Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families of the men and women who were killed or wounded in this cowardly act, an act that was despicable and premeditated. This tragedy is a distressing reminder though of how dangerous the world has become since the end of the Cold War. As the unprovoked attack on the U.S.S. Cole demonstrates, the men and women of the Armed Services are exposed daily to very real threats of death, violence and destruction. For these reasons, our men and women in uniform, indeed, all Americans, must remain vigilant in the defense of freedom and our interests. Equally important, we must do everything we can to provide for our military personnel the resources necessary to protect them as they defend our interests around the world and that of our allies. While these brave defenders of freedom will greatly be missed, their spirit and legacy lives on. It is their values and their beliefs of duty, honor, courage and commitment to God, country, family and our fellow men and women that serve as an example for all of us to live and aspire. I urge the President to take appropriate action against the perpetrators once the investigation is concluded and to take appropriate measured response. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and my heart goes out to the deceased sailors of the U.S.S. Cole.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1402, the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000. This bill is a comprehensive package of education, health, and compensation benefits that passed the House as separate bills earlier this year. Clearly, this is another monumental step in fulfilling America's promise to its veterans and their families. As agreed to by House and Senate negotiators, the bill will improve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits in order to compete with the rising costs of a college education. Specifically, the bill will increase the monthly education benefit to $650 for a total of $23,400 in assistance to a full-time student pursuing a four-year degree. This is a tremendous boon to veterans and their families that will help in their transition back to the civilian work force after honorably and unselfishly serving their country in uniform. Veterans' survivors and dependents will receive an education stipend increase by raising the monthly benefit to $588 per month. In addition, the bill will provide active duty service members another chance to convert their Post-Vietnam Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) benefits to the MGIB if they previously declined to do so or withdrew all funds from their VEAP accounts. Other provisions allow payment of education benefits during intervals lasting as long as eight weeks between academic terms and the use of up to $2,000 of VA education benefits toward the fee for civilian licensing or certification examination. The measure would also give annual pay raises to VA nurses and increase special pay to dentists and other VA medical personnel. This important provision will help VA to hire and retain the skilled, caring health personnel that it must have in order to serve an aging veterans' population. Last year, the Marion VA chapter, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1020, contacted my office seeking pay parity for VA nurses. Specifically, Local 1020 asked me to help them better address manning and staffing levels that were creating patient and employee safety issues due to the lack of adequate nursing staff. It was evident that to ensure the highest quality of care for our veterans, an effort to meet these shortfalls would be required. Earlier this year, the VA Committee reported a similar nurse's pay provision to the House floor, and Local 1020 indicated their full support for the measure, and reiterated the need for nurse pay parity. Like the previously passed bill, this measure addresses their concerns. Another provision would allow VA disability benefits for a heart attack or stroke of a reservist if incurred or aggravated while in a drilling status, as well as make women eligible for special monthly compensation for the loss of one or both breasts. It would also increase the maximum amount of coverage available through the Service Members Group Life Insurance program to $250,000. Other provisions of the bill will require federal contractors and subcontractors to extend affirmative action regarding employment and promotions to recently discharged veterans, require employers to grant leaves of absence to employees who participate in honor guards for the funerals of veterans and provide benefits to children of women Vietnam veterans who suffer from specified birth defects. This is great news for the veterans community, to include VA employees, especially VA nurses and VA dentists. As in the past, Congress has worked hard to ensure the United States government remains steadfast in its moral, legal and ethical obligation to provide veterans and their families the benefits and services they so richly deserve. This bill is good for veterans, it is good for their families, and it is good for America. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Evans for their hard work and diligence in ensuring passage of this bill. Their efforts were truly bipartisan and deserve recognition. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I do not believe I could take 3 minutes to describe all of the work that has been done in the personnel section of this bill, so I want to take a moment and pay some tribute and thanks. I want to thank in particular the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), because when the Buyer proposal to extend health care for life to the military retirees came up, they said yes. They backed it up. Then they went to the leadership, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, said yes, and put the pressure then on the Senate; not that the Senate did not particularly want to go in that direction. They have their own problems in the Senate. But in fact, the conference committee came together, and we are keeping faith with America's veterans. Let us talk about motive for a moment. I am going to make an appeal to the country. Why should we be doing this? I think it is very simple. The motivation behind my efforts is this: When I think of the World War II and the Korean War veterans, who are now over 65, they fought for freedom. They were truly crusaders. They fought for no bounty of their own. They protected the borders and the interests of our Nation, as they also sought freedom for people around the world. Yet, when they came home and then they retired, and now they are over 65, they are not free. How ironic that those who fought for freedom are not free. People say, ``What do you mean, Steve, they are not free?'' They do not have freedom of movement. They retired next to a medical treatment facility. Then we go through a base closure, and then all of a sudden they lose that retirement benefit. This bill gives freedom, freedom to those who fought for it. They now do not have to live next to a military medical treatment facility. They can live anywhere they choose around the country. If they want to go now to be with their children so they can spend out the years with their grandchildren, they can do it. We also included in here a pharmacy benefit that is an earned benefit. What we sought to do is to give that over 65 military retiree the greatest arena of choice. So now they can go to the medical treatment facility for their drugs if they like, they can utilize the mail order pharmacy. We have a retail network. Then if they do not like the formulary, the list of those drugs, they can even go to an out-of- retail network. I am going to throw a caveat out here on all the good things we have done on health care. I am going to speak directly now to the seniors who are about to use this program. There are no co-pays and there are no deductibles. If the utilization rates get out of whack, we are going to come back here and impose co-pays and deductibles. They have been extended by this Congress as an earned yet generous benefit. Do not abuse it.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act of 2000. This is great news for VA employees, especially VA nurses and dentists. More importantly, it is great news for veterans who receive VA medical care. The bill will help the Department of Veterans Affairs recruit and retain qualified health care professionals as well as help ensure that VA hospitals are more fully staffed to meet their demanding health care needs. I know that in my own congressional district, the Fifth District of Indiana, VA employees have repeatedly raised the issue of pay parity so that they receive compatible pay, pay increases and special rates of pay to that of other Federal employees. I agree that it is only fair. Last year, the Marion VA Chapter, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1020 contacted my office seeking the pay parity for VA nurses. In addition, the Local 1020 asked the committee for relief in helping them to better address manning and staffing levels that were creating patient and employee safety issues due to lack of adequate nursing staff. To that end, I want to thank the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), for their decision to hold field hearings in June at the Marion VA. The committee's findings were indeed a revelation. It became quite clear to me and to the Department of Veterans Affairs that the Marion and Fort Wayne facilities had severe nurses shortfalls. It was evident that to ensure the highest quality of care for our veterans, an effort to meet these shortfalls would be required. In fact, 68 positions were then immediately identified as needed to be filled. $6.5 million was placed into the budget's shortfall of this year alone, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for that effort. In addition, the director of the Northern Indiana Health Care System requested a staffing survey which identified the need for another 20 positions, so now we are up to 88 positions. Last week, prior to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reporting this bill to the House floor, Local 1020 indicated their support for H.R. 5109 and reiterated the need for nurse pay parity. I will throw out there to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) what I have been told by the nursing profession that 50 percent of the nurses are expected to retire in the next 15 years. When we look at our education institutions in our country and we maximize them to 100 percent at the present rate of graduation, we fall very short of what the need and requirements are in front of us. So given the whole supply and demand, this bill, while we are singing its praises, is really one of those leaps forward; and we still have work yet to do.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I think what is obvious, if they know they are going to lose on the substance of a bill, then they argue process. If they are ashamed of having authored a particular bill, then do not submit it. I have authored legislation. I would be eager as soon as I drop it for it to come to vote. I would be eager for that. I would be proud of the legislation that I actually drafted. I rise in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4892, the Scouting for All Act. On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled in Dale vs. Boy Scouts of America, that private organizations have the right to set their own standards for membership and leadership. This allows the Scouts to continue developing young men of strong moral character without imposing standards on them that they find incompatible with their beliefs. In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Boy Scouts have faced an onslaught of criticism, intimidation and extortion from those who seek to inflict their beliefs on an organization that promotes moral character and personal responsibility. Protests were organized in twenty-one states including my district in Indiana, urging businesses to revoke their sponsorship of the Scouts. Last month, the Interior Department attempted to bully and harass the Boy Scouts over access to public lands. In Los Angeles, some delegates to the Democratic national convention booed a group of Scouts as they stood on the stage of the Staples Center. Now, in an attempt to punish the Boy Scouts for refusing to toe the line, proponents of H.R. 4892 seek to revoke the Boy Scouts' federal charter, originally granted by Congress in 1916. This bill claims to be acting in the name of tolerance and inclusion. In reality, it is this bill, not the Boy Scouts, that promotes intolerance. The Boy Scouts respect others' rights to hold differing opinions than its own. All the Scouts ask is that others respect its beliefs. The sponsors of this bill believe just the opposite. They believe if one does not subscribe to their view of the world then they must be humiliated, silenced, and reformed in the name of tolerance. They are in error, and I suppose now today ashamed of the bill that they have dropped. Tolerance does not require a moral equivalency. One can be tolerant of one's beliefs of others while being intolerant of their behavior and actions. Today, millions of boys from every ethnic, religious, and economic background, including those with disabilities and special needs, participate in Scouting programs across America. The Boy Scouts are a model for inclusiveness. Our youth today face a daily onslaught from some parts of our culture that promote self-gratification and alternative lifestyles. As one of the few counters to this, the Boy Scouts keep such, I guess, out-of-fashion values as duty to God and country, honor, respect, self-sacrifice, and community service. I believe we should commend, not punish, an organization that attempts to foster a sense of personal responsibility and strong character in our boys and young men. I urge all of my colleagues, 50 percent of whom were Boy Scouts, to side with the vast majority of Americans and vote no against this ill-advised bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, while it deeply saddens me to stand in the well here to pay tribute to my dear friend and former colleague, Mr. Bateman, I can do so with fond memories, as I pass the love and thoughts and prayers from Joni and my family to Laura and Herb's family. It is individuals like Herb Bateman that give the American system of government, indeed this legislative body, honor, dignity and respect. His character embodied by faith, hard work, discipline and commitment serve as an example to us all. He distinguished himself with a sense of justice and sound judgment. He was known for his superior knowledge, ethics, and both physical and moral courage. Above else, he was a man of integrity. As a Member of Congress, he possessed the political prowess and saviness that is necessary in the legislative process. But he did it to help ensure this Nation's military readiness was the best in the world. As a young veteran in Korea, in the war, he demonstrated the unselfish commitment and sacrifice, like many of our great forefathers that have come before us. As a colleague, he was a mentor and confidant and a true inspiration as I served with him, junior, on the Committee on Armed Services. Most importantly, though, he was a friend; and he will be missed. Many of us shared Herb's values and beliefs of duty, honor, and courage; commitments to God, country, and family and our fellow man. He will be greatly missed but his legacy will live on.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 327 and as one who appreciates the vital contribution that merchant mariners have made to the security and well-being of our sea-faring nation. Since 1775, the Merchant Marine has linked the United States in commerce with trading partners all over the world. In wartime, merchant seamen have served with valor and distinction. During World War II, 6,000 merchant mariners, including 142 Kings Point cadets, made the ultimate sacrifice. Despite this terrible cost, the Merchant Marine never faltered in its mission. Today's merchant mariners continue their predecessors' legacy of dedication and patriotism. Many of these great Americans begin their careers at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Since 1938, Kings Point has prepared cadets to serve as officers in the Merchant Marine. Recognized as leaders in the maritime industry, Kings Point graduates represent every state and territory in the union. Rear Admiral Joe Stewart and his staff are to be commended for continuing the tradition of excellence at Kings Point. After World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``Mariners have . . . delivered the goods when and where needed . . . across every ocean in the . . . most difficult and dangerous job ever undertaken.'' I urge my colleagues to honor the contribution of the Merchant Marine by voting ``yes'' on H. Con. Res. 327.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, I had the great opportunity to speak before a very select group of individuals, the year 2000 inductees into the National Teachers Hall of Fame. These are individuals who have shown exceptional dedication and creativity in the teaching profession. It was a great honor to have as one of the inductees Nancy Berry, the Principal of Columbia Elementary School in Logansport, Indiana. At Columbia Elementary School you would be welcomed to ``Berryland,'' the creative classroom of Nancy Berry, where children acquire an appreciation to learn. Nancy has taught in the classroom for Logansport Community School Corporation for over 20 years. Although she has been principal for the last three years, she still keeps active in the classroom. Nancy, as well as the other inductees, has the gift to spark the imaginations of our children and the commitment to demand excellence and character, not only from students, but also in inspiring other teachers to strive for these goals. Nancy has created educational materials as well as a management program that promotes dignity, imagination, self-discipline, and responsibility. As Nancy puts it ``behavior is like a shirt, it can be changed.'' It was my privilege to welcome these outstanding teachers to the National Teachers Hall of Fame, and on behalf of grateful parents and a grateful nation, to express thankfulness for their hard work and dedicaiton.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts of America, as a private organization, has the right to set its own standards for membership and leadership. This allows the Scouts to continue developing young men of strong moral character without imposing the mores on them that they find abhorrent. Would my colleagues like a view of extremist liberal Democrats who seek to control this House? They have filed a bill to revoke the Boy Scouts Federal charter, a blatant attempt to undermine the Supreme Court's ruling and punish the Boy Scouts for their belief. This bill promotes intolerance. The Boy Scouts respect other people's right to hold differing opinions than their own and ask others to respect their belief. Extremist Democrats believe just the opposite. They believe that if one does not subscribe to their beliefs and their view of the world, then one is intolerant and must be chastised. These liberal Democrats are in error. Tolerance does not require a moral equivalency. Rather, it implies a willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs of others. The Boy Scouts are a model of inclusiveness. Today, boys of every ethnic, religious, and economic background, including those with disabilities and special needs, participate in Scouting programs across America. I urge my colleagues to vote against this extremist measure promoted by liberal Democrats.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, by adopting this resolution today, we have an opportunity to recognize a pivotal event in the military history of the United States. This August marks the 10th anniversary of the executive order signed by President Bush to call up the National Guard and the Reserve components in support of Operation Desert Shield. Mr. Speaker, the initial order was modest. Just 48,800 personnel were called to serve. But later that fall, following the decision to pursue an offensive option, the activation order was expanded to an additional 188,000 guardsmen and reservists. Mr. Speaker, it is during that later activation that I was also called to active duty. Like many of my colleagues, I had just 3 days' notice to report to active duty. Did activation entail many difficult personal and business decisions? Obviously. But I, along with thousands of others who have come before me. I, along with those thousands of others, were ready to make necessary sacrifices to meet the challenges of activation. I later served as an operational law judge advocate providing legal advice to forward- deployed Army combat service support units operating within the Persian Gulf theater of operations in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. During my tenure in the Gulf, reservists and guardsmen quickly transitioned to the demands of their full-time military service. The active duty units quickly integrated us as part of the team. In a short time, they could not tell the difference between the Reserve from the active units. By any measure, reservists and guardsmen performed extremely well completing vital missions and bringing critical and, in some cases, unique skills to the fight. Mr. Speaker, the Persian Gulf call-up was large. When the activation orders were finished, Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm required the largest mobilization and deployment of Reserve component forces in the post- World War II period. Seldom in our Nation's history have we touched the lives of so many to pursue our national security objectives. There are many reasons to celebrate the Persian Gulf call-up. Our Reserve forces were ready. Their performance was extremely effective. The call-up was a massive demonstration of national resolve. These are all achievements worthy of recognition, but they are not what made the Persian Gulf Reserve call-up a pivotal event in United States military history. They are not the reasons why this resolution is so important. The Reserve call-up in the Persian Gulf was a pivotal event because it marked the first time since World War II that the active duty forces could not have accomplished the mission without the support of Reserve and Guard forces. The call-up marked a new era in the security of our Nation. After the Persian Gulf War, we can no longer view the Reserves as back-up forces. They have to be ready and engaged in the conflict from day one if, in fact, we are to be successful on the future battlefield. The Persian Gulf War was proof that our Reserve forces cannot be viewed as low priority units for manpower, equipment, and funding. That is a luxury that we cannot afford. The relationship today is seamless. I commend the gentleman from California for authoring the important resolution. House Resolution 549 is a reminder to all of us today and to all leaders in the Pentagon and to the American people that the Reserve components are critical to the defense of this Nation and we must support our Reserves if we hope to be victorious in the future. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 549) recognizing the historical significance of the 10th anniversary of the initial activation of National Guard and Reserve personnel for Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm and expressing support for ensuring the readiness of the National Guard and Reserve.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 549.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who was also called up during the Persian Gulf War, a colonel in the Air National Guard.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment and thank the last speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). We work cooperatively together as we cochair the Guard and Reserve Caucus here in the House. He is a valued member of the House Committee on Armed Services. It is reflecting on his comments, and I agree wholeheartedly with him, that no country, no aggressor should ever test the resolve and the character of our Nation. I suppose that they were reflecting upon the Vietnam experience and whether or not we actually would rise together and fight. So it makes me think about the Vietnam veteran. Often when we think of the Gulf War and its successes, I pay significant compliment to their contribution and leadership, because when we arrived in theater, one of the quick words was, when is the rotation? And the Vietnam leader said there is no such thing as rotation, it is called duration. We are going to be here for the duration; and when we get it done, then you get to go home. I think what they brought to the battlefield was how not to do it. I also think of the complements of the military buildup of the 1980s. Iraq was very foolish to hit us at that time. I also think today about my first reaction when this resolution was brought up, whether the House should pay significance to the contribution of Guard and Reserve as if we also should not include the active counterpart, because on the desert sands, we were one team. Then I began to think that, perhaps, we do need the added recognition of the contribution, because the Guardsmen and Reservists that serve in the communities all across the Nation are, in fact, twice the citizen. They are three times and four times the citizen. They go about their duties, balancing their lives with their homes and their families, the religious practices, civic responsibilities; and on top of that, they take an oath to lay down their life to fight and die for this country. I think that is worthy of extra recognition. Mr. Speaker, of the 57 Guardsmen and Reservists that lost their lives in the Gulf, I want to recognize, in fact, one of them who was a dear friend of mine, Lieutenant Laurie Lawton. If God had given me the ability and said, Steve, one person in your unit will die, you get to choose one person that gets to stay home, whom would you choose? I would have chosen Laurie Lawton, because she would have had an impact on so many lives in the most positive way. She was a remarkable individual who was studying her Ph.D. at Purdue University and was in France at the time. She was called up and came back home and then traveled with us as a unit, and she sat beside me on the plane as we went over to Saudi Arabia. When I left her, I told her that I would see her back in Indiana as I left, and I went off to the front. The sad end of that story is I did see her back in Indiana, and it was at the cemetery. It was the most dramatic moment for me, but it was one that helped formulate my views and opinions in that I understand personally firsthand the tears of so many families out there who shed them for a loved one or a friend that have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can enjoy the freedoms and liberties of the greatest Nation. I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing the resolution to the floor as we pay significance and contribution to what occurred 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, once again this House has before it legislation to eliminate the penalty on marriage that is found in the income tax code. Quite simply, marriage should not be taxed. As the financial pressures of families result in both spouses entering the labor force, an increasing number have become subject to the marriage penalty. A major reason why so many joint filers face this added burden is that the very first dollar earned by the lower-earning spouse is taxed at the marginal rate of the higher-earning spouse, not necessarily at the lower 15% rate faced by single filers. This problem was exacerbated in 1993, when the Clinton tax measure increased the number of tax brackets from three to five. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that over 20 million married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were single. This ``tax'' on marriage averages nearly $1,400 per couple. This $1,400 could be used by families to save for college or retirement, make car payments, or pay for tutoring. Middle income families are hit the hardest by this penalty and they need this legislation for tax relief. I urge the House to pass this legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure to provide prescription drug coverage to our seniors and disabled with Medicare coverage. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Medicare was going broke. Because of the bipartisan actions taken in 1997, the Medicare program was preserved. Now, we are in a financial position to enhance Medicare, by adding a prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, seniors should not have to choose between buying food and buying prescription medicines. This bill, H.R. 4680, will give Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drug insurance plans that negotiate lower prices and comprehensive coverage, something many seniors now lack. Fortunately, near two-thirds of seniors have access to prescription drug coverage, most of which is provided as a retiree benefit from a lifetime of working. Seniors who prefer the coverage they have now should not be forced into a government run plan. But this is exactly what the President and the Democrat plan would do. If the President's plan were enacted, between 50 percent to 75 percent of employers would drop their coverage . . . coverage that many seniors like. This plan, H.R. 4680, guarantees seniors choice on the type of prescription drug coverage that best suits their needs. All seniors will have at least 2 plans to choose from. The measure provides incentives for plans to be offered in rural areas and requires access to a ``bricks and mortar'' pharmacy. As a member who represents a rural constituency, I am pleased that this bill takes special care to see to the needs of seniors in rural America. It is the senior who will decide what elements in a plan make sense for their situation. The President gives seniors one option, one benefit . . . take it or leave it. H.R. 4680 provides subsidies for low-income seniors, just like the President's plan, and its also provides assurance that no senior would have to go bankrupt in order to pay high drug costs, unlike the President's original proposal. It guarantees that above $6,000, no senior would pay a penny more out-of-pocket. This catastrophic drug coverage is an extremely important provision. The Republican plan also begins structural reforms in Medicare. It creates an ombudsman to advocate on behalf of the beneficiary, and not the bureaucracy. The ombudsman would help beneficiaries navigate Medicare's requirements. It reforms Medicare rules regarding appeals to eliminate the endless waits for decisions. Under the President's plan, the government would become the largest HMO . . . deciding what drugs you can receive, and when you can get it. Like Canada, the President's plan would result in rationing of drug treatments, more hospital stays, and a lower standard of health care of our seniors. This is a bill that provides access to affordable prescription drugs with a choice of affordable plans to meet the beneficiary's needs. This coverage is delivered in a way to protect the doctor-patient relationship. It does not compromise seniors' access to modern miracle medicines and ensures that research and development into new and improved drugs can continue. I urge all Members to support this much needed bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution withdrawing approval of the United States in the World Trade Organization. Although I have some concerns, the United States must be actively engaged in global trade and we need to be forceful, perhaps more forceful than we have been, in advocating a rules-based, transparent trading system. My main concerns stem from the potential for manipulation of the WTO by some of our trading partners to challenge our domestic laws to address unfair trading practices. These are legitimate tools to ensure fairness to American industries and American workers. We need a viable dispute resolution process that permits a full, open airing of grievances. In a rules-based trading system, the rules need to be transparent--everybody needs to know what the rules are. It also must address any non-tariff barriers that are erected to inhibit free and fair trade. The United States must be vigilant to seek openness, access, and transparency in international trade. We must also be able to preserve our ability to ensure fairness when American producers and workers are placed at risk from unfair trading practices.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 101 recognizing the United States Army's 225 years of loyal and dedicated service to the Nation. As we enter the new millennium, we can look back with pride at the Army's tremendous contribution to our Nation's great history. Today, thanks largely to the service and the sacrifice of millions of men and women who have worn an Army uniform, we enjoy unparalleled prosperity and unequaled freedom. For more than 2 centuries, American soldiers have courageously answered their Nation's call to arms, as well as serving as a strong deterrent to potential adversaries during times of peace. Whether it was on Lexington Green or the cornfields at Gettysburg or in the trenches of France, or the beaches of Normandy, in the frozen hills around Chosin or the jungles of Vietnam, in the forests of Western Europe or in the deserts of Kuwait, where I was, Army soldiers have fearlessly demonstrated the requisite traits of self-sacrifice and courage under fire that have enabled us to prevail under sometimes enormously adverse conditions. Their contribution to their current state of well-being is clearly evident. As we enter the 21st century, our Nation finds itself serving in a unique position of global leadership while facing an increasingly complex array of threats. One of the keys to our Nation's success over the decades has been our flexibility and willingness to adapt to an ever-changing environment, without altering the fundamental values that make us uniquely American. Similarly, the dynamic transformation effort that the Army has recently embarked should create a more strategically responsive force without compromising the core competencies that make it the world's most lethal fighting force. The Army in the 21st century will be more responsive, survivable and lethal. It will be an Army that is respected by our allies and feared by our opponents and honored and esteemed by the American people. Throughout our Nation's history, our soldiers have stood in constant readiness to defend and preserve the ideals of these our United States. When deterrence has failed, committing American soldiers on the ground has always been the ultimate statement of our resolve to defeat an adversary or compel him to change his course of action. In 1776, Captain John Parker of Lexington Militia stood on the green and voiced to the American spirit and said without resolve, men, stand your ground, if they mean to have war, let it begin here. Unflinching courage and a proud heritage of service to our Nation is the legacy of the American soldier as he has honorably carried out his oath to fight and win our Nation's wars. As a representative of the people, I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the men and women and their families who serve in the United States Army. The valor, commitment and sacrifice of the American soldier is displayed throughout our Nation's history and is captured in the motto that appears on the emblem of the United States Army: ``This we'll defend.'' These three words embody the strength and character that makes the Army pervasive in peace and invincible in war.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a great man, a man of immense stature to the history of this Nation, a strong, moral family man and a visionary conservationist, a man who distinguished himself in peace and in war and who would at the age of 43 become the first great American voice of the 20th century and our 26th President, Theodore ``Teddy'' Roosevelt. My esteemed colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) initially brought this case to my attention in 1997. As chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services' Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I worked with the gentleman from New York and former Pennsylvania Representative Paul McHale, the Roosevelt family, representatives of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, authors and historians to correct a historical oversight. Our crusade has been to see that then Colonel Teddy Roosevelt be awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for conspicuous gallantry at the Battle of San Juan Heights during the Spanish American War. On July 1st of 1898, Colonel Roosevelt led the First United States Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the Rough Riders, into action alongside Army regulars at San Juan Heights outside Santiago, Cuba. During the battle, the Rough Riders encountered a regular Army unit that was reluctant to press the attack. Roosevelt boomed, ``Step aside and let my men through,'' then proceeded to lead his men through a hail of enemy gunfire during the assault up Kettle Hill, one of two hills comprising San Juan Heights. His leadership was so compelling that many of the regular Army officers and men fell in line with the Rough Riders. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Roosevelt's heroic performance on that day is well documented, but I believe it is enlightening to review some of the historical details: Number one. Roosevelt's actions demonstrated an utter disregard for his own safety and were consistent with the actions of those that were awarded the Medal of Honor during the Spanish American war. Of the 22 officers and soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor that day, 21 received it because they gave up cover and exposed themselves to enemy fire. Once the order to attack was received, Colonel Roosevelt mounted his horse and rode up and down the ranks in full view of enemy gunners. During the final assault on Kettle Hill, he remained on horseback, exposing him to the withering fire of the enemy. If voluntary exposure to enemy fire was the criteria for award of the Medal, then Colonel Roosevelt clearly exceeds the standard. By driving his Rough Riders through the ranks of a stalled regular Army unit to pursue the attack on Kettle Hill, Colonel Roosevelt changed the course of the battle. This is what a decoration for heroism is all about, the raw courage to make decisions and put your life in jeopardy to win the battle. His decisive leadership in pressing the attack saved American lives and brought the battle to a successful conclusion. The extraordinary nature of Colonel Roosevelt's bravery was confirmed by two Medal of Honor awardees who recommended him for the Medal of Honor on that day: Major General William Shafter and Colonel Leonard Wood, original commander of the Rough Riders and later military governor of Cuba. Both men were eminently qualified to judge whether Roosevelt's actions qualified him for the award. The Army thought so much of these two men that they named forts after them. Yet despite the preponderance of evidence and the endorsement by these two Medal of Honor awardees, the War Department never acted upon their recommendation. I believe there is credible evidence that politics, not an honest assessment of Colonel Roosevelt's valor, was the prime reason the recommendation for the Medal of Honor was never approved. The McKinley administration's fear of a yellow fever epidemic prompted them to delay the troop's return from the war, a decision that Roosevelt publicly criticized. Seeking to quickly defuse the issue, the McKinley administration reversed course and brought the troops home. The then Secretary of War, Russell Alger, resented the public embarrassment that he received as a result of the criticism from the hero of San Juan Heights, Teddy Roosevelt. Lacking records to substantiate why the decoration was disapproved at the time, I believe that Secretary Alger had the opportunity and motivation to deny Teddy Roosevelt the Medal of Honor by simply just not acting on it. Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor is this Nation's highest military award for bravery in combat. Since 1863, more than 3,400 extraordinary Americans have been awarded the Medal of Honor by the President in the name of the Congress. President Theodore Roosevelt's name would be an honorable and noteworthy addition to this most hallowed of lists. His raw courage and the fearless, bold decisiveness that he demonstrated while leading his Rough Riders up Kettle Hill on horseback altered the course of the battle, saved American lives and epitomized the selfless service of all Medal of Honor awardees. On February 22, Secretary of Defense William Cohen forwarded a memorandum to President Clinton recommending that Theodore Roosevelt be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. I join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and former Representative Paul McHale in commending the Department of Defense for following the lead of Congress by choosing to acknowledge President Roosevelt's heroic leadership and courage under fire during the Spanish American War. He will join 109 other soldiers, sailors and Marines who were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions during that conflict. However, it troubles me that for some inexplicable reason that President Clinton has delayed acting upon Secretary Cohen's recommendation. I urge President Clinton to announce the award now.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Moreover, it is my sincerest hope that the award ceremony will be conducted here in Washington as befits a celebration that honors a truly larger than life American. Lastly, I spoke with Tweed Roosevelt today, a direct descendant of Teddy Roosevelt, and I endorse the Roosevelt family's desire that President Roosevelt's Medal of Honor permanently reside next to his Nobel Peace Prize in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. That is the working room of the West Wing just off the Oval Office. I can think of no better tribute to the greatness of President Roosevelt than to bring together in one room the accolades that he received as both a warrior and as a peacemaker. What finer example could we offer the leader of our Nation, what better inspiration for our future Presidents to strive for excellence in their quest of the greater understanding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Congress for its work to secure the Medal of Honor for Teddy Roosevelt. We have attempted to right a historical wrong and we have come to learn more about why Theodore Roosevelt was one of our greatest historical figures. He displayed the qualities of a great leader: courage, cunning, intellect, boldness and charisma all founded on deep moral purpose. His courage and the enthusiasm that his courage generated motivated his Rough Riders on the battlefield at San Juan Heights and inspired a generation of Americans as they emerged from the chaos of the late 19th century. Mr. Clinton, we urge you to avoid further delay and expeditiously award the Medal of Honor to Colonel Theodore Roosevelt.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I almost have to say that demagoguery is a serious ailment, an illness, to a democratic form of government. It is unfortunate that we cannot have serious dialogue and debate about the issue that we have. This is about a rule on the repeal of the death tax. It is not about campaign finance reform. I served here under the minority in the 39th and 40th year of Democrat rule when this House was a sea of red ink, the debt exploding, deficits as far as the eye could see. Now they are trying to claim that they are the protectorates of the treasury, that they somehow are the protectorates of Social Security when they took the Social Security Trust Fund monies to grow Government? That is absurd. What we have here today is to repeal the death tax. This is long overdue. This tax hits individuals who have worked hard all their lives, who have worked and saved in their efforts to fulfill the American dream. My constituent from Marion, Indiana, wrote to me about her parents: ``My parents were frugal and saved any large sum of money they ever got their hands on. My mother taught school. My father was a master pattern maker. They will were products of the Depression. They purchased land in Arkansas. And now their estate looks to total over $1 million. Now this estate is forced with a 39-percent estate tax. What a disgrace. Surely we do not have to take from those of whom were frugal, made sure that they paid their way, and are now dead.'' This tax hits the small business owner and the family farmer the hardest. These are the individuals who sacrifice, who invest their time and money in the family business and their farm, and they want to leave this world comforted with the knowledge that their children and grandchildren can also continue their labor and hard work. The death tax collects for the Federal Government merely 1 percent of the revenues. Do my colleagues realize that if we cleaned up the fraud on the earned income tax credit we could more than offset this tax? Yet compliance costs are nearly as much as the revenue collected. And the time a small business owner or farmer spends to plan for the inevitable coming of death, is time and energy and money that is not spent on growing the business. A dollar that goes to the accountant or lawyer is a dollar that does not go to new equipment or expansion. This is a tax on the very behavior the government should be encouraging . . . Hard Work. Only one-third of family-owned businesses survive into the next generation. All too often a family business or farm has to be liquidated so the heirs can pay the death tax. When a family has to sell the family farm to pay taxes, it can mean that open space, fields and forests, are lost to development. There is an indirect adverse impact to our environment from this tax. The death tax is unnecessary, unfair and against the virtue of hard work. It is wrong to confiscate the savings of people who work hard all their lives. I urge the adoption of the rule and support the repeal of the death tax.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of professional pleasure and personal pride that I rise today to honor an organization that I have long admired and respected. The organization of which I speak is our neighbor just across First Street, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, though it is perhaps best known simply by its initials--ROA. The association was organized in 1922, at the instigation of General of the Armies John J. Pershing, who was then serving as the Army's Chief of Staff. Like many others who served in uniform in World War I, General Pershing was convinced that the war could have been significantly shortened or avoided altogether if an adequate pool of trained officers had existed at the time, Taking his sentiments to heart, 140 Reserve Officers met at Washington's Willard Hotel and organized the Reserve Officers Association. It was largely through the dedicated efforts of that voluntary organization and its members that the United States established its Officer Reserve Corps, which was to supply the great majority of America's trained officers in the days leading up to World War II. It is appropriate and salutary for all of us here to recall that these first ROA members were citizen-soldiers who clearly saw the approaching storm clouds. They pushed the nation toward an unprecedented level of pre-war preparedness that arguably saved lives and formed the very foundations of the great victories of democracy that were to follow. With the end of the war, ROA resumed its normal operations, raising and maintaining the nation's awareness of the role and contributions of its military forces in the uneasy post-war world. It was in these tense days, in June 1950, that the Congress granted ROA the formal charter that established the association's object and purpose. That formulation was clear and direct, unambiguous and unequivocal: ROA was ``to support a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate national security and to promote the development and execution thereof.'' For 50 years, ROA has followed that guidance, and taken the lead in rigorously advocating a strong and viable national defense posture for our nation. ROA has worked to support concepts that have strengthened our ability to preserve our freedom and to advance our national interests across the world. It worked to revitalize and fund the Selective Service System, support our Cold War allies, and focus the weight of public opinion in favor of our national commitment during the Gulf War, and expanding NATO. It has played a major role in persuading the Congress to provide more than $15 billion in critically needed equipment for our nation's Reserve components. In addition, ROA has also clearly understood that not all ideas are good ideas. It successfully opposed efforts to combine the Army Reserve and National Guard, and to disestablish the Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserves, as well as the Selective Service System and the commissioned officer corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. Speaker, ROA has, for the past 78 years, proven itself to be a strong and articulate voice in the Halls of Congress and the corridors of government for all our service members. It has lived up to its charter and supported the cause of national defense in seasons when it has not been popular to do so. It has established an enviable reputation for nonpartisan expertise and even-handed advocacy, a reputation that has grown and flourished as defense issues have become ever more complex in these days of the Total Force Policy. ROA enjoys the confidence of the Congress and of the Department of Defense. Its successful legislative efforts have made it a valued partner in the formulation and development of the annual defense bills and in building broad, bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform. Over the years I have learned that serious debate on any issue dealing with our Reserve forces is not complete until we have heard from ROA. As the number of members of Congress with personal military experience has declined, the importance of ROA's contribution to developing our military policy has increased exponentially. ROA has played and will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the debate over the appropriate roles and missions of our Armed Forces. The nation is most fortunate to have such an asset to call upon. We should all be grateful. Congratulations to the Reserve Officers Association of the United States on the fiftieth anniversary of the granting of its congressional charter.

Mr. BUYER

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