Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow Hoosier, Ronald A. Smith of Rochester, IN, who is nearing the completion of his 1-year term as president of the Nation's largest insurance association--the Independent Insurance Agents of America [IIAA]. Ron is president of Smith, Sawyer & Smith, Inc., an independent insurance agency located in Rochester. At the State level, Ron served as chairman of numerous committees and held several elective offices in the Independent Insurance Agents of Indiana, culminated by a term as president. In recognition of his invaluable contributions, his peers named Ron the 1992 Indiana Agent of the Year. Ron began his service to the national organization by serving as Indiana's representative to IIAA's National Board of State Directors from 1987 to 1993. At the same time, he served the national association as chairman of its Membership Committee. Ron was elected to IIAA's Executive Committee in 1993. In the time since, he has exhibited a spirit of dedication and concern for his 300,000 independent agent colleagues around the country. Outside the IIAA, Ron has served the insurance industry as a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Institute for CPCU and the Insurance Institute of America and a member of the Board of Directors for the Insurance Education Foundation, Inc. Ron's selfless attitude also extends to his involvement in Rochester- area community activities. He currently serves on the Boards of Directors for the Rochester Telephone Co. and Airvac, Inc., and is a member of the Rochester Community School Building Corp. In the past, he served as chairman of the Fulton County United Way, president of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce, and chairman of the Board of Trustees of Grace United Methodist Church. I congratulate my fellow Hoosier and activist citizen for a job extremely well done. Although he is stepping down as IIAA president, I am confident his selfless service to IIAA, his colleagues, and his fellow citizens of Rochester will continue into the future.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize DeMotte Christian School, in DeMotte, IN, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. In 1947, a small but determined group of parents and individuals decided to start a school which would offer an education rooted in the Christian faith. Their desire was to provide an academic framework which would emphasize to its students a commitment to a life lived for the Glory of God. Their steadfast commitment to this endeavor planted the seeds which has allowed DeMotte Christian School to grow from its beginning classes which convened at the First Christian Reformed Church, to its current location with an enrollment of 306 students and a full curriculum for ages ranging from pre-school through the 8th grade. DeMotte Christian School stands as a testament to the rewards of a determined vision, perseverance, and devotion to the cause which its founders cherished: Christian education. The efforts of a myriad of individuals including parents, teachers, students, and alumni have resulted in a thriving school which is both an asset and witness to its community, and a shining example of academic instruction which remains faithful to the vision of its founders. I extend congratulations and best wishes to the students, administrators, teachers and entire family of DeMotte Christian School on celebrating its 50th anniversary.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Let me thank the chairman for having done that. I would share with the Members with regard to the gulf war issue, whether it has been in the military health delivery systems or in the VA, it has been very difficult to focus them on this issue. We voted here not long ago on the issue of national defense. We spent millions and millions of dollars, whether it is to buy tanks, we can debate over B-2 bombers, we debate a lot of things about military equipment, hummers and a lot of other things, but when it comes time to taking care of those have borne the risk of battle, we need to also step up to the plate and take care of these veterans. There are many, in fact, who are suffering from multiple types of illnesses, multiple causations, which is very difficult for us to understand, for the family members. I applaud the gentleman for his amendment, and I ask that all the Members support this amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would like to make a couple of comments, one in response to the statement of the ranking member with regard to the President of the United States. His comment was in regard to elimination of the program. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is a reduction of the present program, so he is not offering the amendment to eliminate the present program. One is, you have to cross a threshold whether or not you eliminate the AmeriCorps as a program. I think the President gets himself in this oxymoron about paid volunteers. He ought to get away from the word ``volunteers'' in the AmeriCorps program and just sign up and said, yes, he believes in service and we want to pay these individuals for these efforts and service which have normally gone to volunteers, and he should get himself away from this oxymoron and the attacks on the program. I really do not care for the particular program. In response to the comments of the gentleman about the type of program and all the good which it has done, I also have to think about from 1993 to 1994 it was reported that 1,200 of the paid AmeriCorps ``volunteers'' worked at the Department of Agriculture, 525 worked in the Department of Interior, 210 worked in the Department of Justice, 135 in EPA, 60 at the National Endowment of the Arts; a total of 2,800 were working at Federal entities. So that was pretty stunning to me when I discovered that. Also to think that the AmeriCorps spent $1.7 million to a PR firm to work on their image. So when I think about priorities dealing within the restraints of a budget agreement, this is very disappointing in fact to me. The GAO recently, I know the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] referred to the $19,000 figure, the GAO estimates the total compensation given to each volunteer. I should not perhaps even call them volunteers because those that work in the AmeriCorps program do not want to be called volunteers, they want to be called members. So each member, it is $26,000. This figure has increased per cost to $33,000 when AmeriCorps' high dropout rate is factored in. That is a heavy price. So when the gentleman talks about the promise of AmeriCorps has been achieved, all right, at what cost? And then you say of this $33,000 per, what could we spend those monies on better with regard to how many Pell Grants could you get out of that $33,000, or other things? And you are right, somebody mentioned this is about priorities. So when I think about the issue of the gulf war illness, I do want to entertain a question to the chairman if I could for a second. Earlier he mentioned about $100 million has now been appropriated for Gulf War illness. I am a little confused as to this amendment, if we are adding more moneys or replenishing accounts. If the gentleman would explain to me, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, so what you have earmarked, these monies will help replenish accounts which take away from other funding requirements?

Mr. BUYER. And you plused up the budget over and above last year's number even though the President reduced his VA research?

Mr. BUYER. When you compare this year's budget compared to what the President sent you, did the President reduce his VA research budget?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I had to come to the House floor. I had to come here because it is obvious that there are truths, there are nontruths. I believe there are unequivocal statements of fact and there are truths that are self- evident. I now understand that the creators of this institution here put ``in God we trust'' because we are going to have to trust God here because the facts are getting spun out so far. America watching this debate says, ``My gosh, I don't even know who to believe or what to believe. Listen to all these numbers.'' Mr. Chairman, it is an attempt here by this side to somehow frame that they are the only ones who care about children and seniors, that they are the only ones who care about the poor. That is false, but that is politics. Let me tell my colleagues what the administration did. Confused by all these numbers? Treasury, in order to calculate these numbers that this side of the aisle is using, calculated family income not the way one calculates their family income when they work. They went in and did a family income economic assessment. And what Treasury did was, they took the adjusted gross income and added to it what the administration's guess is about other forms of income. So believe me, what they did was something as bizarre as saying, ``If you own your own home, and if that family lived in the house and had you been renting that house, if you paid yourself rent, $800 a month, the Treasury then would add $9,600 to your family's income.'' What that is, is Alice in Wonderland calculations that show that the tax benefits are going to wealthier people. This is a complete distortion, and I want America to wake up that there is a complete distortion here. If I have an axiom for the moment, it is that in Washington, DC, facts and truth may be interesting things but often irrelevant.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself l minute. Actually, I would like to say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], earlier when he was referring to the ellipsis as the actual bill itself, some report language with the President, if he would note from the amendment that I have before the committee, it is now the perfecting amendment, we kind of beefed that up. In his request for the spirit to work that in the conference, I would join him to do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman in that spirit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], who had an important meeting and could not be here during the general debate.

Mr. BUYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BUYER. As I understand, this is a perfecting substitute amendment to my amendment and I rise in opposition. Therefore, would I not have the right to close?

Mr. BUYER. I thank the chairman.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the perfecting amendment of my good friend because what I want to do is accept the President's date. That is June 30, 1998. I am from Indiana. It is corn country. We accept people at face value. Your word is your honor, is your bond. You do that until somebody has a little slippage in their word. The President slipped once. He slipped twice. Our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, now is kind of hinting that there may be in fact a third slippage. Fool me once, fool me twice, but pretty soon it becomes shame on me. What I have done is to step forward and codify the June 30 date. I have been a good listener to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and some others about codifying that date. I understand. It still is a little tough saying ill-defined, not providing flexibility and those kind of words, but I want to hold firm. I want to hold firm on the date and back up the President so he can move to our allies within the region so they can begin to accept those greater responsibilities, because I support the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] when he says, let us change human condition. I want to change human condition with our allies and how we interact. I understand also we are talking about NATO and U.S. leadership, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. But let us talk about what is happening. We always focus on the military. It is the civil implementation of the Dayton accords that has got us in this mess. The military always meets their deadlines. They do a great job. IFOR was highly complementary. SFOR will be highly complementary. The concern and our focus should be on the civilian implementation. Right now when we look at the implementation of the subregional arms limitations, it is to be complete in November 1997. I do not know if we are going to make that date. The train, arm, and equip of the Bosnian Muslims is only half complete. I expect claims of compliance to be contested. Verification will be necessary on the checking to ensure that the checks and the balances are there for the stability of the region. Who is going to do that? That is where I believe, yes, the United States still needs to have our presence in the over-the-horizon, but on the ground I actually want our NATO allies there. I want them to have a greater role and presence in the peace and the stability within their region, that is, the continent of Europe. We also have the issue of war criminals. There are some that say that no lasting peace will be possible in Bosnia until the war criminals are brought to justice. Right now to date only 8 of 74 currently under indictment are in custody of The Hague. Only 2 of the 8 have been convicted. When we talk about two of the most prominent indicted persons, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic, they are still at large. Who is going to go after them? If we are talking about after the June 30, 1998, date and they are still in place and threaten the region's stability, what type of force? That is why I join with the gentleman from California to have it defined what will be the U.S. role and presence after the President's June 30 date. Let us not rush to judgment here. We also have the concerns of the nation building. When I talk about that, it is the humanitarian, the political, and the reconstruction. The nationwide elections have been held, but what about the municipal elections? The multi-ethnic political institutions are still segregated. It is also, as I earlier had stated, and this is what pains me the most is it is questionable if the Dayton agreement has in fact created the durable peace because the only way I think that we can have the durable peace is because of this open-ended commitment. The question is, how long will we be there? When I have heard this today, we have to be there until the job is done. It was Dayton that set up these parameters that has an open-ended commitment. What I want to do is set a date certain so we can work in mutuality with our regional allies in Europe, so we can have a plan to withdraw and we can have the assurance of a durable peace. That is in fact what we want. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], a member of the committee and a coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the substance of this debate. I would like to comment to the ranking member when he made mention that people have the capacity to evolve and that the human condition can change. I agree. What we are trying to do here is change the way the United States and our allies in Europe have had a relationship over the last 50 years. They are in a comfort zone. They like the United States' security blanket. They like that. What we are trying to do here and say, as the United States is the sole remaining superpower, I believe as a foreign policy that we should be there to provide regional stability, and our regional allies should be there to ensure stability within their region when there is no possibility of destabilizing that region. We can debate whether or not Bosnia in fact would destabilize Europe. That is debatable. But what we are trying to do here is evolve that human change the gentleman is talking about: How do we get our allies to be major players in this one? When I mentioned earlier about an over the horizon, 18 months ago when we had this debate I also wanted durable peace in Bosnia. We can get into the moral obligation and talk about the peace. There is not anybody who wants the killing or the ethnic cleansing. What we want is for Europe to take the lead. We have learned, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] was very articulate, that Europe was not able to take the lead there. They were there with the United Nations and they felt inept. So when the United States exercised some leadership, compliments to Bill Clinton. But I find myself in a very awkward position. I led the debate on the House floor saying no to ground troops. Now I come to the House floor saying, Mr. President, I will move to codify his date to withdraw. There are some Members on this side of the aisle and on that side of aisle that say, let us get them out in December. I now have to come to the House floor and say, whoa, time out. I think what we should do is be rational here. We want to send a message to our European allies, keep our commitments to our international agreements, and how do we move toward the President's date of June 30, 1998? It is the President's date. It is not my date. But I want to back up the President with his foreign policy and his commitments, and I want our allies in Europe to take the lead. You say, this is NATO. You are right. But over the horizon what I mean is for the U.S. presence, for us to be there with our air power, our sea power, our logistics by air and sea to provide our intelligence through our architecture. We are right there in Hungary. But when we talk about what will we envision, two things I wanted to ask of this President. First, I want his plan for withdrawal. And second, after June 30, 1998, what is his plan for the follow-on force? What is there after SFOR? And under Dayton, it asked for an international police force. Are the U.S. troops going to participate in that? That gets into the mission creep issues at hand. So I have got some pretty strong concerns. That is why we want that plan, and that is what the Buyer amendment is about, codifying, and for those two reports. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, on October 30, 1995, the House overwhelmingly passed House Resolution 247, a nonbinding resolution which urged the President to obtain prior authorization for any deployment of United States forces to Bosnia and that the Dayton peace agreement should not be predicated on United States ground troops but really focus on the parties so that they can discuss about the real reasons they are killing each other. On November 21, 1995, the House passed H.R. 2606 offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] which would deny funds for the Bosnian mission unless specifically appropriated by Congress. The bill passed 243 to 171, but the measure failed in the U.S. Senate. Finally on December 13, 1995, the House passed the Buyer-Skelton measure which reiterated the body's opposition to the deployment of ground troops. At that time the President indicated that the Bosnian deployment would last about 1 year. On September 15, 1996, the Committee on National Security heard testimony from former Assistant Secretary of Defense John White who stated, ``IFOR will complete the withdrawal of all troops in the weeks immediately after December 20, 1996 on a schedule set by the NATO commanders.'' As we now know, immediately following the Presidential election, the President extended the mission in Bosnia until June of 1998 and renamed from IFOR to SFOR which stands for sustainment force. On November 22, 1996, I attended a hearing of the Committee on International Relations. At that hearing the administration officials testified concerning the lack of progress in the civilian reconstruction efforts that have been experienced since the Dayton accords were signed. IFOR and now SFOR has accomplished the military mission of ceasing hostilities in the region. However, a May 1997 GAO report indicates that ``while the task of implementing the civil aspects of the Dayton agreement has begun, transition to an effective multi-ethnic government has not occurred.'' The report goes on to say that Bosnia remains politically and ethnically divided. The limited progress to date has been due principally to the failure of the political leaders of Bosnia's three major ethnic groups to embrace political and social reconstruction and to fulfill their obligations under the Dayton agreements. IFOR and SFOR has accomplished their mission, but the civilian leadership of the region and the international community in general have failed to make sufficient progress on reconstruction and reconciliation. The time is near for the United States to withdraw its ground forces from the region. Likewise, the time has come for the European nations to meet the challenge of rebuilding the Balkans. We in Congress have a dual responsibility. We must ensure the support of the peace process with the military forces and what I envision we will discuss here this afternoon is the over-the-horizon case. We want to work with our European allies to do exactly that. Mr. Chairman, I want to share with all my colleagues that I believe some of the problems that we are facing today in fact was inked in the Dayton accords. When the Dayton accords were signed, we came in and we just separated the parties. Rather than focusing on some of the problems, we said, ``Well, we'll delay them, we'll deal with them later.'' The parties right now are hunkered down and they are in the posture of deny and delay. That is why the Dayton accords has set forth a problem that we are facing today. When it is ill-conceived, improperly defined, and highly dangerous, it leads to the open commitment of ground troops.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.

Mr. BUYER

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

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Buyer's amendment to provide for a series of initiatives to improve the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs investigation of Persian Gulf illnesses, and the treatment of ill gulf war veterans. This amendment first, authorizes $4.5 million to establish a cooperative DOD/VA program of clinical trials to evaluate treatments which might relieve the symptoms of gulf war illnesses; second, requires the Secretaries of both departments to develop a comprehensive plan for providing health care to all veterans, active-duty members and reserves who suffer from symptoms of gulf war illnesses. This amendment is particularly important because it cuts to the heart of the matter regarding the DOD's response to this issue. Along with I'm sure many of my colleagues, I have heard numerous stories from my constituents about the poor initial response to veteran's concerns from both DOD and the VA. Yet, when we in Congress raised these issues, time and time again, the CIA and DOD assured members of both the House and Senate that there was no evidence that any troops were exposed to chemical weapons in the gulf. Moreover, the VA was eager to accept these statements, so eager in fact, that VA officials did not feel exposure to chemical agents even merited consideration when ascertaining the causes behind the symptoms experienced by the affected personnel. Then, last year, when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, officials at the Pentagon reversed themselves and stated that 400 soldiers at the Khamisiyah ammunition site were exposed to chemical agents. This figure later grew to approximately 20,000. Since this initial revelation, additional disturbing facts have come out as the CIA and DOD have engaged in a contest of finger-pointing and blame shifting over what was known at the time, and what was communicated. To me, the most shocking fact is the revelation to subcommittee staff last January that 80 percent of the nuclear-biological-chemical logs from the theater of operations, 165 of the 200 total pages, are missing. For one, I am losing patience with the DOD in this issue. It was troubling enough that Pentagon officials were categorically denying troop exposure to chemical agents despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now, however, we find out that most of the record logs, which were intended to track these incidents, are missing. The charges of coverup no longer seems so farfetched. These facts, as they have dribbled out over the past 6 years, point to the following conclusion. Simply put, we were not prepared to handle the contingency of widespread chemical use by Iraqi forces during the gulf war, and that it was only by the grace of God that Saddam Hussein did not resort to the use of such devices. Mr. Chairman, we in Congress need some straight, honest answers from the DOD. For too long, we have been dealing with commanders who were more interested in protecting their career and reputations than in looking out for the welfare of the men under their command. It was bad enough to discount the thousands upon thousands of detections that occurred during the war. What is worse is the pattern of deceit and misrepresentation they have waged with the Congress and the American people. If we had a problem in addressing widespread chemical exposures during the gulf, fine. Let's admit it and move on. The hand-writing, doublespeak, and finger-pointing that has occurred over the last 12-months is pointless and counterproductive. More importantly, it does nothing to help the veteran who put his life, and now it appears both his and his family's future health, on the line for his country. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will hopefully provide answers and relief to our veterans suffering from gulf war syndrome.