceptive label to the shipment (e.g., by labeling a shipment of controlled substances as containing ``FDA-approved, reimported prescription drugs''). DEA, FDA and the USCS are currently facing enforcement challenges on many fronts with respect to prescription drug importation and smuggling. Information obtained from the USCS indicates that there is an increased volume of prescription drugs being imported through the mail as a result of the Internet. Although the CSA clearly prohibits importation of controlled substances in this manner, the FDA and USCS must inspect each package to ascertain the contents. Identifying a drug by its appearance and labeling is not an easy task. From a practical standpoint, inspectors cannot examine drug products and accurately determine the identity of such drugs or the degree of risk they pose to the individual who will use them. This is particularly true since these drugs are often intentionally mislabeled. Shipments from countries identified in the section 804(f) of the FDCA have been the source of a large amount of controlled substances that have been illegally imported. Additionally, the USCS inspectors on the southern and northern borders must determine whether each traveler entering the United States with a drug is complying with the FDCA and the CSA. By preventing the FDA from enforcing certain provisions of the FDCA regarding the importation of drugs, these amendments could be a windfall for criminals, giving them a new way to hide their activities behind a new restriction on law enforcement. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the foregoing amendments to H.R. 2330. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If we may be of additional assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the presentation of this report. Sincerely, William B. Simpkins, Acting Administrator.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I do agree on one thing with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). This amendment is important. It is important because if it passes, people will die, and that is no exaggeration. Why would we ever want to permit a system that is one of the best in the world, like the FDA, which ensures that we have drug safety in our Nation, why do we want to open it up so we are not able to have that gold standard that a former colleague talked about? When people see an FDA-approved drug, they know about the efficacy and safety of that particular drug. The Food and Drug Administration and the Customs Service have testified as recently as June 7th that ``Drugs being imported from outside the United States pose considerable risk to consumers because they may be counterfeit, expired, superpotent, subpotent, simply tainted, or mislabeled.'' American consumers should not have to worry that the drugs they take may be adulterated, just as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said, with yellow highway paint, which the FDA has found with imported drugs. Defeat the Sanders amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the opening prayer for today's House session has been given to us by Pastor Larry Ferguson. Pastor Ferguson ministers at Christ Church in Plymouth, of Marshall County, Indiana, where he has been a Senior Pastor for 6 years with his wife Kathy, and the Pastor's son Darin, and his wife Kathy, who is also in the United States Air Force and is present in the gallery today. Pastor Ferguson preached his first sermon as a freshman in high school and later completed 4 years of training for the ministry at Cincinnati Bible Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio. Since that time, he has been involved in providing spiritual nourishment to many. Whether it is in providing leadership as a principal to a Christian school, giving guidance to Christian churches who are struggling, or nurturing the health of marriages and families, Pastor Ferguson has been following the Biblical admonition to ``heal the broken-hearted.'' Pastor Ferguson has also used his talents to proclaim the Gospel through song and over the airwaves in Christian radio ministry. For 35 years, Pastor Ferguson has been ministering, and he has touched more lives than he may ever know. I am thankful for his prayer today, and in his prayer I agree that in this House, we do quest for the greater understanding.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. H.R. 1291 increases the amount of educational benefits available under the Montgomery GI Bill for an approved program of education on a full-time basis from the current monthly rate of $650 for a minimum three-year enlistment to $1,100 over three years. The benefits for a two-year active enlistment and four years in the Reserves, currently $528, will rise to $894 over three years. This legislation is truly important. Over the last decade, benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill have not kept pace with the rising cost of a college education. In fact, the Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated that roughly 50 percent of eligible veterans do not use the GI Bill education benefits that they are entitled to. Veterans repeatedly cite the lack of buying power of the Montgomery GI Bill as one of the reasons for not using this benefit. The bill will help hundreds of thousands of veterans, service members, and their families who take advantage of the Montgomery GI Bill. Equally important, this bill will ultimately strengthen our national defense by helping to improve the military's recruiting efforts. The original GI Bill of 1944 is widely regarded as one of the most important pieces of social legislation ever passed by Congress. Like that original bill and its later versions, this bill makes higher education and training more affordable to military personnel returning to civilian life. Again, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res 154, honoring National Guard Combat units deployed in support of operations in Bosnia. I know the commitments and sacrifice that the citizen soldiers and their families must make in supporting the defense of this great nation. I have done my share of traveling and I have visited with my fellow soldiers in the National Guard, both in my congressional capacity and in my Reserve capacity. As such, I am well aware how the National Guard contributes to national security. Believe me, it is a story that needs to be shared with hometown USA, and more importantly, with Members of Congress. Today's National Guard is an essential component of the Total Force. No longer a force in reserve; the National Guard is integral to all operations today. In fact, it is a force in readiness. Because the military today cannot perform its missions without the support and augmentation of the National Guard, it is being used more frequently, and to a greater extent than ever before. Since we started sending soldiers to Bosnia in 1995, the National Guard has assumed an every increasing role in that deployment. In fact, the Bosnia operation marks a pivotal point in this nation's military history. It marks the first time that a National Guard division headquarters served as the command and control element of Active Army component and multi-national forces in the Post Cold War. This is truly remarkable! According to the Department of Defense, our NATO partners, and the population in Bosnia, one cannot tell the difference between the National Guardsmen, and the soldiers of the active component. By any measure, our National Guard personnel have performed extremely well, completing vital missions and bringing critical, and in some cases unique, skills to this operation. Operations in the Balkans are proof that our reserve forces cannot be viewed as low priority units for manpower, equipment, and funding. That is a luxury we cannot afford. H. Con. Res. 154 is a reminder to all of us in this body, to all the leaders in the Pentagon, and to all Americans that the National Guard is critical to the defense of this nation, and we must support our reserve component forces if we hope to be victorious in the future. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to come to the well today to learn that President Bush is proposing to cease live combined arms training on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques by 2003. In short, the President and his administration are ignoring the issue of military readiness and national security. In opinion editorials, congressional testimony and official DOD press releases, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Jones, and the former Chief of Naval Operation, Jay Johnson, repeatedly stressed to the Clinton administration the importance of combined arms training at Vieques. Their simple and continued message has been very clear: ``Without Vieques, the Second Fleet cannot train, evaluate, or certify Battle Group/Amphibious Ready Group teams for combat operations.'' In fact, Admiral Johnson testified in a hearing in 1999 that ``Vieques is not only the sole training facility on the East Coast that offers crucial combined live arms training, the range also serves as a model for the world because it offers the ability to conduct actual time synchronization of air, ground, surface, and subsurface components with live ordnance.'' Even former President Clinton's special panel on military operations on Vieques concluded that ``the separation of certain aspects of current training into their component parts cannot replicate the ideal solution that has been available by the integration of all operational activities at Vieques.'' Meanwhile, it appears that this decision will and could perhaps put American men and women at risk in the future. Why? Because it denies them the necessary combined arms training needed to succeed in combat operations. From World War II through our most recent crisis in Kosovo, our Nation's military has been able to meet our Nation's call to arms because of the preparation we afford them at training ranges all over the world but in particular here at Vieques. History has taught us the success or failure of our Nation's military and the risk of loss of life is a direct function of the preparation we afford them prior to combat. Closing the Vieques training range will result in a significant loss of critical combat training, which is essential to our Navy and Marine forces. Whether it was the Gulf War, that I participated in, or other military operations, we are beginning to dull our own Nation, as if we can place our men and women at risk and somehow, if we are able to conduct these operations with standoff weapons, that there will be no risk of life. We should fall upon our knees and thank the military leaders, those tough NCOs that are out there, those master sergeants, those lieutenants and company commanders who are doing the tough training, because that is what saves lives on the battlefield. And when they train on the ground, it has to be coordinated not only from the sea but also from the air for a combined operation. I was on the island of Vieques. They need to be able to land the Marines, and the Marines landing need to be able to call in; whether it is naval gunfire, whether it is artillery, or whether calling in from the ship to air, the air to land, but all coordinated on one point. Why? To increase the lethality. Now that sounds brutal, but what is fighting our Nation's wars about? It is bringing lethality to a particular point in time so we can win on the battlefield. So I am very disappointed that someone down at the White House or others have made judgments without being very good listeners to our military planners, and I appeal, I appeal to the administration to rethink what they have done here. There is absolutely no substitute for training with live ammunition. Do not succumb to the temptation that live fire combined with arms training on Vieques can be duplicated elsewhere or overemphasize simulation technology. While simulation is valuable training, our servicemen and women will ultimately be playing Nintendo and think that that is war. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the President of the United States, this Congress, and the American people about the essence of combat operations. In short, combat is to close with and destroy the enemy by firepower and maneuver and/or close combat. This applies to all aspects of military operations, whether it is air, whether it is on land, or whether it is sea. It is dirty, it is ugly business, and war fighting requires the confidence and ability to handle live fire.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I thank both gentleman for coming to the House floor with this bipartisan legislation, and I also want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his eloquent words. I think he said it very well, and I feel sort of awkward here following him. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor who I believe is one of the most distinguished men ever to represent the State of Indiana in the United States House of Representatives, my dear friend and former Congressman, Elwood Haynes Bud Hillis. Those of us that know this gentleman the best, I suppose, all refer to him as ``Bud.'' Bud honorably and effectively served the people of Indiana's fifth district in the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1986, 16 years of dedicated service to his country. During his time in the House of Representatives, he was a reasonable and authoritative voice on matters of national security, trade, and veterans' issues. He is a graduate of Indiana's Culver Military Academy, and he enlisted to fight in World War II at the age of 18. He served as an infantryman in the European Theater for 27 months, leaving active duty as a first lieutenant. After the war, Bud attended Indiana University and Indiana University School of Law. He came back to his home community and set up a law practice right on the courthouse square in Kokomo. He then went on to become chairman of the County Bar Association. In November of 1970, he was elected to served two terms in the Indiana House of Representatives. He then went on to serve here in the United States Congress. While in Congress, Bud was known for a unique combination of genteel civility and firm resolve. During his years in Washington, he was noted for his leadership on several issues of vital importance to Hoosiers and to the Nation as a whole. As a Member of the Committee on Armed Services, Bud was instrumental in the development and deployment of the M-1 tank, for it to be built here in the United States. When I returned after my service during the Persian Gulf War, I never realized until I sat down with Bud how eager he was to discuss the Persian Gulf War, because a decade or 15 years earlier he sat down and he worked on the development of the M-1 tank. And he believed in that tank, and then he had the opportunity to see some of it on CNN, like a lot of the country observed the Gulf War. But he was anxious to hear firsthand of the use of a weapon system that he was so instrumental in deploying. He also took a very serious interest in the automobile industry. It is very fitting he would do so, because well over 100 years ago there were two brothers, Elmer and Edgar Apperson, who, along with Bud's grandfather, Elwood Haynes, who invented the automobile, something that we just take for granted today, which revolutionized the transportation system of this country. And Bud's grandfather invented the automobile. So when he came here to serve in Congress, he was a founding Member of the Congressional Automobile Task Force. And he was the leading advocate for the rescue of Chrysler as a corporation, and what a viable corporation it is today. He was also a strong force in the Congressional Steel Caucus as vice president of its executive committee. Bud also took seriously our Nation's commitment to our veterans. As a Member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, he was a leader in caring for not only our country's veterans, but he was also instrumental in the construction of a VA outpatient clinic in Crown Point, which is Lake County, Indiana. Bud also had a very strong impact upon me. At age 32, when I returned from the Gulf War, I saw life in a different dimension and sought to yet serve my country in a different perspective. I went and sat down with Bud Hillis, and through all the way up to even today, he continues to give me great counsel and advice. The impact that he had upon Joni and the Buyer family was that Bud raised his family in Indiana, and for 16 years he commuted. So I could see firsthand many Members raise their families, and this is not a family-friendly institution. And I followed, not necessarily his advice, because that is not the way Bud is, but I chose then to raise my family in Indiana, and I do the commute back and forth. And it was probably the best thing for me, because it does not let this town overtake you, and it keeps you well-grounded when your children are raised in the district which you represent. Bud is a family man. Carol and their children, I wish them the very best. Bud has a distinguished record of service to his country, in war and in peace and here in the halls of Congress. To the people that Bud represented here in Indiana, I offer this bill with great pride on behalf of the entire Indiana delegation. It is because of the dedication of his service to his country that the Kokomo Post Office on Webster Street will be a fitting tribute to such an honorable and accomplished Hoosier.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of the most distinguished men ever to represent the state of Indiana in the House of Representatives by introducing legislation to name the post office in Kokomo, Indiana for my good friend, former Congressman Bud Hillis. Bud honorably and effectively served the people of Indiana's 5th District in the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1986. During his time in the Congress he was a reasonable and authoritative voice on matters of national security, trade, and veterans issues. A graduate of Indiana's Culver Military Academy, he enlisted to fight in World War II at the age of 18. He served as an infantryman in the European Theater for 27 months, leaving active duty as a first lieutenant. After the war, Bud attended Indiana University and the Indiana University School of Law. He went on to practice law in Howard County, Indiana, and served as Chairman of the county bar association. Before his election to Congress in November of 1970, he served two terms in the Indiana House of Representatives. As a Member of the U.S. Congress, Bud was known for a unique combination of genteel civility and firm resolve. During his years in Washington, he was noted for his leadership on several issues of vital importance to Hoosiers and to the nation as a whole. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Bud was instrumental in the development and deployment of the M-1 tank and the preservation of Grissom Air Force Reserve Base. He took a serious interest in the automobile industry as a founding member of the Congressional Auto Task Force and was a leading advocate of the rescue of Chrysler. He was also a strong force in the Congressional Steel Caucus as Vice President of the executive committee. Bud also took seriously our nation's commitments to our veterans. As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, he was a leader in caring for our country's veterans, and was instrumental in the construction of the outpatient clinic at Crown Point. Mr. Speaker, Bud Hillis has a distinguished record of service to his country and to the people he represented here in the House of Representatives. The dedication of the Kokomo post office, would be a fitting tribute for such an honorable and accomplished man.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1696. This bill would expedite the construction of the already-approved World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. In short, World War II veterans have waited long enough. When the long dark shadows of aggression appeared and threatened to cloak liberty, it was the World War II veterans that ensured liberty, freedom and the rule of law. It is time that all Americans express the gratitude and admiration that our nation's World War II veterans rightly deserve. Our World War II veterans are truly special. While many have served this great nation in varying capacities, it is the World War II generation that ultimately changed the course of history. In return, this Congress must ensure the United States government remains steadfast in its commitment to provide World War II veterans and their families a memorial that they so richly deserve. We must act now.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me take a shot at this. Since I am also a JAG officer and I have been in a theater of war, what the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is purporting I would say is false. When a war is fought, it is fought under the laws of war. There are also the Geneva Conventions. Our country has treaties with other countries. We have memorandums of understanding. We have exchanges of letters with regard to the jurisdiction and who can prosecute whom under what circumstance. I am going to support the DeLay amendment because I do not want our military to be tried by Iraq or some other nation out there. If we have a nation, take Germany, for example, and that military officer or an enlisted person commits a crime in the line of duty, we prosecute those; we take care of that. If they commit an offense in the civilian, outside the line of duty, they are prosecuted by Germany. That occurs out there. I think we need to pause and really think whether we want to subject our military to an international court.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Evans for agreeing to ``Fast-Track'' H.R. 801, the Veterans Opportunities Act. I am especially pleased because I represent a district that is rural, with a large agricultural base. As such, I fully support the Veterans Opportunities Act, because it finally addresses the issue of ``means testing'' veterans' agricultural possessions. In my district, many farmers are land rich, but lack liquid assets to readily pay for health care services at the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 801 will greatly assist in remedying this problem, and allow them the opportunity to access the VA Health Care system without being penalized. In addition, I am pleased that this bill finally addresses the issue of allowing veterans to use their GI Bill education benefits for certain private technology entities. This expansion of benefits will allow veterans to receive benefits for various certification type courses that have previously not been recognized. As a result, veterans can now pursue non-traditional educational programs that usually require intense study and certification. This will ultimately level the playing field for veterans by allowing to compete in the high-tech environment. Lastly, this bill will increase the burial benefits for both service- connected and non-service-connected veterans. This is truly important! World War II veterans are dying at a rate of a thousand a day. Many of these World War II veterans are living on fixed incomes, and the high costs of burying these veterans places a financial burden on their surviving spouses and families. Mr. Speaker, this bill and its provisions are long overdue. Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for giving this bill such quick consideration early in the 107th Congress.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the final days of the one hundred and sixth Congress, I would like to address what it means to be a citizen of these United States. America's national character has always been defined by hard work, discipline and commitment to a higher goal. These ideals have convinced patriots throughout our history to serve their nation and defend freedom and the rule of law in every corner of the globe. They have also inspired ordinary citizens to dedicate themselves to improving the lives of their neighbors through service to their communities. With Veterans' Day now a week away, it is appropriate to pause and reflect on the service and sacrifice that so many of our citizens have made in defense of freedom. Tragically, this service has often exacted a terrible price. On October 12, 2000, seventeen American sailors gave their lives when a terrorist bomb exploded near the U.S.S. Cole, a Navy destroyer moored in Aden, Yemen. I extend my condolences to the families of those who died and my heart felt appreciation to all those who wear the uniform of America's armed forces. Your dedicated service ensures our nation's continued prosperity and well-being. The obligation to serve one's nation is an important component of citizenship but it is not the sole domain of those who wear the uniform of the United States' armed forces. On the contrary, service comes in many forms. Participation in one's local government, church or charity is an important aspect of service to the nation. Active involvement in the lives of our families is an often overlooked and neglected aspect of service. Whatever the calling, selfless service to a higher goal satisfies an important obligation that we all have as citizens of our great nation. As we approach Election Day 2000, it is important to recognize another equally important component of citizenship: Our right and duty to vote. Plato said, ``The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.'' In our form of democracy, liberty cannot be preserved without the participation of the electorate. Yet, sadly, many of our citizens fail to exercise their right and responsibility to cast their vote for those who would govern them. This ambivalence erodes the rigor of our democracy and can lead to disastrous results for our nation. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, honor your fathers and their fathers before them by exercising your civic responsibility at the voting booth. The most visible and enduring symbol of a strong, active American citizenry is our flag, the Stars and Stripes. Two hundred and twenty- three years after Congress first authorized the flag, it stands as a powerful symbol of our Republic, the courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of Americans to protect their freedom. It is a mighty symbol, not only to the citizens of this great nation, but also to those abroad who see it flying at our embassies or on the ships of our naval fleet. The Continental Congress resolved that, ``The flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.'' This blueprint is representative of the unity that we have been able to forge in this melting pot of cultures, ethnic groups, and races. Regardless of where our families originated from, the rich heritage that they brought with them and the uniquely American culture that they have forged, represents one of our greatest strengths. America is still recognized as the land of opportunity and some of our proudest citizens are the newest Americans. Dr. Lorne A. Schnell, the father of a member of my Congressional staff, was one of these proud new Americans. Originally from Saskatchewan, Canada, Dr. Schnell and his wife, Joanne, have lived in Bourbonnais, Illinois since 1984. Steadfastly proud of his Canadian heritage, he made the decision to become an American citizen last year. Dr. Schnell flew his American flag with unabashed pride and he was eagerly looking forward to voting in this first election next week. Sadly, this proud new American passed away suddenly on October 12, 2000, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Dr. Schnell's life embodied the tenets of citizenship that I have discussed above. After a thirty-six year career in the pharmaceutical industry, he chose to dedicate his retirement years to serving his community. A gifted musician, avid golfer and talented woodworker, Dr. Schnell nonetheless committed countless hours to improving the lives of the people in his community. He worked hard to establish the Kankakee Valley Youth Orchestra and his vision was finally realized this summer. He also served on his church board of trustees and taught English as a second language to new immigrants. President Richard Nixon said, ``We must always remember that America is a great nation today not because of what government did for people but because of what people did for themselves and for one another.'' President Nixon's words embody the spirit of individual service and honor the extraordinary contributions of ordinary citizens like Dr. Lorne A. Schnell. Liberty, justice, freedom and opportunity. These are not just idle words, they are the fundamental principles that make our Republic unique. Embrace these ideals and honor our forefathers by participating in the governance of your town, county, state and country. Volunteer your time and serve your community. Stand and proudly salute as your nation's flag passes by and instill in your children what it means to be an American citizen. Citizenship is one of our nation's greatest strengths; it gives our nation's democracy vitality and longevity. As we face the uncertainties and challenges of the third millennium, the strength and character of the American citizenry provides us with the foundation to move forward as a nation. President Abraham Lincoln once said, ``Whatever you are, be a good one.'' Heed President Lincoln's words by committing yourself to being an active participant in the well-being of your family and your community. Your dedicated service will help ensure the continuing prosperity of our great nation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the retirement of two Members of Congress in the State of Indiana. Ed Pease is leaving Congress after only having served 2 terms, and I feel very awkward saying a retirement after 2 terms. There is a real loss here, I believe, to Congress with Ed leaving and going back to Indiana. It is a loss to the country and, perhaps, a gain to Indiana and his family. Ed Pease is an individual that always had a very dignified demeanor as he would serve as Speaker pro tempore here in the House. He is an individual that is always very conscientious. He was kind and considerate and loyal. As a matter of fact, he is the type of person you want as a friend. His work was always based on being thoughtful and methodical in his approach. He was that way, not only in the manner of his life, but in legislating here in Congress. I think of two things when I think of Ed Pease and what he did here in Congress; his service on the Committee on Transportation. Ed was fiercely loyal and always attended every subcommittee hearing and full committee hearing. He was instrumental with regards to 21 States that always had been considered donor States since the inception of the interstate system, and the inequity in the gas tax and its redistribution formula across the States. Ed felt that that was wrong, and he worked very hard. They brought equity back to the funding formula to Indiana which had also always been a donor State since the 1950s. In the last Transportation bill, we received over a billion dollars more than previous bills, and I think Ed Pease's work needs to be complimented for what he did for the country. With regard to David McIntosh, David is, I think, known as the analytical thinker, always working the angle to properly deploy what he perceives as the well-crafted strategy. He is true to his principles and, at times, makes legislating difficult, because he seeks to hold the line, but that is what legislating is all about, not finding the easy course, but forcing two sides to actually sit down and work through their differences. The country's loss, like Ed Pease, will be Indiana's gain. David McIntosh is running for Governor of Indiana, and he hopes to lead Indiana into the 21st Century. To Ed Pease and David McIntosh, we thank you for your service to country, to the State, and to your community. You are precious assets, and you will be missed. God speed to you and your families.