Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. I have long supported repeal of this onerous, burdensome rule on this nation's working seniors. The earnings limit penalty requires seniors age 65 to 69 who earn over $17,000 to forfeit 33% of their Social Security benefits. Seniors with golden parachutes or extensive investments do not face such a penalty . . . only those who get up every morning, head off to work, and make valuable contributions to our labor force. This is unfair. As a relic of the Great Depression, Congress is overdue to reform this antiquated law. The earnings limit is a great disincentive to seniors to remain in the workforce if they so choose. In reality, it is the imposition of a high marginal tax rate on productive seniors in the workforce, who are also paying federal and state income taxes, and Social Security payroll taxes. I'm pleased to see this legislation come to the floor in a bipartisan fashion. I'm pleased the President has indicated he will sign it. I look forward to lifting this burden from working seniors.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6 and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. More than 20 million American married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were single. The ``tax'' on marriage in our system averages nearly $1400 per couple. This $1400 could be used by couples to save for college or retirement, make several months of car payments, pay for braces or piano lessons. Unfortunately, some in this chamber believe that Washington knows better how to use $1400 than a husband and a wife. Numerous statistical evidence is available that children are far less at risk for academic and behavioral problems when raised in a two- parent family. But built into our Tax Code is a disincentive for families to stick together. The marriage penalty in the Tax Code is more likely and larger in those households where both marriage partners have incomes that are nearly equal. In 1995, 72 percent of working age couples had both individuals in paid employment. 12 percent of couples with incomes below $20,000 had penalties in 1996; 44 percent of couples with incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 had marriage penalties; and 54 percent of those with incomes over $50,000 had penalties. It is time that the Federal Tax Code support marriage, and not penalize it. I urge the adoption of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. This legislation represents a significant step to clearing up any ambiguities with regard to the United States' policies. It is the government of the Republic of China, not the Communist regime of the Peoples' Republic, that has free elections and a capitalistic system. The Republic of China is America's ally. It is our strategic partner that supports America's goals in the Pacific region. In essence, we are partners in liberty. Both of our countries subscribe to the principles of freedom, the rule of law, human rights, peace, and economic prosperity. Our commitment to strengthening this partnership should be a priority. Repeated Red Chinese military exercises in the Taiwan Straits and its pursuit to project military power beyond its own border continues to threaten Taiwan. These aggressive actions only serve to undermine the balance of security in the Pacific Rim and around the world. Let me be very clear. The Communist regime of the People's Republic of China is actively working to undermine America's national security interests, not only in the Taiwan Straits but around the world. One only has to read the book ``Unrestricted War.'' It was recently published by the Red Chinese military, and it outlines a strategy of how to undermine and defeat America's interests. The tenets of this strategy include nontraditional methods of warfare, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, computer virus propagation, as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Chinese espionage activity and its continued pursuit of a combined arms warfare capability, missile launches in the Taiwan Straits, as well as Beijing's repeated rhetoric of political threats towards Taiwan, only serve to support the strategy. Passage of this bill endorses and supports Taiwan and its hope for liberty and the pursuit of a freely elected and one democratic China. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1663, the National Medal of Honor Memorial Act. As the 20th Century draws to a close, many veterans wonder if the nation has lost sight of the sacrifices which have been made to preserve freedom. This bill, loudly states that we the Congress, who represent the people of this great nation, have not lost sight of the heroic sacrifices made in the name of freedom. We appreciate the great contributions of these brave individuals who knowingly placed themselves in harm's way, ready to sacrifice life and limb so that their comrades may live and this nation's values remain strong. Over this last Memorial Day weekend, I had the distinct pleasure to assemble with nearly 100 Medal of Honor recipients to dedicate the Congressional Medal of Honor Memorial site at the White River State Park in Indianapolis, Indiana. It was truly an inspiring gathering, and at the same time, proved a very humbling experience. These individuals epitomize the true meaning of selfless sacrifice and personal commitment. While many have answered the call to duty, they have answered a higher calling. A calling that is spiritual in nature and bigger than one's self. For love of God, country, family and friends. Their significant contributions have helped secure a more democratic and peaceful world over the last century. More importantly, their actions serve as a testament to all Americans about serving and caring for others. Recognizing these Congressional Medal of Honor memorials sites in California, Indiana, and South Carolina as National Medal of Honor memorials continues our commitment to these gallant and heroic men and women and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1663. Mr. Stump. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. I did come to the floor. I chair the Subcommittee on Military Personnel with jurisdiction over the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military legal system. We watched the Committee on the Judiciary in its debate and the bill was reported out. I recommended to the chairman that we waive sequential referral and the bill came to the floor. I support the manager's amendment. Once this bill was reported, it is fitting that the Uniform Code of Justice be compatible with the Federal statute, and that is why we procedurally waived jurisdiction. The need for the manager's amendment and the request for support by this body is illustrated by the case of United States versus Robbins. In that case, Gregory Robbins, an airman, and his wife, who was over 8 months pregnant with a daughter that they had named Jasmine, resided at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. On September 12, 1996, Mr. Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to reduce the chance that it would inflict visible bruises, and he badly beat his wife by striking her repeatedly in the face and abdomen with his fist. Mrs. Robbins survived the attack with a severely battered eye, a broken nose and a ruptured uterus. She was taken to the emergency room, but medical personnel could not detect the baby's heartbeat. Now, some may refer to that baby as a fetal mass, but that was a viable fetus. They could not detect a heartbeat, and the doctors performed emergency surgery on Mrs. Robbins and found Jasmine laying sideways, dead, in Mrs. Robbins' abdominal cavity. As a result of Mrs. Robbins' repeated blows, it ruptured her uterus, the placenta was torn from the inner uterine wall, which expelled Jasmine into the abdominal cavity. Air Force prosecutors recognized that the Federal homicide statutes reach only the killing of a born human being, and that Congress has not spoken with regard to the protection of the unborn person. As a result, the prosecutors attempted to prosecute Mr. Robbins for Jasmine's death under Ohio's fetal homicide law, using Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 134 incorporates by reference all Federal crimes, criminal statutes and those State laws made Federal law via, quote, the Assimilated Crimes Act. Mr. Robbins pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter for Jasmine's death, but the legality of assimilating Ohio's Federal homicide law through article 134 is now the subject of Mr. Robbins' appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services. If the Court of Appeals agrees with Mr. Robbins that the assimilation of Ohio's law was improper, he will receive no additional punishment for the killing of the baby, Jasmine. Moreover, had Mr. Robbins battered his wife in a State that had no fetal homicide law, he could have been charged with only battery for the beating of his eight-month pregnant wife and there would be no legal consequence for the killing of their unborn child. That is the purpose of the manager's amendment, to make it compatible.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. This bill will directly address the veterans' concerns regarding the availability of long-term care, improving access to VA health care, and provide many military retirees access to a VA Health Care system that, in the past, has been closed to them. In addition, this bill finally addresses the issue of allowing VA to reimburse service-connected veterans and low income veterans for emergency care that they may have received at a non-VA facility. Equally important, the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act provides VA the authority to generate much needed revenues by establishing copayments on hearing aids and other extremely high cost items for nonservice-connected conditions, and allow VA to earmark these revenues specifically for medical care. Lastly, this bill provides veterans and their families a voice in the future of their health care system by requiring the VA to consult with the veterans community about the realignment of any VA facilities. Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for VA, and more importantly good for veterans.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his leadership and that of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his leadership on this bill. This is my eighth conference report; and I would say, of my years, I have not been here with the tenure that the gentlemen have, but this is a great bill. This is a bill that really would, in bold neon lights, focus on people. A lot of times we focus on buying, whether it is the aircraft carriers, the munitions, the weapons systems. This one focuses on people. This one, this House, on behalf of the American people, are turning to those in our armed services and saying, ``Thank you. And, oh, by the way, we respect your sacrifices so much, we increased your pay.'' We take care of many different reforms. We reform the retirement system. We are going to address the recruiting and retention concerns. I have to agree with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There are so many initiatives that we have done in this bill, they are almost too numerous to even mention here. I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this amendment and urge my colleagues to support its passage. In the post Cold War environment, the Selective Service System represents a ``national security insurance policy'' in a very volatile and unpredictable world community. Right now, American service personnel are deployed in numerous contingency operations around the globe. North Korea, Iraq and the Balkans still exist as potential flash points that could very easily erupt in the near future. Each would require a sizable force structure. Simply put, the United States is militarily involved in three potential major theaters of war, despite having a force structure that is supposed to fight and win two near simultaneous major regional conflicts. This is truly alarming given the future uncertainty of military manpower as a result of the service's recruiting and retention problems. The Selective Service System is the primary source of leads for military recruiters when prospecting for candidates to join the all-volunteer force. Equally important, registration represents one of the few remaining obligations our nation requires of its young men. In the nation's changing cultural environment that places more emphasis on receiving benefits, than on service to one's country, elimination of this program will further erode the consciousness of the populace about military service and its obligation to defend our country. Finally, let me remind this chamber of its Constitutional obligation. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states ``that Congress shall have the power to . . . raise and support Armies, . . . to provide and maintain a Navy, . . . and to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia.'' I believe the Selective Service System is the foundation of this obligation. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remember their Constitutional obligation and vote to pass this amendment in order to adequately fund the Selective Service System.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the recent Memorial Day recess. Over that weekend, I had the distinct pleasure and honor to assemble with a very special group of veterans, nearly 100 recipients of the Medal of Honor. It was truly an inspiring gathering, and at the same time, proved a very humbling experience. These individuals epitomize the true meaning of selfless sacrifice and personal commitment. While many have answered the call to duty, they have answered a higher calling. A calling that is spiritual in nature and bigger than one's self. For love of God, country, family and friends, these brave individuals knowingly placed themselves in harm's way, ready to sacrifice life and limb so that their comrades may live. Their significant contributions have helped secure a more democratic and peaceful world over the last century. More importantly, their actions serve as a testament to all Americans about serving and caring for others. A recent letter to me from Major General Robert Moorehead, United States Army Retired, portrays a fitting description describing that powerful event. General Moorehead stated: Memorial Day weekend in Indianapolis was one of the most significant weekends in the history of our great capital city. As the last days of the 20th century continue to unfold, Memorial Day weekend in the capitol of Indiana was one to remember. Nearly 100 Medal of Honor recipients were guests for a series of stirring tributes. These included a solemn Memorial Service; the dedication of the only memorial to recipients to the Medal of Honor; grand marshals in the IPALCO 500 Festival Parade; an outdoor concert by the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra; and a parade lap around the famed Indianapolis Motor Speedway oval prior to the start of the race. As the 20th century draws to a close, many wonder if the nation has lost sight of the sacrifices which have been made to preserve freedom. After this Memorial Day weekend in Indianapolis, my heart remains swollen with pride in our land and my fellow citizens. The reception given these ordinary men who did extraordinary things can never be equaled. I am especially proud of the untold hundreds of volunteers who gave of their time and talent to make these events possible. Memorial Day Weekend 1999 did much to convince me that our nation's freedom loving spirit is alive and well.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and first of all I would like to discuss the appropriations bill from the standpoint of the authorizers looking at this bill out of the personnel accounts. With regard to recruiting and retention and retirement, I extend great compliments to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as the chairman. Without the military personnel recruiting initiatives in the bill, the request for military services, I think, would fall way short. I would like to extend great compliments on the pay initiatives, not only the reforming of the pay tables but the 4.8 percent pay raise will go a long way. We also have many different retention bonuses, pro-pays and flight pays which will be very meaningful not only in the NCO mid- grade officer level but throughout the force.

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments. What will also be very important on the retention issue is the retirement initiatives. Repeal of the REDUX will go a long way. When I think about this bill, I just want to say to every soldier, sailor, airman and marine, ``This bill is about you.'' But, Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). As I reviewed the appropriations, the mark, I noticed that there were some, well, I do not want to be as strong as to say inequities, but I cannot find a better word for it. Out of the guard and reserve equipment accounts I compliment both the chairman and ranking member for almost an $800 million plus-up for their accounts, but 83 percent of that is dedicated right now for the air guard and the army guard, with only 17 percent for all other reserve components. For instance, Mr. Chairman, the Air Force National Guard. Forty-three percent of that pot goes to them, while only 3 percent goes to the Air Force Reserve. What I would like to do with the chairman is have an assurance that he can work with myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to bring equity to the report language as we move to conference.

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

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for his time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 175th birthday of Vermillion County, Indiana. Nearly two centuries of proud history and tradition encompass an area only seven miles wide and 37 miles long. The county's unusual shape was formed in order to better govern and patrol the area when it was still a frontier on the Wabash River. Vermillion County gained its name from a French translation of a Miami Indian word meaning ``red earth,'' or clay. For years, clay provided a major business for this county. Now businesses such as Eli Lilly, Inland Container, Public Service Indiana, Peabody Coal, and the Newport Army Ammunition Depot are the major employers that exist in this ''red earth'' county. Even though Vermillion County is small in size, many notable figures have called it home. Henry Washburn, a Newport lawyer, was appointed Lieutenant Colonel of the 18th Indiana Volunteer Infantry Regiment during the Civil War. Washburn and his regiment served heroically in several battles such as Pea Ridge, Ulysses S. Grant's Vicksburg campaign, and Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley campaign. After the Civil War, Washburn was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he contributed to the creation of Yellowstone National Park. Born on a farm near Dana was yet another historic figure, the famous World War II correspondent Ernie Pyle. Pyle accompanied American serivcemen in both the European and Pacific theaters. Pyle's work portrayed the grim aspects of war and also the lighter moments between the chaos. His writing was, and still is, seen as some of the best journalism of the twentieth century. Besides historical figures, Vermillion County has also been home to entertainment personalities as well. The actor Ken Kercheval was born in Wolcottville. One of his most notable acting jobs was on the hit television series ``Dallas.'' Kercheval has even had a guest appearance on ``ER.'' Another Vermillion native is Jill Marie Landis. Landis is a nationally best-selling author. She has written 13 award winning books. Landis claims that her childhood in Clinton, Indiana, helped to inspire her stories. I congratulate all of the residents of Vermillion County who are taking part in the 175th birthday celebrations.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate the ranking member from Maryland for his work on the bill and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). This is Congress at its best. This is bipartisanship at its best. I have a compliment that comes from the leadership out of the subcommittee out of the Committee on Ways and Means, and both members are entitled to the compliment, from all members. The inspiration for the amendment I have here before everyone comes from a constituent of mine named Tim Tanner. His son, Danny, is severely disabled and were if not for the loving sacrifice of his father, Danny would have been institutionalized. Mr. Tanner is a single dad earning his living as a dairy farmer. Mr. Tanner repeatedly applied for the SSI benefits for Danny, and he was consistently denied, even though he would always go for the appeals. Although Danny qualified medically, and based on his father's income, the benefits were denied because of his father's resources, which were, at least on paper were too great to qualify. He was a minority shareholder of a sub S corporation. I visited with Mr. Tanner, and I have also met Danny. Let me share Mr. Tanner's view of how the current law had been applied to him. Danny now is 18 and qualifies for SSI as an adult in his own right. But at a time when he needed the money the most, he did not qualify, but would have qualified had the father institutionalized him. But since the father chose to keep Danny at home and sacrificed everything for the son who has a mental capacity of about a 3-year-old, he was penalized. I think that is antifamily, and we should be doing everything we can to help build the family unit. Mr. Tanner wrote me and he said, ``Social Security is wrong to deny my son benefits. But if they were right, then the people in Washington should hang their heads in shame. Mighty people in lofty positions of government deny the most helpless of all: the handicapped children. It is mean. It is cruel to deny my son, based on my attempt to be a father. It is a dastardly deed. Yes, Congress should be ashamed.'' Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in creating loopholes for welfare benefits, but here is a situation where a needy, handicapped child could not have received the assistance of SSI because of a father choosing the harder way and the more loving option of care at home and not to institutionalize his son. But because his assets were tied to this dairy farm, his means and his livelihood, the son was, I believe, discriminated against. I would just like to know if this is a rare case or if there are other cases out there. My amendment would require the Social Security administration to do a study on the SSI benefit of denials for family farmers who choose to care for disabled dependents in the home rather than sending them off to an institution. I do not think it is a lot to ask the Social Security administration to give Congress some data on the application of the law. I am grateful to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her counsel on this amendment and appreciate her hard work in bringing this bill to the floor, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation that we have here to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the United States flag. I listened to some of the debate, I respect my colleagues, but this is not an issue about speech. What one can say is anything they want in this country, but conduct is what we are focusing on. I suppose if someone believes that they, in fact, are embodied with the right to burn this flag being displayed directly behind me, go ahead, but they have to get through me first, and when they do that, they really upset me. Now why do they upset me? I suppose that that statement written on a blackboard long ago when I was a college student at the Citadel that said those who serve their country on a distant battlefield see life in the dimension the protected may never know. I have seen that flag on a distant battlefield. I understand what it represents, the physical embodiment of everything that is great about our Nation and perhaps not so great. Each of us individually when we see that flag, we get a tingle inside, and it is personal. We should do everything we can to protect that which is so vitally important to us as a Nation. As I listened to some of my colleagues here, I am puzzled. I am puzzled because some of those who are in opposition to this amendment are also in opposition to our efforts to bring prayer back into school, our efforts to revitalize America to find its moral center. I do not know how those advocates want to see America. See, America, a little over 200 years young; are we going to be seen as some meteor that shined brightly but moved quickly across the span of world history? Or, do we believe, as I do, if we permit the eyes of our mind to see a greater vision, I believe America has what it takes to reach deep, to revitalize itself, to find its center, its moral center, its proper balance, to seek the greater understanding, to have wise tolerance, and to respect each other for an enduring peace. As we do that, there are certain things that we have to respect in our society, and one that represents the physical embodiment of this Nation, and we are sensitive to liberty, is, in fact, Old Glory. That is what this amendment is about. I respect the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing it to the floor, and I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this constitutional amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to compliment the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) whose district and his home are the Navy in Norfolk. Mr. Pickett has been a hard worker on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, very tireless in his efforts to address the recruiting and retention and retirement issues; and he has also been an advocate of the Thrift Savings Plan over the years, and I know this is a good moment for him likewise. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, reluctantly, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I again reluctantly oppose the amendment for the following reasons: It is unnecessary. The President of the United States already has the inherent authority to declare a national emergency and employ national reserves to protect the borders of the United States. It is inherent within the constitutional powers of the president. If we cannot protect our own borders within those inherent powers, we do not have to specifically ordain, we do not have to enumerate nor dictate to the President of the United States. This amendment seeks to protect our border against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. In fact, major initiatives are already underway to mobilize the Nation against such threats through the utilization of the National Guard weapons of mass destruction programs. The evidence is overwhelming that our military forces are stretched to a breaking point. Readiness is suffering due to an overcommitment and underresourcing. We have just added Kosovo to the many locations around the world where the United States forces will be semi-permanently assigned to a major new mission, like policing the border. Redirecting many military personnel to nonmilitary missions would increase the negative impact on military readiness. Under U.S. law, law enforcement is historically and properly left to the Department of Justice and its agencies, as it should be. The United States military is precluded from becoming a police force, under the posse comitatus act. We ought not to change the basic principle. We have had many discussions about this, and I compliment the gentleman's tenacity over the years in bringing this amendment. But if it is the border the gentleman wants to strengthen, we can do that through other proper agencies and not through the use of a military force. At a time when this Nation has embraced the North American Free Trade Agreement and we want to have even better relations with Mexico and Canada, putting a military force on the border itself sends a very awful message to our friend to the south. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.