Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time, that is a silly statement. No one in this body endorses fraud, for crying out loud. I do not even know where that came from. What bothers me is it is easy to say, oh, well, the Pentagon, they spend this much on a weapons system, they spend that much on a part, these weapons systems are highly sophisticated and it takes awhile. They only make one or two parts. It is not making 10,000 parts. Let me go back to my compliment, though, to the body. My compliment to the body is that we have many Members in here that have put on the uniform, and no one ever asked when we took that oath whether we were Republican or Democrat. So those of us who served in the authorizing committee and the appropriating committees who have the interest on national security keep that dimension. Now, there will always be a critic of a bill for one particular reason or another. We have those of whom who are passivists. They should take pride in themselves, if they are a passivist, say they are a passivist. Do not just pick apart the bill for one reason or another. Expose your character. If they do not, I will be more than happy to. Let me tell you something else that has bothered me when we take an individual who may be a critic of the defense industry or, in particular, of our defense. They are the same individuals of whom are seeking to socialize our military. So when they stand up here on the House floor and they talk about, well, we are having recruiting and retention problems in the military, and they give this long laundry list of what is wrong with the military, see they are the same ones who endorsed socialization policies of our military. Socialization policies that, in fact, then begin to hurt the military. A sergeant at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, came up to me and says, Congressman, if the Army gets any more sensitive, it is going to cry. We have to stop and think what are we doing to the military. Mr. Speaker, I have traveled around; and I have conducted a lot of hearings, being chairman of personnel. Well, many are quick to blame recruiting and retention problems on a good economy, easy access to other sources of college funding, reduced propensity to enlist, a shortage of quality recruits. My findings point to other issues that stress the military force. It is called lack of spare parts, lack of adequate training time, aging equipment and high depreciation rates on our equipment, socialization policies, longer working hours and prolonged family separation due to an increased operational tempo. We also have a mismatch in the Clinton/Gore national security strategy between a foreign policy of engagement and enlargement at our national military strategy. When we take 265,000-plus troops and put them in 135 nations all around the world and then we begin to have them serve as quasidiplomats, we then have a workforce out there that begins to then have questioned the mission; it is called mission credibility. They say I do not mind being separated from my family, but to do this? And they say then, wait a second, what happened to the warrior. The warriors now have become the humanitarian. They are outstretched all over the world as quasidiplomats on all of these humanitarian missions. Now, are some of them noble? Are some of them worthy? Yes. But we always have to be very careful about what happens when you take a warrior and we then turn him into a humanitarian. You dull the war-fighting skill. When you do that to a division, it takes us a year to retrain the division back to the war- fighting skill. So as I listened to some of the comments of some of the Members, it is easy to pick apart the bill. I believe that this bill is going to receive a large bipartisan support.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Since I am a little hard on you, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would share with my colleagues that I believe we have a very fair rule and also a very strong bipartisan bill that is coming to the House floor that will serve the national security needs of those men and women who serve in our armed forces. I want to compliment the Committee on Appropriations. I think the chairman and the ranking member did a very good job in working with the authorizing committee. I have not seen this type of cooperation in the 8 years I have served here in Congress. Sometimes we get conflict between the authorizing and the appropriating committees, but in this case I extend great compliments on their work. Let me first speak about the quality of life. Despite 5 years of sustained efforts to improve the quality of living for U.S. military personnel and their families, service members continue to voice their displeasure with the military life by leaving the force, which is very bothersome to many of us. As a result, each of the services has experienced significant recruiting and retention problems, threatening the strength and readiness of the all-volunteer force. The authorizing and the appropriation committees recognize the great personal sacrifices made by U.S. service members and have focused quality-of-life improvements in two areas: one, reforming the Defense Health Program and, number two, sustaining the viability of the all- volunteer force. While efforts in these areas in recent years have been substantial, there are no silver bullets to end the quality-of-life challenges facing the U.S. military. It will require a commitment to a long-term battle against these challenges if America is to sustain the world's foremost military force. It is with this commitment that the committees recommended a quality-of-life package that will improve the military health care system, provide for fair compensation, support the morale, welfare and recreational programs, and improve the facilities for which the military personnel live and work. We also are working on sustaining the proper weapon systems that they need. Let me speak for a moment about the military health delivery system. Again, I extend compliments to the appropriators, because what we are trying to do here is put our arms around all of these different programs that are out there, and specifically with regard to the military retiree. Now, all of us here in this body have heard from our constituents about the TRICARE System. As we seek to implement TRICARE, we have had hiccups and little burps here and there with that system, and it has been difficult. We have sought to make improvements. And I appreciate the support of the appropriators. We are going to work to create savings in the claims processing area, which will save $500 million and then will be poured back into the system. Now, what about the military retiree? The military retiree is disgruntled, and rightfully so. The question is whether or not we as the Federal Government are fulfilling our obligation to the military retiree, given the sacrifices that they have given on behalf of the Nation. With the expectation that they would receive health care benefits for life, have we been fulfilling that requirement? The answer is no. When the military retiree retired and lived next to that military base during the 1970s, 1980s and into the early 1990s, there was a comfort zone. Even though they were turning 65, they gained access to the medical treatment facilities despite in law that they would be triggered into the Medicare program. When we went through the base closure process, they were triggered directly into Medicare, and they did not gain access to the medical treatment facilities. So they came to Congress. Congress is fishing for the right answer. We create different types of pilot programs, and we struggle with them and try to figure out what is the best way to provide relief in the system. I believe we have come close to finding the right answer, and that is we have put our arms around these pilot programs and we extend them to 2003. We sunset the programs. We have created the commission to examine it; and in the meantime, what we can deliver is the pharmacy benefit. I appreciate the appropriators for funding the pharmacy benefit to the military retiree. It is a generous benefit. What was bothersome to the military retiree was that they felt that because of their sacrifice and the protections of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in our Nation, that perhaps they should be treated a little differently. So it bothered them that they were then taken and thrown right into the Medicare system back in 1965, which many of them did not even realize until the early 1990s. So now, as Congress is presently about to deliver a pharmacy benefit that is different from the Medicare population, it is a richer benefit, the last thing we should do is now say, oh, every grandma and grandpa who never served in the military should now be treated just as if they had served in the military. What a curious thing. I think some people in this body look out the window and think, well, everybody should drive the same kind of car and should be treated the same way. False. I just wanted to bring this up because it was not long ago, about 10 days ago, that the President endorsed that. Well, of course he endorses it, because he thinks everybody should be treated alike in this country. That is false. There are different people who have done different things. So I want to compliment the appropriators who have said, yes, we are going to follow the lead from the authorizing committee; and we are going to fund the pharmacy benefit for the military retirees, which they rightfully deserve. I also want to share that we are providing a 3.7 percent military pay raise that has been funded; also $163 million for the reenlistment bonuses. Those are extremely important. We provide $64 million for the basic housing allowance. I think many of us wish that the numbers could be higher in that regard, but the more monies we can move directly into the pockets of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is extremely important. The more money we get in the pocket, and especially tax free, the more we can actually help them.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. My compliments to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). He has have devoted a great deal of his time in Congress to the issues of national security. The issues on spare parts, I think American people would be shocked to go out on the flight line and see that we are swapping out engines to put F-14s in the air. If we told our parents that, you know, I am going to be a little bit late for Christmas dinner because I have to pull the Chevy engine out of the car and put it in any other car, they say what are you doing; that sounds ridiculous. With the spare part problem out there that we are actually swapping out engines to put planes in the air is a little stunning. I want to compliment the gentleman, because he has worked very hard on our spare part problem and concern.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we are going to see the real compliment of the work product that came, not only out of the authorizing committee, but also the gentleman's work, this bill is going to pass in a huge bipartisan bill. I compliment the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the comments from the critics of the bill and from those of whom consistently vote against the defense bills that are brought to this House floor in a bipartisan basis. It always is difficult for me to try to understand the dimension of others of whom perhaps do not share my opinions, because I, for one, believe that part of the purpose of forming a government is to make sure that we protect the Nation's borders; that we protect our interests; that we protect those of whom sleep in peace and tranquility and domestically within the borders of our own country, so we take great pride in our police force, our firefighters, those who serve in the military, those of whom who put on the uniform and say they give an oath to lay down their life. It was a Vietnam veteran that turned to me when I was a young cadet and said I want you to memorize this statement: those who serve their country on a distant battlefield see life in a dimension for which the protected may never know. Those of whom may be the protected yet have never seen the horrors of a battlefield are very quick to become the critics of the defense industry, become critics of those of whom serve in the military, those of whom question a system of honor and of integrity, of character, of the essence of the nobility of life. They say, well, we will be there when you need it; that is false. It takes the commitment of a Nation, weapons systems that we will use in the next war are not crafted and built based on the successes of the last. If we do that, it is a prescription for failure. You design your weapons systems thinking far ahead; it is why when you go into battle that we want to place our men and women who serve in harm's way with the ability to overmatch, so we do not see the coffins coming back to Dover, Delaware. That is why I enjoy it when the defense bill comes to the House floor, because it is one of the few bills that this body comes together as Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Russian Bear has been replaced by a thousand Vipers; and we have to be leaning forward and be very prepared and be very ready because we do not know who is going to be the next threat.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would advise everyone that it is no secret that the Republicans are putting together the plan to derive a pharmacy benefit for the over-65 individuals of whom are most needy; and we are not ashamed of that at all. I will also say that what a curious thing it is that we will always have a critic that will always question a weapons system that will say, well, what is the purpose of that? It has never shot a nuclear missile? My colleagues, we had a B-2 bomber, this is called the Spirit of Indiana, and I dedicated that B-2 bomber in Indiana; and when I dedicated it, I prayed that it would never drop a bomb. Now, why would we ever build a billion-dollar weapon system and pray that it would never drop a bomb? Because it is a deterrent. A police officer, when he carries a weapon, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), he says a prayer that he never has to use his weapon. When he pulls that weapon, he does not say, I want to brandish it, I want to threaten, actually, I want to pull the trigger and shoot and kill someone because it is going to make me feel good. No. It is used as a deterrent. We have different weapon systems out there that are used as a deterrent, and they are extremely important. For the gentleman to question to say, why are we building nuclear weapons, in fact, that we are never going to use them, and then to say that we have other domestic priorities is ridiculous and rather silly.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some good news about well-deserved recognition of three American heroes and the role of the Congress in attaining their highest honor and distinction in our country. Four years ago, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 created a process to permit Members of Congress to obtain reviews of military decoration recommendations for merit, even though the time limits established in the law would normally preclude such consideration. Since then, many heroic acts have been properly but belatedly recognized. Many of these heroic acts would have gone unnoticed had it not been for Members of Congress demanding fair hearings of the facts and circumstances. Mr. Speaker, today I want to focus on three cases of valor which Congress will soon formally recognize by making possible the award of our Nation's highest decoration for bravery and combat, the Medal of Honor. I will start with the recommendation from my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), that Corporal Andrew J. Smith of the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on November 30, 1864, at the Civil War Battle of Honey Hill in South Carolina. Mr. Smith, from Clinton, Illinois, volunteered to serve in the 55th Massachusetts. The battle that day had brought the 55th to a narrow bridge in front of a Confederate stronghold on the hill. The 55th joined another regiment in filing across the bridge in the face of withering enemy fire. The officers leading the charge were killed immediately. The commander was wounded and trapped under his dead horse. In a fight that would see one-half the unit's officers and a third of the enlisted men killed or wounded, the regimental colors, that critical symbol that is the heart of any unit, had been put at risk. The flag bearer had been blown to pieces by an exploding shell. Corporal Smith ignored his own safety and grabbed the regimental colors from the hand of the dead sergeant. He then maneuvered through the heavy grape and canister being fired at close range and carried the colors to safety, thereby leading his men. His actions are of conspicuous valor and, therefore, worthy of the Medal of Honor. The next case involves the recommendation from Senator Daniel Akaka to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Technician Fifth Grade James K. Okubo, Medical Detachment, 442 Regimental Combat Team, for his actions on October 28, 29, and November 4 of 1944 near Biffontaine, France. Technician Fifth Grade Okubo and his compatriots in the highly decorated Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team had fought through Italy and were engaging German forces in France in the fall of 1944. During the battle, while subjected to continuous machine gun, mortar, and artillery fire, this soldier coolly and efficiently rendered first aid to 25 wounded soldiers. On two occasions, he crawled 150 yards to points within 40 yards of enemy lines to evacuate wounded comrades. On November 4, he ran 75 yards through deadly machine gun fire, and while exposed to intense enemy fire directed at him, he evacuated a seriously wounded crewman from a burning tank. His actions on these days are of conspicuous valor and, therefore, make him worthy of the Medal of Honor. The third case involves the recommendation by Senator John McCain to award the Medal of Honor to Captain Ed W. Freeman, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, for his actions on November 14, 1965, at landing zone X-ray during the battle of the IDrang Valley, the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Freeman was flying resupply missions into the now famous landing zone X-ray, one of the hottest and most embattled LZs of the Vietnam War. U.S. forces were reporting heavy casualties and a shortage of water and supplies. The Medevac helicopter had tried to land but was driven off by intense enemy fire. Despite these dangers, Captain Freeman ignored the enemy fire and repeatedly flew into the landing zone X-ray carrying in supplies and lifting out the wounded. He flew a total of 14 missions to a landing zone that was just 100 meters from the defensive perimeter, and he evacuated 30 seriously wounded soldiers from the LZ that would not have otherwise lived. He quit flying that day several hours after dark only after all the wounded had been evacuated. His actions are of conspicuous valor and, therefore, worthy of the Medal of Honor. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the legal barriers that have prevented these heroes from being recognized will be lifted in legislation soon to be enacted by Congress. As a result, these heroic individuals will soon be recipients of the Medal of Honor and we have set the record straight and we have touched for a moment that which is at the heart of our pride in being American.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered to S. 1402. This truly bipartisan effort addresses many of the problems service members face with regard to accessing adequate GI bill education benefits. Over the last several years, veterans and their families have called on Congress to increase veterans education assistance, and equally important, correct the injustices that have prevented many of the VEAP era veterans from receiving GI bill education benefits. Congress, through the leadership of House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Mr. Evans have answered their call by offering this amendment. While this legislation may not fully address the concerns of the veterans community, it is clearly another giant step in our continued efforts to improve GI bill education benefits. Rest assured, that my colleagues and I on the House Veterans Affairs Committee will continue to fight for improved and increased GI bill educational benefits. Leaving the active military can be a very difficult time period for veterans and their families. It is filled with uncertainty, apprehension, and trepidation. Unfortunately, the current GI bill education benefit has failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing economy. In fact, many veterans have found that current educational assistance does not meet their transition needs. Furthermore, many other Federal programs offer far greater benefits for little or no commitment. In fact, veterans educational assistance is one of the few Federal educational benefits that is truly earned with sweat equity, and yes, sometimes blood or loss of limb. For these reasons, improving GI bill education benefits and increasing access to these benefits is extremely important. Not only do GI bill educational benefits assist veterans as they transition back into the local communities that they willingly left to serve this nation, these benefits also reflect the gratitude of a grateful nation. I believe GI bill benefits, and this amendment represent a fitting and proper way to say thank you for your sacrifice and unselfish commitment in protecting America's cherished freedoms and liberties. Mr. Speaker, this amendment holds true to the spirit of the original GI bill that Congress passed in 1944. It will improve and increase access to veterans educational assistance, and allow veterans the opportunity to make a more complete transition as they leave the military and enter the civilian workforce.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman by saying if she is fatigued in these types of battles, then join in the cause of the celebration for life. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the access to abortion services as may be claimed here on the House floor. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of host nations regarding abortions. Second, the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform such procedures, even though we then enacted a conscience clause. The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. This language was defeated previously. It almost feels as though it is political theater year in and year out as we go through these abortion amendments. I would note that in overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available, the beneficiaries have options of using space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. But if we are going to subject our military facilities by military doctors who have taken a pledge and focus all of their energies toward military medical readiness, which means the saving of life, that is what our military doctors do. Military medical readiness is that they focus the performance of their duties to take care of soldiers who are wounded in accidents and, more particular, in battlefield injuries. Now to say, ``Well, we're going to take that same doctor and, oh, by the way, now we're going to say it's okay to let him perform abortions,'' I think not. The House has been heard on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, since the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was brought up in the well of the House, I yield 1 minute to him to respond.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer would require the expansion of Medicare Subvention, TRICARE Senior Prime Program, by the end of 2002 up to 13 more hospitals, bringing the total number of hospitals offering enrollment in Medicare Subvention to 24, and making an additional 140,000 retiree eligibles for enrollment. We seek to extend Medicare Subvention, TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration project, through December 31, 2003. We require the Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services to take measures necessary to ensure the program is being administered in a fiscally sound manner and in accordance with the original legislation. We also require GAO to oversee the efforts of both Secretaries. We ensure that the current subvention sites continue and care for the current participants is not interrupted. We also ask that direct payments go directly to medical treatment facilities where the program is being offered. We also seek to eliminate discrimination among enrollees allowed to ``age into'' the program by removing the requirement that their care be managed by a military treatment facility prior to enrollment. We also seek to provide Medigap insurance protection to enrollees as if they were enrolled in the Medicare+Choice Plan. We will also seek to implement the utilization management controls to keep the program within the budget caps as set by the budget resolution. We also seek to require several reports on the efficacy of the demonstration project to be considered by the Congress in making the final decision in the year 2003 about the type of care we seek to extend to the Medicare eligible military retirees. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). When you look at the amendment itself, when the gentleman said ``what Buyer offers is a `might,' it might happen,'' no. In the amendment we say in here ``the project shall be conducted at any site that includes a military treatment facility that is considered by the Secretary of Defense to be a major medical center.'' So what is that? That is the National Capital region, which is Walter Reed, it is Bethesda, it is Malcolm Grow, it is Fort Belvoir. Then we also go down to the Tidewater area, that is, Portsmouth. It is Naval Hospital, it is Langley Air Force Base, it is Fort Eustis. Then we drop down to North Carolina, it is Fort Bragg. In Georgia, it is Eisenhower Medical Center. In Ohio it is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In Texas it is William Beaumont. In California it is Travis Air Force Base. In Hawaii it is Tripler. Now let me address this, ``Oh, this only does it part of the way, and, gee, is this really going to take care of everyone?'' Mr. Chairman, I tried to do this pie and tried to explain it to everybody. Now I am going to grab the back of the chart and I am going to do another what I say is truth in advocacy. Let me just define this for everyone. Let me show you this really quick. When you draw the whole of the pie, cut it in half, because this half over here represents how many military Members actually live in close proximity to a medical treatment facility. Now, of that half, of the 1.4 million, Medicare subvention, if we go permanent, it only addresses 20 percent of the half, which is only 10 percent of the 1.4 million. That is only 140,000 of the military retirees that we actually take care of. Why? Because of the capacity question. So, even in my amendment, when we expand it to the major medical centers, it makes eligible 146,000 military retirees, but we only have room at the facilities that I listed for 30,000. Then I had the list of all the other medical treatment facilities that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) would add. What would it add? It would then make 195,800 eligible to enroll, but, at most, there is only room for 39,000. See, we have to be very, very careful between our rhetoric and demagoguery and what this really does. Now, I have great respect, and I will say it again, with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), because we are going to continue to work, whatever the outcome here, as we move to conference. But I think what is extremely important for us to do as a body is all these demonstration projects, we get our arms around them all; we get our arms around them, we actually have good analysis of the data so we can deliver the plan. In the meantime, we get the pharmacy benefit and we try to make sense out of this very complex military health system that we have. That is our pursuit. Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to vote for the Buyer amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I also want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). As most of the body knows and understands, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I serve as cochair of the Guard and Reserve Caucus. And we do many things on behalf of the Congress, on behalf of many, many Members as we move that process through the subcommittees of procurement and the full committee, and on as we move into conference. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I stand side by side in many of the different fights and battles that we do with regard to national security. This may be one of those moments where we can agree to disagree. Let us do a little review of history, as America paid great tribute in recognition to the World War II veteran and to the Korean War veteran and we turned to them, and Congress created the GI bill. And we also in 1956 created the space availability care for medical treatment; but in the 1960s, when Congress created Medicare, it was the Congress at that time that took the military retiree and triggered them into the general population. That is what happened in this body. Now, I do not want to get into the politics of this thing, but that was a Democrat controlled Congress triggered the military retiree to be treated the same. Now, many did not recognize or feel that. Why? Because many of the military retirees, they lived next to military medical treatment facilities. Then as we go through the BRAC process, many of them find out and discovered then for the first time that, oh, my gosh, the military can actually close that military hospital and I have to drive so far for my health care. I thought that I was promised health care for life. Then the Congress responds by creating many different types of pilot programs, whether it is Medicare subvention or FEHBP or a BRAC pharmacy program. We have such a hodgepodge military health care system right now. Why? Because really we as a body are trying to struggle with how do we get our arms around this military health care system and deliver care to the military retiree without saying to the military retiree, you have to live next to a medical treatment facility. Mr. Speaker, with regard to Mr. Taylor's amendment seeking to make Medicare subvention permanent, the gentleman is basically saying to the military retiree if you want that care, you better live next to a medical treatment facility, because if you do not live next to one, it is not going to apply to you. Now, what concerns me is that the medical subvention is a pilot. See, we create these pilot programs so we can then analyze the data so we can make competent judgments. Often, we create these pilot programs and we do not have the patience to analyze the data and quickly we move into the permanency of these programs. This is a moment when I analyze this one, I said, enough of all the rhetoric; any Member can come to the floor and make a great speech about throwing their arm around the veteran. It is 101 when it comes to political speeches, but let us stop the rhetoric. We take the pilot programs that are out there in this base bill and we extend the demos, that was negotiated through the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. The administration supports the base tax of this bill to extend the demos. We extend them and they end December 31 of 2003. Now, what happens? Why do you end them? You end them because we are going to analyze them. We do several things. We create this independent advisory council nominated by the Secretary of Defense to analyze this complex health care system and to give recommendations to the Congress in July of 2002. You then have the input from Congress. You have the independent advisory council. You have OMB as a player. You have DOD as a player, and you have the United States Senate. I believe as we work in the fall of 2002, after having properly analyzed all of these pilot programs, that we can actually then deliver and the next administration will know that since we created this road map of methodology to properly analyze what will be the best health delivery system for the military retiree, the next administration knows the bill is coming in the 2004 cycle. So the bill is crafted in the fall of 2002 on what is the best method; it is introduced before the Committee on Armed Services in April of 2003 in the 2004 cycle; and in October 1 of 2004, it happens. It happens. It is not just that it happens, it happens in a manner that is based on a methodology for the most competent decision. Medicare subvention; what we have learned as a pilot program is it is running $100 million a year in arrears to DOD, and it was meant to be a cost-neutral program. So if it is running $100 million in arrears to DOD at 6 sites, if we expand it to over 60 sites and make it permanent, we are taking a crippled program that has not been fixed and putting it on the road to financial disaster, and that is what the letter that we received from the Air Force, Michael Ryan, the General, the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, he said ``I urge that we heed the lessons already learned from Medicare subvention demonstration projects. The current TRICARE senior prime program, though popular with retirees, is not fiscally sustainable over the long term.'' Mr. Speaker, what I ask of Members is that in this base tax, we have the methodology for us to analyze the data to make the competent decisions, and we deliver. In good faith, negotiating with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) yesterday, we agreed to offer a substitute to his amendment that would expand to all major medical centers as we then begin to work to help and urge the renegotiation of the rate between HCFA and the Department of Defense as we also work on the utilization issue. That is what the substitute is that I bring to the Members to vote on this afternoon. It is extremely important. The question is, do we want to continue a pilot program, work to make it better so we can get a good test or do we just say, oh, the heck with it. Let us just make it permanent. The money does not matter. I do not believe that is our responsibility as Members of Congress.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to compliment the Committee on Rules for a very inclusive rule. What I would like to do at this moment is I would like to read into the Record the letters of support we have from many different organizations and associations representing millions of Americans, not only veterans but Americans who support the bill: The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; the Association of the United States Army; the National Military Family Association; American Shipbuilding Association; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the Navy League of the United States; the National Association of Uniformed Services; the Fleet Reserve Association; the Retired Enlisted Association; Noncommissioned Officers Association; Commissioned Officers Association of U.S. Public Health Service; the Armed Forces Marketing Council; National Guard Association of the United States; the National Military and Veterans Alliance, which include the following organizations: The Air Force Sergeants Association; the American Military Retirees Association; the American Military Society; the American Retirees Association; Class Act Group; Catholic War Veterans; Korean Veterans Association; the Legion of Valor Association; the Military Order of the World Wars; the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; the Society of Medical Consultants; the TREA Senior Citizens League; Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors; the Vietnam Veterans of America; Women in Search of Equity, were also supported by the military coalition, which includes the following organizations: The Air Force Association, the Army Aviation Association of America; the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States; the CWO & WO Associations of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Gold Star Wives of America, Incorporated; Jewish War Veterans of the United States; the Marine Corps League; Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association; the Military Order of the Purple Heart; the National Order of Battlefield Commissions; the Naval Reserve Association; the Society of Medical Consultants in the Armed Forces; the Military Chaplains Associations of the United States Army; the United Armed Forces Association; the United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association; the United States Army Warrant Officers Association; and the Veterans Widows International Network, Incorporated; to also end with the United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, this list is very extensive. It represents millions of Americans that support the base bill that came out of the Committee on Armed Services, the Floyd Spence bill. They are all lined up also in honor of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his years of service, for his principles, for his commitment to national security. When we hear some perhaps bickering about what was not included, what was included, let us pause for a moment and all Members recognize that this base bill is supported by many different organizations and associations.