Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4205. This bill addresses many of the most difficult national security challenges facing the Nation. In particular, the military personnel titles of H.R. 4205 meet two major national security challenges head on. First, it reforms the military health care system so it can promote, not detract, from readiness, recruiting, and retention. The bill breaks down numerous barriers to access for active and retired military individuals and their families, and it restores access to a nationwide prescription drug benefit for 1.4 million military retirees over the age of 65. It sets the stage for providing Medicare-eligible military retirees a permanent health care program in fiscal year 2004, and adds more than $280 million to the defense health programs to fund new benefits. It also promotes reforms that will save more than $500 million over 5 years. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted hearings, and what we learned was that in TRICARE, it is costing us $78 a claim to process that claim. When we have 39 million claims, that is a lot of money. In Medicare, it costs us 80 cents to $1 to process one claim, so just do the easy math. Over a 5-year period, if we actually can get them to enact the best business practices and move to online billing, we can save over $500 million, and take those monies and pour them back into the health program. It is the right thing. It is pretty exciting that we are able to do this. The bill also aggressively attacks the major challenge of sustaining the viability of America's all volunteer military force. Therefore, the bill contains numerous recommendations for improved pay, bonuses, benefits, that continue the broad-based approach that Congress undertook last year. We also target certain specific problems like recruiting and retention, and with regard to the food stamp program. In short, this bill provides a strong, comprehensive set of initiatives that go to the heart of fixing some of the toughest problems confronting our military today. I urge all Members to support the bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I speak in reference to Amendment No. 11 that makes technical corrections regarding the Army National Guard Selective Reserve, the Active Guard and Reserve, which are referred to as the AGR and the dual status military technicians regarding the end strengths for fiscal year 2001. Those technical corrections will be made. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement. As co-chair of the Guard and Reserve Caucus, along with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the committee, along with the ranking member and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) it permits the caucus to work with Members to put together their concerns regarding funding the Reserve excepts along with the Guard. They permit us to put together these packages and then deliver to their committee. We extend to our colleagues great compliments for accepting the first $250 million of the NGRE list. NGRE stands for the National Guard Reserve Equipment List. We worked very hard this year, working with the committee, to address the proportionality questions. In this amendment, we have a technical correction with regard to what came out of the full committee regarding some of the funding, whether it was $52 million that goes directly to the Air Guard or was that really meant for the Army Reserve.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and in support of the substitute amendment offered by my friend from Texas, Mr. Thornberry. I grew up along the Tippecanoe River in Indiana. I explored the great outdoors and learned to appreciate the value of our natural resources. This appreciation led me to realize the necessary balance required between wildlife, nature, and humans. Growing up in a rural community, I also know that private landowners take pride in their land. They are wise stewards of their lands, seeking to pass them on to their children and their children's children. It disturbs me, therefore, that we are considering legislation of which the major purpose is the purchase of private property by government. It provides dedicated mandatory funding for land acquisition. Proponents of CARA seem to believe that the goal of conservation can be reached if only the federal government controlled more land. But the federal government already owns 670 million acres of land--that's one-third of the land in the U.S.--and it can't take care of it. Currently our national parks, recreation areas, wildlife areas and other federally owned properties have a multi-billion dollar backlog of maintenance needs. Maintenance of trails, park benches, roads, camping sites, bathrooms, water and sewage infrastructure and housing for administrative and management employees are among the unmet needs. GAO estimates the maintenance backlog at over $12 billion. Yet this bill provides little money to address this backlog, compared to the funds for land acquisition. It is irresponsible that while the government can not take care of what it already owns, we are adding mandatory funds to purchase even more land. I am also concerned that payments made to local governments by the federal government to offset the loss to the local tax base of federal property is given a lower priority than land acquisition. Local governments with large federal holdings are struggling to provide adequately for their school systems because the federal government does not adequately address its obligations to local communities. While the bill provides PILT funding from interest payments to the fund, land acquisition gets guaranteed funding. Funding for PILT should be given at least the same or even higher priority than land acquisition. Urban communities--which will receive guaranteed funding under the bill--have other tax base supporters on which to draw to make up shortfalls for publicly-held lands, while rural areas--where the bulk of the land acquisition is likely to take place--have far fewer revenue streams to rely upon. Finally, while I hear the argument of the bill's supporters, who say that private property rights are increased and that Congress must approve acquisition from unwilling sellers; the fact remains that half the funds for land acquisitions flow to the States, whose property rights protections we are limited in our ability to influence. Mr. Chairman, farming is one of the major occupations in my district. Farmers truly love the land, it's their life's blood. Farmers are a crucial ingredient in preserving our open spaces and wildlife habitat. Yet the farm community, including the American Farm Bureau, opposes this bill because it does not truly address the needs and concerns of farmers. The CARA bill, as currently written, falls short of what is needed to address our conservation and preservation needs in a comprehensive fashion. That's why I urge my House colleagues to support the Thornberry substitute which establishes a dedicated fund for maintenance, makes PILT funding mandatory, and strengthens private property rights. Mr. Chairman, there is a better way for us to get to our shared goal of environmental preservation and conservation than the CARA bill. For the best interests of farmers, ranchers, landowners, and for those who love nature, we should take this alternate route.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. My amendment would keep the private transactions of nonprofit, nongovernmental conservation groups a private matter by stopping government money from going to these groups for the purpose of purchasing conservation easements. We all share the goal of promoting conservation of our natural resources, and we all understand the importance of passing these resources from one generation to the next. But private environmental groups do not need the Federal Government's support. Nonprofit groups are already acquiring land for preservation purposes without government support. Private organizations are raising hundreds of millions of dollars each year which donors can take as a deduction on Federal taxes. In fact, according to the IRS and Philanthropic Research, Incorporated, the 10 largest environmental nongovernmental organizations have a combined annual revenue of over $1 billion. Now, what these groups do with the money they raise is their own business. If they want to purchase conservation easements, that is great. But they should not expect the Government to fund their activities. As currently written, CARA allows nonprofit environmental groups to acquire land, hold title and enforce easements, while Washington picks up half the tab. The funding of private groups for conservation easements is an unnecessary expansion of government. At a time when we should be holding the line on the amount of money that Washington spends and the influence it has over our people, it makes no sense to create a $100 million program to fund work that is already being done in the private sector. Moreover, Federal support of conservation easements is a back- door way of the Government to control even more land and exercise land use policies in a quasi-governmental function. The Federal Government already owns 670 million acres of land, about one-third of the land in the United States, land that it cannot properly maintain. Federal funding of private groups' land acquisition is another way for government to promote restrictions on land use without actually having to purchase the land. Now, there is a bit of confusion based on what has been shared among Members between the minority and the majority about what is actually in the bill and how it mirrored exactly what was taken out of the 1996 farm bill, Freedom to Farm. I would like to clarify. The 1996 farm bill included a program, the Farmland Protection Program, or FPP, intended to keep farmland in agricultural production. The program featured Federal funds to assist with the purchase of easements that would permanently restrict the use of land agriculture. Under the program, private nonprofit groups could receive Federal funds if they were partnered with a government entity and only for the purpose of keeping farmland in agricultural production. The money flows from the Federal Government to the State or local government entity, which in turns channels it to the private partnering groups. Under the FPP, there is no direct pipeline to these groups from the Federal Treasury. Now, what is in CARA that is different from the Freedom to Farm? Under title VII of CARA, there are two significant and troubling differences. First, under the CARA provision, private, nonprofit groups do not have to be partnered with a government entity. This means that for the first time, these groups have a direct pipeline to the Federal Treasury for the purposes of acquiring easements. The second difference and significant difference is that under CARA, the easements have been expanded to include general conservation purposes, such as wildlife preservation as opposed to simply keeping farmland in agricultural production. A second area of confusion is about the impact that our amendment would have on private, nonprofit groups under FPP. Some of the groups are concerned that our amendment would take away funding that they currently receive or jeopardize future funding under the FPP. This notion is mistaken. Our amendment only impacts CARA. If adopted, our amendment would not take away any of the nonprofit groups' funding under the FPP or impose further restrictions on their activities. We simply are preventing them from building a direct pipeline to government money under CARA and from using money for nonagricultural purposes. Under our amendment, these groups could still receive Federal funds if they partnered with a government entity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman, I come from a district that represents 20 counties of Indiana, one of the largest districts that is to the east of the Mississippi, with a strong agricultural base. I would disagree with the gentleman's assertion that somehow this prevents private organizations from purchasing lands, purchasing those easements and doing what they want with it. What I am saying is, if the sponsors of this bill sell the bill to the Members of this body by saying oh, what we have done is just took exactly what was in Freedom to Farm and placed in the bill, and I am going to clarify this with the chairman, then we have a problem.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) who has offered this amendment. I would share with the gentleman that I do agree with him on some of his points, especially when he said that we have to go after the demand. I agree with him. But when it comes to the drug issue, I think, as a Nation, we have to embrace a comprehensive approach, one that is, in fact, multifaceted. So when we do that, I stop and I think about, yes, the importance of education. I think about the importance of rehabilitation and treatment, but there are also other important factors out there. It is deterrence. It is punishment, punishments of users, of pushers and of kingpins. There is also the glamorization of utilization of drugs, whether it is by Hollywood or stories, TV shows. What about going after the source countries, as the chairman just spoke of, or what about through the transit countries, where the drugs move out of the source countries and transit through other avenues and to find its way on the streets of this country? What about the precursor chemicals that are coming from our other ally countries, such as Germany and others in Europe, and their relationships into South America, that they have those relationships dating all the way back to pre-World War II, they sell those chemicals, and then going after those precursor chemicals. Talking about a multifaceted approach, when a Member stands here on the floor and says we are going to war in Colombia, give me a break. We are not going to war in Colombia. We are going to war on drugs. I was rather stunned in the Committee on Armed Services when a member of this administration came so very cautious and concerned to tell the members of the Committee on Armed Services that in Colombia we are not choosing sides. Not choosing sides? What, are you going to then somehow be neutral? You want to defend the drug cartel, the narcoterrorists? What do you mean you are not choosing sides? Who are you going to be for? Are you going to stand to defend a president who wants to engage us in the war on drugs in Colombia, the longest-serving democracy in this hemisphere, with the United States? Yes, that is who we need to stand with. So they want to engage in a comprehensive approach in the, quote, war on drugs; should we embrace them? The answer is yes. We have great debates on this floor about the United States, we should only engage in certain areas of the world to protect vital national security interests. Can you define an interest that can be more vital to all of us than the drugs and the effects they have upon our children? I cannot think of one. We will spend $10 billion in Kosovo. And people cannot relate as to why we are spending these monies in Kosovo, when, in fact, if we would spend half of that in an endeavor to stop drugs from coming into our country, look how far ahead we would be, the 52,000 lives that are lost each year, I say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). I would urge Members to vote against the gentleman's amendment for a comprehensive approach.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me also thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his hard work on this bill. I could not help but think, as I was listening to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who brought up a chart up here saying that the Republicans are busting the budget, that a few years ago he was standing here on the floor saying we were trying to starve children and put our grandmothers out on the streets. So when Republicans step forward and we fund particular programs, I am finding out that some of my colleagues enjoy the role of just playing the critic rather than being constructive and involving themselves in programs that help not only our people but our country be good neighbors in the world. I rise in strong support of this bill. A critical element of this bill is called ``Plan Colombia,'' which is the funding of a concerted effort aimed at reducing the supply of narcotics to the United States from this region in South America. Illicit drugs pose a clear and present threat to the well-being of American society as well as our entire hemisphere. In 1999, drugs killed 52,000 Americans, approximately, and caused more than $10 billion in damage to our country. The number of drug arrests and percentage of teens using drugs has steadily risen since President Clinton took office in 1993. The streets of America are literally awash in drugs, and this supplemental sends an unambiguous signal that we are finally getting serious about addressing this issue. Unlike the Bosnia and Kosovo debates we have had on in floor, the United States has a vital national interest that is threatened by the influx of drugs across our borders. These drugs find their way on to every street corner of America. Over 80 percent of the cocaine and heroin that makes its way to the United States comes from this region in South America. In December of 1999, I traveled to Colombia and Venezuela. I went into the jungles and Tres Esquinas where they were actually training the police battalions and, in my opinion, the democratically-elected government of Colombia is serious today about fighting the war on drugs. Now, I will acknowledge the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) about the individuals who are drafted, young men not participating in the war, in armed combat. We recognize that. But what we are training up is this narcotics police battalion. They are very serious in their efforts. The core plan of Colombia, in training these battalions, is very serious. The transportation of the them for the helicopters is necessary. I believe that Congress needs to step up to the plate. The President has acknowledged the commitment of the president of Colombia. We need the comprehensive strategy to fight this war, and this is the initial first step.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is highly respected. This is a bad agreement. If you have a bad agreement, then get rid of it. Why would we ever endorse extortion of the taxpayers' money? And that is what this is. I do not care how you call it. If we do this in Puerto Rico, then what are we going to do about the Tohona Oden tribe outside of Tucson who want their Indian lands back? Then the Committee on Appropriations are going to say we have to give money to them. We are going to be doing this all across the country. Enough is enough. Support the Fowler amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The amendment includes recruiting and quality of life, and health care funding essential to sustaining the readiness and well being of the all-volunteer military. recruiting funding Mr. Chairman, the primary reason the Armed Forces of the late 1970's were declared hollow was the inability of the services to recruit and retain the required number and quality of people. That hollow force history is repeating itself today, and we must act to change its course. To that end, this amendment would add $600 million to a troubled recruiting program that is in urgent need of help. How bad is the recruiting problem? Three of the four active duty services failed to achieve recruiting goals in fiscal year 1999, and at least one will certainly fail in FY 2000, and two others may fail. Three of the six reserve components also failed to meet recruiting objectives in fiscal year 1999 and some analysts predict that five of six will fall below their FY 2000 authorized strength by 15,000 people. Mr. Chairman, we must not allow recruiting to go unattended even for 1 year--we support this amendment that provides critical funding for enlistment bonuses and advertising right now. quality of life Everyone has heard about the economic plight of men and women in the military. This amendment would put $221 million directly into the pockets of military people to pay for housing. Without this money, thousands of families will continue to reach into their own pockets to pay for housing that is our obligation to provide them. This amendment also dedicates $10 million to fund the DOD's implementation of a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental food program overseas. We must ensure that our youngest and most financially stressed families are not denied the food and nutritional counseling just because they serve overseas. defense health program The Defense Health Program is chronically underfunded and there is a need to improve and extend the benefit for a changing military beneficiary population. Therefore, the amendment would provide $750 million to improve health care benefits for active duty and retired personnel and their families. Military families increasingly cite the crisis facing the military health care system as a reason for their growing disaffection with the military way of life. We cannot afford to neglect this problem. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues should be assured that meeting the needs of people and the armed services that I have outlined here is an urgent requirement. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to protect the people that serve our Nation in uniform--our most precious of resources. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to issue a statement in response and in disagreement with the position of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) that only the Democrats' budget has a response to military health care. That is false.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 86 sets the record straight. Never should our courageous veterans, whether it is Bill Green of White County, Indiana or my father, Dr. John Buyer, or the millions who served in the Korean War ever, ever, ever doubt that this Nation understands and appreciates their sacrifices and their contribution to freedom that we enjoy, not only in our Nation but around the world. We must never allow a veteran who fought for this Nation or a family who lost a loved one by either death or is missing in action to ever say that their war was a forgotten war. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for bringing this resolution to the attention of the House and to the country. I urge my colleagues to send a message that the people who fought in Korea will not be forgotten and to vote in favor of adoption of the resolution. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his words in support of this resolution and for his contribution to the House.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and for that reason, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I, by way of opening, shared also a soldier's story of Bill Green from White County, Indiana, who is part of Task Force Smith and those of us today, while I am the son of a Korean War veteran, having served in the Gulf War, today now being on the Committee on Armed Services, on the committee we use the example that those who lived with Task Force Smith, that never again will we place our men and women into harm's way whereby they are not trained properly or do not have the adequate resources to do the job. So we never want what the gentleman experienced ever have to happen again to our forces. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the sponsor of the bill. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The forgotten war. That is what many of our Korean War veterans think about their service in Korea and the Korean era, and yet there are so many names in the Korean War that are permanently installed in the American lexicon. Such names as Inchon, the 38th parallel, Heartbreak Ridge, Pork Chop Hill. How is it that we have come to forever remember the places of war but overlook the people that sacrificed and endured? I would like to share a soldier's story. And there are many stories that individuals can share, whether it is in the sea or on the ground or in the air, but I would like to tell this one of a teenager from White County, Indiana, by the name of Bill Green. On June 23, 1950, before dawn, North Korean artillery opened fire across the 38th parallel with preparatory fires. A half hour later, the North Korean Army commenced a four-prong attack with an estimated nine divisions, numbering 80,000 men, 150 tanks and numerous artillery pieces. At the time, Mr. Green served with K Company, the 21st Infantry, and the 24th Infantry. He was stationed in Japan as part of the World War II Army of Occupation under General Douglas MacArthur. In less than a week, Mr. Green and his unit were air transported to Korea and formed Task Force Smith. The Force was tasked to delay and defend the attacking North Koreans at Osan, only 50 miles from the North Korean border. Task Force Smith was comprised of the 7th, the 24th, and the 25th Divisions, as well as the 1st Cavalry. They were severely undermanned and totaled 66 percent of the normal combat strength. The 24th Division, to which Mr. Green was assigned, had only 10,800 men of a required 18,900 strength. In fact, when Mr. Green's company arrived in Korea, it carried only two 81-mm base plates and two mortar tubes but no bipods to stabilize the weapon and no sights to aim the weapon. In addition, K company had no recoilless rifles, the main weapon used against tanks, and the only jeep in the weapons company was a privately owned vehicle belonging to one of the privates. Furthermore, the artillery attached to Task Force Smith possessed only 13 anti-tank artillery rounds. On July 2, 1950, the Task Force moved north from Pusan, South Korea, pushing through endless lines of bewildered refugees and retreating South Korean Army units. On July 5, 1950, a strong force of North Korean infantry and tanks struck Task Force Smith as it stood alone in the roadway between attacking communist forces and the rest of a free South Korea. The outnumbered Americans fired artillery, bazookas, mortars and their rifles at North Korean communists and their Russian-made tanks. During the battle, Task Force Smith was hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered. In the area of operations for the 24th Division, Mr. Green's 21st regiment was outmanned nine to one, approximately 9,000 to 1,000. The 21st Infantry, with only two rifle companies, a battery of 105 howitzers, two mortar platoons, and six bazooka teams received its baptism of fire in Korea by holding an entire enemy division for 7 hours. Escaping impending doom near Osan, the 21st fought its way out of encirclement and retreated 12 miles south. Following the battle at Osan, Task Force Smith defended the town of Taejon, half way between the North Korean border and Pusan, the last stronghold of American and South Korean forces. In August and September, Mr. Green participated in the defense of Pusan, which was only one area between advancing North Korean forces and the sea. On September 19, 1950, Task Force Smith attacked across the Naktong River, breaking out of the Pusan Perimeter and beginning the rapid advance to the north, thus escaping the fall of South Korea and the certain death of thousands of Americans and South Koreans. The reason I pause to share this is, this was an individual who was, like many others, teenagers, young men in their 20s even. They went and served in the military. This was the aftermath of World War II. They found themselves in the comfort of an occupation force. They were not adequately trained. They were not adequately manned and staffed. They were not even adequately resourced. Yet they were called because their country called them to duty. And that is what they were, called to duty. And they had to face an outnumbered force. Yet they fought with truly an American character. They fought for no bounty of their own but to only leave freedom in their footsteps. The Korean War. Over 55,000 lost their lives in the Korean War. It is only proper that we pause and think about those, many of whom had just served in World War II, some of whom were not young enough to have served in World War II, Mr. Speaker, but they found themselves in a similar position as Mr. Green. My father, John Buyer, is a Korean War-era veteran. He went to Culver Military Academy. He went to the Citadel. After all those years of military training, he decided to decline his commission, and wanted to go into medicine. But he got drafted. And instead of all his peers serving in the officer corps, my father taught me many things in his silence. He ended up as a sergeant in the Army. Not once did he ever complain. Not once did he ever say, oh, I could have been an officer. No. His country called and he did his duty, like millions before. I do not know whoever said that the Korean War was the forgotten war. But from my point of view, as a son of a Korean War-era veteran, it is a meaningful war to me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Joint Resolution 86, now under consideration.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 86) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean War and the service by members of the Armed Forces during such war, and for other purposes.