Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I say that the censure resolution that was offered has specific findings of guilt and therefore makes it unconstitutional in its form.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, there have been many who have come to the well today and they have been requesting that this body take up the issue of censure of the President. As my colleagues know, it would be nice, I guess, if we could take the easy way out, cut and run, but we cannot do that, nor can Congress make it up as we go. I know it is a legal technical term and people do not like lawyerly language, but it is called extra-constitutional. What that means is the Constitution does not specifically provide for censure as an alternative to impeachment. See, we also, as Members of Congress, took an oath, and it was to defend the Constitution. We have a duty to exercise legislative competence, and we cannot make it up as we go. President Andrew Jackson, who is known as one of the Founding Fathers of the Democrat Party, he was censured by the Senate. Then there was an election, and then the next Senate, they expunged it from the record. President Jackson, I will repeat, his own words shed great light on this challenge we have today, and he penned this over 150 years ago. President Jackson wrote that the very idea of censure is a subversion of the powers of government and destructive to the checks and safeguards of governmental power. President Jackson rightly claimed that censure was wholly unauthorized by the Constitution and is a derogation of its entire spirit. See, for us to make it up as we go, to cut expediently and to censure the President, we cannot make it up, it is not constitutional. Then what we did in the Committee on the Judiciary, a censure was offered. So we specifically looked at the language which was offered. They said, ``Well, we can do it.'' No, they cannot do it because now it is unconstitutional because it violates what is called the bill of attainder. Congress cannot set as a legislative body an act as a judicial body and put someone on trial and have findings of guilt and punish him. That is what the censure does. We cannot do it. It is extra-constitutional, and it is unconstitutional in its form as offered.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, these issues about whether Ms. Lewinsky, in her statement, the President never explicitly told her to lie, the President and Ms. Lewinsky did have a scheme to mislead and deceive the court through the use of cover stories and the proffer of a false affidavit. Why? Because Judge Susan Weber Wright in the sexual harassment lawsuit said that they could get into the evidence of his past sexual behavior. You see, Ms. Lewinsky's statements that no one told her to lie are not dispositive as to whether the President is guilty of obstruction. One need not directly command another to lie in order to be guilty of obstruction. One who proposes to another that the other lie in a judicial proceeding is guilty of obstructing justice. The statute prohibits elliptical suggestions as much as it does direct commands. Indeed, the facts cannot be taken in a vacuum. They must be examined in their proper context over the distance of the evidence. While Ms. Lewinsky and the President both testified ``I never asked her to lie'' and ``he never asked me to lie,'' the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The statement was not necessary, because they concocted the cover story and they both understood the willful intent to conceal their relationship in order to impede justice in the Jones versus Clinton case.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for yielding time to me, and to the Speaker-elect, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), let me extend a great compliment to him yesterday. While there were many people who were questioning the President's motives, questioning the President's decision-making process, the gentleman was very thorough, he was very methodical in his decisions approaching the Nation's business, and I extend a compliment to him for having done that. Because I think he made the right decision. We were facing the impeachment vote and then we have this response to Saddam Hussein. I think many of us here were here last night and we listened to the briefing by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the CIA and in particular the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What is difficult here is that the President, as the Commander in Chief, he is always entitled to the benefit of the doubt in his decision-making process as he comes to judgment. His policies and his judgment are always of question. But how he makes the decision, he is given the benefit of the doubt. The benefit gets removed in this case because of the diminished credibility and the self-inflicted wounds that the President has caused himself. Turn and give the benefit of the doubt to the Secretary of the Defense, to our military intelligence and to the present circumstances. I support this measured and tempered response to the recalcitrance of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender, He is a habitual offender, and he needs to be put back in his place. He is a Third World tyrant who is a prisoner in the border of his own nation. He loves to be elevated and thumb the nose not only to the world but elevated to the superpower status where he attempts to stick the eyes of America. Now, this is measured. There will be a cease to this. Do not over blow or over play what this is. This is not an equivalency of the House coming to its debate of the use of force during the Gulf War. Do not over play your hand to the House.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am here to also speak on behalf of steel workers across the country, and particularly those in Indiana, who are in the midst of an unprecedented flood of foreign steel. The steel industry is an industry fueled on the backs of hard-working Americans. I toured the Bethlehem steel net and spoke with many of the steel workers. They are the best in the world, but they can compete only if it is fair competition. A decade ago the steel makers were forced, again feeling the surge of imports being dumped on our markets at below cost, and we acted, but it was only a short-term fix. I suppose what bothers me most is when I look across the country at many different industries, steel is an industry that is most vital to our Nation's security. It is a national security issue, and that is what has me most concerned. I am a supporter of GATT, I am a supporter of NAFTA, and I voted against Fast Track. You say why would you vote against Fast Track? Because it bothers me that the administration has negotiated so many trade agreements out there, and then they do not even enforce the trade agreement and even violated some of those trade agreements. This is a prime example where the administration should be leaning forward, not with bended-knee to these nays nations that violate these trade agreements. So this is a strong message. Let us do the right thing and let us back the American worker.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House tonight with regard to the bill we are going to be voting on tomorrow. I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), some of his comments were completely accurate in that this is a crazy process, the way we have come down here at the end of the year to take these appropriations bills and to lump them together. I do not think this is a good way to do business. We also have to recognize this is a political institution. Two completely different political parties. Parties do things. Sometimes we scratch our head and do not completely understand and we ask why. America should be very clear that back in August, the President had a campaign strategy that he coordinated with the Democrats and that was he wanted to shut down the government, so he came over here to the Cannon Building and he met with the Democrat Caucus. They gave him a rounding cheer and applause as they wanted to unite and come together and when we came back together after the August recess, that the President would shut down the government. Mr. Speaker, he wanted to do that because he thought that he did a good job when he shut down the government before, and Republicans kind of helped him do that. And so he thought, boy, this would be a great strategy. It would be a great distraction from his own problems and a distraction for the Democrats and their failure to accomplish a lot of things they wanted to accomplish. So what happened? Here we are still in session, a few weeks before an election. And I agree with my colleague from Mississippi, this is not a healthy way to do business. But we also need to understand what put us in this predicament in the first place. So, there was a political strategy at hand. And, fortunately, we were able to get an agreement. My assessment of the agreement so far is that the Republicans have about 65 to 70 percent and the Democrats, they got what they want. That is what politics is about, is about the art of compromise. Anybody can stand here in the well and talk about a lot of things they do not like and everybody can find a reason to not vote for it. Likewise, people can find reasons to vote for it. And sure enough, they will do it for whatever particular reason that will be most beneficial for them back in their home districts. But let me talk about something that is more important than either political parties and something that gets my attention with regard to this bill. That is about America's promise, and America's promise is that of our national defense. When I think about our national defense, we had some testimony by Gordon Sullivan, who is the former Chief of Staff of the United States Army who came and for years and year I used to listen to the Chief of Staff of the Army come and talk to us on the Committee on National Security. He always talked about the Army being on the razor's edge. That is how close we were. This budget will be okay, but we are right on the edge. Now in his retirement, he talks now about how fragile the Armed Forces are today. He is absolutely correct. In my 6 years here in the House during the Clinton administration, I have seen what he has done to our United States military. They are truly extended in every corner of the world. They have a strategy of working harder and doing more for less, and I can assure my colleagues that is not a strategy for success. We have Navy ships going to sea undermanned as a result of the Navy having 18,000 fewer sailors than at the appropriate levels for which I marked up as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. We have later-deploying Army divisions that have been hollowed out because the Army lacks the resources to man them. We lack the E-5, E-6 sergeants to properly man five of the follow-on divisions. And when we are short these sergeants, we cannot just grow a sergeant overnight. So, I am very concerned about our, quote, national military strategy to successfully fight and win nearly two simultaneous major regional conflicts. So I am pleased that in this budget agreement we will be plussing up defense. I applaud the President for being a good listener to his Chiefs. He had sent us a letter saying that he wanted to plus-up defense by a billion on readiness shortfalls. Then he learned that that billion was really in excess of 25 to 30 billion is what we really needed. So, I am not going to stand here in the well and attack the President, because I am glad that he has been a good listener here in these budget negotiations. I would have liked to have had a higher number for defense, because I have been out there with the sailors and the soldiers and the airmen and the marines and I see the equipment. I see the cannibalization of our aircraft. I see that our ships are going to sea and they are going out there at levels that used to be called C- 1 battle readiness. Now they go at levels called C-2. At C-2, they are not just going out C-2, they are going out C-2 plus 1, which means that when a ship goes out and one person has a workplace injury, now they end up at C-3 level of readiness. It is deplorable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I appreciate the negotiators working out an increase for defense.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Lazio), who has worked very hard on this, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2263) to authorize and request the President to award the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Theodore Roosevelt for his gallant and heroic actions in the attack on San Juan Heights, Cuba, during the Spanish-American War.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on September 28 I chaired a Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing that examined the evidence supporting the award of the Medal of Honor to Theodore Roosevelt for his valor on July 1, 1898, during the Battle of San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. During the hearing we heard compelling testimony about the courage and decisiveness of Theodore Roosevelt from two of our colleagues who studied his actions that day in great detail, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). We learned the details of the military battle that day and the political battle that followed from the historians, Dr. John A. Gable, the executive director of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, and Mr. Nathan Miller, the author of the biography ``Theodore Roosevelt, A Life.'' Mr. Speaker, finally, we also heard from Mr. Tweed Roosevelt, the great-grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. We heard about the man Theodore Roosevelt, a man of immense energy and intelligence and a family man, a man of unwavering moral fiber, a man of immense stature in the history of this Nation, and the great impact that he had upon his four sons. Then we stop and think about the fact that this is a family that lost four sons in a uniform, three in World War I and one in World War II. Mr. Speaker, we are honored today to have Mr. Tweed Roosevelt in the gallery to witness this historic celebration of an important moment in the life of his great-grandfather. On behalf of myself and the Committee on National Security and the House of Representatives, I would like to thank Mr. Roosevelt for being here today to represent his family and to share this moment with us. We can talk about the greatness of the man in Theodore Roosevelt, about his fidelity and his honor and his integrity, and we recognize that these are attributes for which there is no disagreement on this House floor with regard to this President. But what we must focus on is not about the life of the man and how he led it and his impact upon not only his family and the Nation, we have to focus on what happened, as was documented by evidence that occurred at the Battle of San Juan Hill in San Juan Heights. It is his heroic performance, the documented evidence that it did meet the established standard for the award of the medal at the time. I would like to summarize the evidence of Theodore Roosevelt's heroism that I found instructive. The extraordinary nature of his bravery was confirmed by superiors, subordinates and other eyewitnesses. His willingness to expose himself to the most extreme hazards of the battle, as evidenced by a number of people killed or wounded around him, and his decision to lead the charge on horseback, the only mounted man in the attack, demonstrated an utter and complete disregard for his own life. Such qualities at least equaled the selfless service of those who were awarded the Medal of Honor for service that day, most for rescuing wounded comrades under fire. His raw courage and fearless, bold and decisive action in leading these two charges when other commanders and officers around him hesitated to do so saved lives. Not only did his actions save lives on that day, but his conspicuous action and valor changed the course of the battle and clearly set him apart from his contemporaries. His recommendation for the Medal of Honor came from two officers: Major General William Shafter and Colonel Leonard Wood, who were most qualified to judge whether the extraordinary bravery and nature of Roosevelt's actions qualified for the award of the medal since previously both had been awarded the medal themselves. Mr. Speaker, I, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, get many different requests to somehow reshape or change the course of history, whether some unit is entitled to this form of citation, or someone should have been promoted that was unjustly, or even overturned courts-martial is correct, and I am always very hesitant to take my judgments of the day and replace them for the judgments of those who are were there at the time. What is clear to me about this case, about Theodore Roosevelt and the Medal of Honor, was that it was the military that recommended that he receive the Medal of Honor. That is what got my attention the most. And it was my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale), who sat me down and made me focus, and he pointed something out to me that was very intriguing, and it was to focus upon the individual of whom recommended and the individual of whom endorsed the Medal of Honor. When I think of Colonel Leonard Wood, there is a fort named after Colonel Leonard Wood in Missouri. His rank, he was the assistant surgeon of the United States Army and he received the Medal of Honor himself, and he did that because voluntarily he carried out dispatches through the region infested at the time with hostile Indians, making a journey of 70 miles in one night and walking 30 miles the next day; also, for several weeks while in close pursuit of Geronimo's band, and constantly expecting an encounter, commanded an attachment of infantry which was then without an officer and to the command which he was assigned upon his own request. The individual that endorsed the Medal of Honor was Major General William Shafter, who is a recipient of the Medal of Honor himself. At that time during the Civil War, he was a lieutenant. He was engaged in a bridge construction, and he was not being needed, and then he returned with his men to engage with the enemy, participated in a charge across an open field that resulted in casualties to 18 out of 22 of his men. At the close of the battle, with his horse shot out from underneath him, and he was severely wounded, he remained on the field that day and stayed to fight the next day, only to have his wounds finally take him aside. So when I think about where in our history have we ever had two individuals who were recipients of the Medal of Honor themselves recommend someone else receive the Medal of Honor. These are two individuals who understand what it means to be awarded the medal, and that is where I give the most credibility. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of records, and to substantiate why the decoration was disapproved at the time, I believe there is credible evidence that politics and not an honest assessment of his valor was the prime consideration for the evaluation of Theodore Roosevelt's recommendation for the Medal of Honor. There is no doubt in my mind that then Secretary of War Russell Alger and the McKinley administration were acutely embarrassed by press reports generated by Roosevelt's criticism of Alger's decision not to return the troops home after the war because the administration feared a yellow fever epidemic in this country. When the troops were returned home shortly after the exposure of the issue to the press, it was painfully clear that Secretary Alger resented Theodore Roosevelt's involvement. Mr. Speaker, the evidence supporting the award of the Medal of Honor to Theodore Roosevelt is overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) the chairman of the policy committee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I reviewed this case, a list of words come to mind. I want to share them. They are words that come to mind with regard to Teddy Roosevelt and his gallantry. They are virtues and ideals and values that we can all admire. I think about valor, bravery, gallantry, courage. He was audacious. He was bold. He was dauntless, fearless, gutsy. He had intrepid character. He was valiant, stalwart, steadfast. Yes, venturesome and daring. And then I add three more: Bold-hearted, brave-hearted and lionhearted. Those words, yes, apply to Teddy Roosevelt and his conspicuous valor and gallantry on that day, and that is why I believe this House should overwhelmingly pass this resolution to authorize the President of the United States to award the Medal of Honor to one of our great presidents, Theodore Roosevelt. Let me conclude and say to my very dear friend, as you go home to your family, this Congress will miss you, the country will miss you, but more importantly, I am going to miss you, my friend. When I think about bold-hearted and brave-hearted and lion-hearted, I think of Paul McHale, because your heart is in the right place, my friend. Godspeed to you, and that phone is two-way. Do you hear me?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I have listened to part of the debate, and I have to agree with the gentlewoman from Colorado that I am disappointed in the conduct of some of my colleagues here today. How people can be here on this House floor cheering or applauding, as though they have somehow scored political points, is very disappointing to me. I think that part of that noise is about a clamor against the judicial process and their actions define themselves. Actually, this kind of reminds me of a story about Abe Lincoln that I will share with my colleagues. Let me tell this little story. Abe Lincoln, in one of his many famous debates, was debating a person known to be very shallow in substance because he did not really have the facts on his side. He always tried to make up for his lack of substance by making a lot of noise. Sure enough, the debate began with his opponent using plenty of noise, increasing the volume of his voice and the emotion in the delivery and the intensity of the tone. Abe began, in reply, with this story: He said: There was a man and woman that were walking back to town. It was at night, through a dense forest. It was extremely dark, and a storm, with plenty of thunder and lightning, was all around them. The lightning was not enough for them to see, and the thunder caused confusion and made it difficult for them to see. And they got scared, because they were not sure they were going to be able to make it back to town. So they fell upon their knees and they prayed. And they said, God, may we have a little less noise and a little more light. What we find here at the moment is a lot of noise, but I, for one, will enjoin in the prayer for a little more light. Our job here is to seek the light of the truth, because the truth matters. And let us not confuse ourselves with what is happening here today. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are saying to America: We have a credible and substantive referral from an independent prosecutor, and we must take the next step toward the inquiry of impeachment. There may be a disagreement, there may be a debate about the scope or the limitation on times, but those are details. The facts will sort themselves out. If the facts find that the President should be exonerated, then we should do so because we follow the truth. If it shows otherwise, then we should proceed with the next step.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to share with everyone there is a reason, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, as we have looked into this issue on the separation of gender, whether it is the small unit level or in training, the gentlewoman who just spoke before me used the word ``segregation.'' She used the word ``segregation'' for a reason, to taint the argument and to go back to the issues on segregation, on race. The issue here is separation of gender at the small unit level. We sought to return the Air Force back to the way they had been doing it for over 20 years. Just this past July when, in fact, those of whom argued for integration of the sexes have held out the Air Force as the model, we sought to take them back to the model, and for some reason now they are overembellishing in their argument on saying we have somehow taken steps back, that this will be a segregation of the sexes just as though it has been segregation of the races. That is ba-looie. I do not even have the word to properly describe that. We sought the Kassebaum-Baker. This was a bipartisan panel. Individuals of great diversity in their ideology looked at this and said unanimously that we need to separate at the small unit level, which means flights in the Air Force, platoons in the Army, divisions in the Navy, and we sought to follow the Kassebaum panel, and I applaud this is the sense of this House, to follow the Kassebaum panel. Now there is in law with regard to the separation by a permanent wall of the gender. As my colleagues know, for some reason, it has lost America's attention here all of a sudden. Great Lakes, where they do naval training, just had a conviction, and it was very ugly, no different than what had happened at Aberdeen, where we had a drill sergeant that was preying upon young women. This has to cease in America's Armed Forces. And I will tell my colleagues I will not, and I am very careful because I know that there are some who are using that as saying, well, that is the reason we need women out of the military, and I will tell my colleagues what. That is false. So long as I chair the Subcommittee on Military Personnel we cannot deploy without women in the ranks. The issue goes to at what level and under what requirements can they serve, whether it is the ground combat function. Now let me address the issues that are of concern to me. Right now, I applaud the President stepping forward and giving a recommendation about the plus-up of $1 billion, but I would disagree with my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who just said on the House floor that we should not have to wait for the President to recommend. Excuse me. This is the President responding to Congress who is taking the lead, who is alerting America about the depletions of our military readiness and our capabilities to respond to the national military strategy of two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Let us be up front with our allies throughout the world right now. I just returned from San Diego a couple of weeks ago. My colleagues, we have ships that are being deployed at what is called C-2 readiness levels. It used to be ships would go out as C-1, fully manned. They are C-2 plus one sailor, which means when somebody gets hurt in the workplace they are really under C-3 status. So what we are doing here is we say we have a problem with regard to recruiting in the Navy. No kidding. We have a problem with recruiting in the Navy. It happens when we are asking our sailors to do more with less, when we have 10 people that may have worked in a particular room, now there are five, and they are working longer hours, and there is a spiral here. Some are saying, well, I am out of here; I am out of the Navy. Well, I tell my colleagues what. When people are leaving the Navy, those are the best recruiters that we have, and when we lose those quality of individuals, they are returning to their communities, and we want them to tell the good sailor story, not the bad sailor story. So part of that billion dollars, I say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I know he will be a strong advocate, will stop this downward spiral to improve recruiting and retention in the Navy. But now let me share with my colleagues here 3 o'clock this afternoon the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I have to hold a Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing. Why? The ink is not even dry on this conference report, and the Surgeon Generals have alerted me that there is a $600 million shortfall in the medical readiness budget. We are about to vote on this, and people are going to claim, well, this is an adequate budget. Now, and I can hardly believe this, my colleagues, now I am being alerted that there is a $600 million shortfall in the medical budget. Now the DOD, the administration's position is, well, it is not that bad, it is around 200 million, depends on what modeling of budgeting being used. Two hundred million, 600 million, one cannot run a business this way. So I am very distressed. So when the President says, here is a billion dollars, a billion just is not going to cut it. This readiness shortfall on the hollowing out of the force is much greater, and let us not kid anyone. So I want to work with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I will work with the chairman with regard to the medical readiness shortfall. I will get to the bottom of this this afternoon, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I both will report to our colleagues on our findings from this hearing. But there is a good story to tell, and I agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I love to hear him talk about his warmth and his compassion and his sympathy for those who are burning the night oil, who stand on watch so that we can enjoy our peace and freedoms, and God bless him so long as he is in this position because he tells a great soldier story along with the chairman. There is something else I have to share with my colleagues. I have had the true pleasure of having a dear friend on the Armed Services Committee, now the Committee on National Security, in the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). He has been my dear friend since I first walked into this institution, perhaps because we are both comrades from the Gulf War experience. He now is a lieutenant colonel as a Marine reservist. As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) has been under attack by the administration. That has been unfortunate. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, when Sonny Montgomery left, he and I stepped forward into the breach and formed a Reserve Components Caucus, and we were able to make great strides in working with the administration over some disagreements between whether it is the National Guard and the Reservists. There should be a seamless military under these concepts, and we have worked very, very hard, whether it is with regard to the budgeting, whether it is in regard to benefits. And I just want to share with the body, working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) is a distinct honor and it was a distinct privilege because he was always focused in the right direction on what are the requirements of the Marine in the field, the sailor on the ship, whether it is airmen in the air or the soldier on the ground, and I salute him for that. And, hopefully, as he leaves this body, I want him to know that he has served this institution with great distinction, and he has brought honor not only upon himself and his family but this institution by how he served and the manner he conducted himself. So Godspeed to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale).

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, Americans take their medicine in pills, shots, sprays, solutions, drops, creams, and suppositories * * * but no medicine in the United States is smoked. Proponents of marijuana argue that our compassion for those suffering physical ailments should override our common sense and steadfastness in combating illegal drugs. With regard to cancer, proponents argue that marijuana will decrease the nausea associated with chemotherapy. The Truth is that marijuana contains cancer-causing substances, many of which are in higher concentrations than in tobacco. The National Cancer Institute reports that new drugs have been shown more effective than marijuana. With regard to AIDS, proponents argue that smoking marijuana will relieve the physical wasting aspects of the disease. The Truth is smoking, whether tobacco or marijuana or crack cocaine, has been shown to increase the risk of developing bacterial pneumonia in HIV-positive immune-compromised patients. After 30 years of research, we know that marijuana impairs learning and memory, perception and judgement. It impairs complex motor skills and judgement of speed and time. Among chronic users it decreases drive and ambition. Finally, marijuana use among our young people is increasing * * * alarmingly so. From 1992 to 1996, marijuana use increased by 253 percent among 8th graders, 151 percent among 10th graders, and 84 percent among 12th graders. We should not let our compassion for the terminally ill and those in chronic pain to deceive us into treating a dangerous drug as medicine. Support the resolution opposing marijuana as medicine.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker. I know that all of my colleagues recognize the gravity of the situation before us. We must bring to this matter every ounce of wisdom and thoughtfulness and nonpartisanship possible. The statute authorizing the independent counsel requires that the House be notified of any substantial and credible information that may be grounds for impeachment. The independent counsel has fulfilled his statutory obligation. The House must now fulfill its constitutional responsibility to thoroughly review this material. It is not the independent counsel who decides what is impeachable. That responsibility rests solely with the House. Included in this resolution is a requirement that three sections of the report be made public as soon as is physically possible. This is appropriate. The Democrats on behalf of the President's criminal defense lawyer seek to have access to the report prior to its dissemination to the public. Obedience to criminal law and fundamental fairness does not recognize special treatment as requested by the minority. The law authorizing the independent counsel does not authorize an advance copy to the subject of the investigation. I support the resolution and urge its adoption.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state that obedience to criminal law and fairness does not recognize special treatment as being requested.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a Republican in strong support of my Democrat colleague, my fellow veteran and my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). I rise to defend the gentleman because as an individual who admires the virtues of honor, courage and commitment wherever they are found, in Congressman Paul McHale they are found in abundance. Last month, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) called for the President's resignation stating that, ``perjury is not excused by an apology compelled by overwhelming evidence and delivered under pressure.'' The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) has served this country in uniform as a Marine and as public servant. He is a man of honor, courage and commitment who has stood fast to his convictions. These convictions have led the gentleman from Pennsylvania to examine the course of conduct by the President and to reach a somber conclusion. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I, like others in this body perhaps are still examining, soul searching and analyzing the case, and that is also appropriate. However, what is reprehensible is the vilification to which Congressman McHale has been subject for exercising his First Amendment rights and voicing the views of his constituents. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) has had his military record slandered. Rumors and innuendos have been whispered about his reputation. All of this White House mudslinging, because Congressman McHale has put honor above party loyalty. These are times when every ounce of wisdom and courage will be required by all. It is not a time for smears on character when voices of conscience are raised. I admire the honor, courage and commitment of Congressman McHale. To the President, order and stop these character assassinations by your staff and the defense team.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Conyers perfecting amendment, and I also rise in opposition to the motion to strike the McDade language that is in this bill. Quite simply, the issue before us is whether the Government attorneys at the Department of Justice should abide by ethical rules that all other attorneys have to abide by, or can they make up their own standards of conduct. Title VIII of the bill before us requires that federal prosecutors comply with the same state laws and the rules of ethics as other attorneys. In 1980, Congress passed legislation that has required that each Department of Justice lawyer to be ``duly licensed and authorized to practice as an attorney under the laws of a state, territory, or the District of Columbia.'' The courts have held that the statute requires the Federal Government lawyers to comply with the ethics rules of their respective states of admission. I believe this is very reasonable. This is not a burdensome nor onerous requirement. The attorneys for the Federal Government should comply with the ethics standards in the states in which they are duly licensed. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) in his arguments presented an example whereby an assistant United States attorney might find himself litigating in one state and through the discovery process find himself in two other states. And it says that if in fact that assistant U.S. Attorney is faced then with inconsistent rules on ethics, what should he do? We seek the higher standard. That is an easy one. We should always be for the higher standard. So when ethics conflict, do not go to the floor and figure out how we can maneuver through it. Seek the higher standard. So I do not see the inconsistency. If in fact you set your life to live by the higher standard, it is an easy question. I also want to comment, the Department of Justice, I think unfortunately, has repeatedly attempted to thwart I think this bill and those who believe that Government attorneys should be held accountable and be held to the highest standard. Government prosecutors, they hold tremendous power over life and liberty of our citizens. I have been one, so I understand the power out of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Title VIII of the bill will hold these Government attorneys, paid for by the tax dollars, to the same standards of those attorneys and create a system whereby they will be held accountable to the regulations and in fact to the highest standard. Under title VIII, the Department of Justice employees, they are held to such actions. And I sat down here as I was listening to the debate and thought I would make a list of all types of things: Whether their statements and actions by these prosecutors in due process; whether it is through the process of filing criminal information, grand jury, the discovery process, the jury alone, the judge alone; whether their actions are misleading in evidence or by the witness or by the law; whether their statements are inaccurate or they use inflammatory actions or use disparaging statements; or whether their actions are meant to harass or use threats or verbal abuse of a witness or of a defense counsel; if their actions are inflammatory or they use false accusations, they use threatening language or they ridicule a defendant or witness or the defense counsel; or if in fact that their actions are arbitrary or capricious, held without any forms of standards; if in fact they are faced with a conflict of interest; whether their actions are based on a vindication; whether they operate in bad faith; whether they have abusive or overzealous misconduct; whether in fact they are leaking information or unauthorized disclosure of grand jury testimony or materials; or in fact they are abusing the legal process to harass or threaten another; or if they begin to withhold exculpatory evidence, whether it is in favor of a defendant or to impeach a particular witness; in fact, where there are issues of conflict of interest, whether they are personal, pecuniary, or in fact political. So the list goes on and on, and I think that, in fact, these attorneys should be held to the same standards whatever jurisdiction for which they are in. When we look at the symbol of lady justice, lady justice is blind. Lady justice is blind. And what it means to the prosecutors are that they are not to litigate a case based on an unjustified standard, whether it is picking on an individual because of their age, race, gender, national origin, or the station of life. The process is meant to be fair. But lady justice is neither blind, nor does she give a wink to unethical or abusive behavior or conduct. What I would ask Members to do is to oppose the motion to strike and to support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's legislation. With regard to the first vote that will come up, the Conyers amendment, this one is really simple. When you have about eight or so or now maybe approaching nine independent counsels investigating the President, whether this move to go to the higher standard is good, what is obvious about this amendment as I listen to some of my colleagues speak, this is more about politics than substance. You should stop and ask yourself here, does good politics make good law? No, it does not. So you are having fun. What fun are you having is attacking Ken Starr. What makes me most disappointed is to hear members on the Committee on the Judiciary who must sit in judgment and receive this report already prejudging their decisions to attack the independent counsel. I am extraordinarily disappointed in my colleagues.

Mr. BUYER. I understand your amendment, yes.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to St. Thomas Aquinas Church of Knox, IN as it celebrates its 75th Anniversary. The church is commemorating this special year by hosting a variety of festivities each month. A church of humble beginnings, the original church was purchased in 1911 by Father Joseph Abel who traveled to Knox for the occasional Sunday Mass. The church was officially recognized as a parish in 1923 and received its first resident pastor, Father John Lach. Father Lach performed the church's first baptism, marriage, and funeral before retiring in 1926. St. Thomas Aquinas expanded in 1927 with the addition of its sanctuary and its sacristy under Father Charles Malay, the church's second pastor. As the United States emerged from the Depression, so too did the parish. Although St. Thomas Aquinas suffered through the Great Depression along with the rest of the country, the parish persevered through this trying time and entered a new era of growth led by Father Conrad Stoll. The church, led by the visions of Father Conrad A. Stoll, began a building fund for a new church in 1941. By 1953 it had raised enough funds to build both a new church building and a new school. The new school was run by the Dominican Sisters and lay teachers. The Order left the school in 1962 to the devoted leadership of lay staff, the Principal, Mrs. Marie Martin, and the staff, Mrs. Anne Hindle, Mrs. Mary Jo Kennedy, and Mrs. Emily Brown who ran the school from September 1962 to June 1964 when the Sisters of St. Joseph arrived. The school provided an education for many children through love and dedication until it closed in 1983. The parish continues to grow under the guidance of Monsignor Richard Zollinger, the current pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas. Its latest addition is a new rectory which was built in 1993. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate St. Thomas Aquinas Church on the celebration of its Diamond Anniversary, and thank its pastors, lay leaders, and parishioners for their witness and contribution to the Knox community. I wish the church many more long and prosperous years of worship and service to God.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the text.