Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Buyer amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment to the gentlewoman from Michigan, part of the problems that we have here, I first met you at a VFW post in Michigan. While I was at that VFW post a gentleman came up to me at that post whom I then recognized. He worked for me in the gulf, and when I asked him how he was doing, he took my hand and put it at the base of the stem of the back of his neck and I felt all these knots, and he said, ``I am dying.'' Now, how do you respond to someone that you know, that you care about, and when you say how are you doing, that is not the response you typically get? What is difficult for us on this issue is what we do not know, and what we do not know is, is he dying from a cancer that he would have normally received had he never been deployed to the gulf, or was there something in the gulf that is somehow some form of a causation? That is the science for which we do not understand. So when a veteran asks me will we ever know, I do not have the answer for that. It pains me. But we have to make decisions here with regard to disability, with regard to causation, and with regard to science. And when we draw those lines, people will say you are cold, you are callous, you do not care, and that is wrong, because we are trying to make calculated decisions in an area for which we do not have the specific answer. I would also share with the gentlewoman this is not a first step. This is about the 22d step. We have the gentleman from California, the former chairman of the Committee on National Security, Mr. Dellums, here; the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, directly behind you; the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence; and the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Stump. I cannot begin to tell you how many hearings we have had on the Committee on Government Oversight with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], with a lot of people. It was so wonderful, is there are so many people involved in this issue. That is great. Many of their initiatives, when you go out and move out on initiative, you better stay in touch with it, because there is someone else that may not believe in it or they take two steps back or try to knock it down. One of the reasons for this amendment right now is an initiative that came from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and under the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. The active duty were saying this was a problem with reservists and the National Guard, as if there is some institutional bias. This is just against them. No, too many active duty soldiers were grabbing me in the stairwells, pulling me aside in private, to tell me about their health care, when they were afraid of coming forward because of the downsizing process. It was the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] who stepped forward and put into his mark a physical disability separation process that said, ``You are going to care for the soldiers on active duty, take care of them, and not kick them out. It is a veteran problem. Bob Stump, you take care of it, or Sonny Montgomery, you take care of it.'' So I just want to share with the gentlewoman that we are in about our 23d step and we are nursing this issue with a great deal of effort and care.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf]. (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, two comments I want to make. One other individual I want to give special recognition to is Dr. Ron Blanc, now the Surgeon General of the Army. If there was an individual early on that was a good listener, it was Dr. Blanc. I extend great compliments to him. The other thing I wanted to share with the gentleman is that I went to London. I met with the Minister of Defense there. I testified before the Select Committee on the Gulf War in the House of Commons. I want you to know we are working in a cooperative effort with our allies. We would be very naive to think we would not be a future ally of the United Kingdom or Canada in a conflict, and if we do not take the time now to understand the science and take care of those who bore the risk of battle, shame on us. I believe that we are now moving in that cooperative effort, not at the speed that I would like, but it is there, and I wanted to share that with you and my colleagues so we can keep moving on the issue.

Mr. BUYER. Being very pragmatic, following the gentleman's thought process, why did we give inoculations to over 10,000 soldiers in the Persian Gulf actually for botulism and then require all soldiers in the gulf to receive two shots of anthrax if, in fact, we are not potentially going to face a biological threat?

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the gentleman's endorsement of many of the ongoing studies. The difficulty when we took on this issue in the beginning was that there were a lot of stonewalling, not only from private medical institutions, but also within the medical institutions of the Department of Defense and within the VA. It has taken them awhile, they are slowly coming along, and we have had, it seems like every time we are plowing new ground, somebody is filling in the furrow right behind them, and we have so many what I refer to as a shotgun approach right now, and there are as many different areas. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] mentioned one of the doctors, one of them who has been highly scrutinized, but, as my colleague knows, what may be unusual today in medical research is when we are pressing the bounds of science it may become the norm of tomorrow. So I think we in the face of causation for which we have some ambivalence, because we do not know, we do not understand the science, we better be as open in our thought as much as we can. So now we have done this huge shotgun with all of our medical research, we better try to figure out our analysis of so many studies that are going on, and that is our attempt.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the issue. I would ask of him to never refer to this as a gulf war syndrome. A syndrome infers a sole source causation. I would ask for the gentleman to always refer to this as the gulf war illnesses, because in fact it is multifaceted.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe there were 30 minutes on this amendment to be divided 15 and 15. Therefore, I would have 15 and the gentleman from California would have 15, not the entire 30.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as it relates to Persian Gulf war illnesses. Since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, a number of service members who were deployed to the Persian Gulf theater, both active and reserve, have experienced a range of illnesses and symptoms, such as fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss, severe headaches and many other symptoms. Despite the fact that the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have spent millions of dollars on medical research, the nature and causes of these illnesses remain unclear, and in fact remain multifaceted. In fact, the final report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses concluded that many of the health concerns of gulf war veterans might never be fully resolved because of a lack of data. One of the reasons there is a lack of data is because the Persian Gulf war medical records were incomplete and inaccurate with regard to documenting all medical events for service members while deployed to the Persian Gulf. As a result of poor medical recordkeeping during the Persian Gulf, the General Accounting Office, GAO, has recommended that the Department of Defense, using the lessons learned from the war, promptly complete and implement a DOD-wide policy for medical surveillance for all major deployments of U.S. forces. A medical surveillance system that collects, analyzes and disseminates health information will greatly facilitate DOD's ability to intervene in a timely manner to address health care problems experienced by military personnel. As a result of this poor medical recordkeeping and consistent with the General Accounting Office's recommendations, this amendment includes the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to establish a medical tracking system to be used during all overseas contingencies or wartime operations, plus humanitarian operations for all deployed military members, including reservists. I believe this is critical. If we are going to send our service members to foreign lands for combat, humanitarian, or contingency operations, we must make sure we know the health status of those members, what it is going into and coming out of the area of operations. Another GAO study on the effectiveness of the clinical treatment of ill veterans found that both while DOD and VA have tried to measure or insure the quality of veterans' initial examinations, neither agency can determine the appropriateness or the effectiveness of the care veterans have subsequently received. The Presidential Advisory Committee also cited shortcomings in the availability of treatment for gulf war veterans experiencing symptoms from gulf war illnesses and recommended better followup care for these members. Additionally, according to the drafted GAO report, neither agency has any plans to establish a mechanism to monitor these veterans' progresses. Therefore, this amendment directs the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs to develop measures to be used to monitor the effectiveness and the quality of followup health care services provided to the Persian Gulf veterans experiencing symptoms of gulf war illnesses. Every effort must be made to follow up on the care provided to these veterans to make sure the treatment they receive is effective in treating the symptoms of these illnesses. To address the longstanding concerns of many Members of Congress, including myself, about whether the Department of Defense is appropriately treating ill Persian Gulf service members, particularly with regard to physical disability separation process, this amendment directs the GAO to study the physical evaluation board process to insure accurate disability ratings for diagnosis of the Persian Gulf illnesses. I believe it is very important for us to make sure that the services are not separating Persian Gulf veterans for medical reasons who have no clear diagnosis of their illnesses and without providing them adequate disability ratings and compensation. As I mentioned earlier, millions of dollars have been spent on medical research that has yet to produce clear evidence of what has caused those illnesses. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, to a shotgun approach in our medical research, but now we need to analyze and narrow the research and do an analysis of the overall medical projects. We do not thoroughly understand, despite all of the research, what all of the symptoms are. As the GAO has said, since much of the research was not begun until well after the war ended, the results are not yet available. I think that is an important question for us to answer: What is the right research? My amendment therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the effectiveness of all the research done to date on the potential causes of gulf war illnesses and to identify requirements for additional research on possible causation and appropriate treatments. I sincerely believe this amendment addresses many of the criticisms and recommendations relating to the Government's investigation into and responses to gulf war illnesses. It takes a dramatic step toward ensuring that our service members and the veterans are treated properly. It has strong support not only from the American Legion, but also the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I want to thank my colleagues and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. I would also like to give a special thank you to the chairman of the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and for the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for their support in this effort. I strongly encourage adoption of the comprehensive, bipartisan amendment, and let us show the support for our veterans in this regard.

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

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman amendment. The Missing Persons Act, as originally signed into law by the President, had two major objectives: First to ensure that any member of the Armed Forces, and any Department of Defense civilian employee or contractor employee who serves with or accompanies the Armed Forces in the field under orders, who becomes a prisoner of war or missing is ultimately accounted for by the United States, and, second, as a general rule, such missing persons are not declared dead solely because of the passage of time. The Gilman amendment would ensure that the Missing Persons Act is restored to those objectives. The need for the amendment is supported by an extensive hearing record. In eight hearings conducted in the last 2 years, numerous witnesses testified in support of the need to improve the current process for accounting for POW/MIA's. The amendment also makes changes to law that make sense in the post- cold-war era. For example, DOD civilians and contractors, as well as other nonmilitary personnel like those United States citizens now in Bosnia are playing an ever increasing role in the support of United States military operations. When deployed in support of the U.S. military, these people are as much at risk to capture and hostile action as military personnel. They ought to have the same protections under the law. As many of my colleagues know, the United States is in a belated effort to fully account for thousands of POW/MIA's throughout the cold war era. This amendment would give emphasis and direction to that long needed effort. In addition, the amendment would also provide family members and others greater access to information about missing persons. Finally, the amendment unequivocally makes a clear and strong congressional commitment to achieving the fullest possible accounting for persons missing as a result of hostile action today and in the future. I extend a great compliment to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for his leadership on this issue and that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman that I thoroughly understand that this is an issue about the restrictions on the use of the facilities. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. Hyde asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], a member of the committee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Over the past three decades, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an Executive Order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions to be performed in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not have the effect of greatly increasing access to abortion services. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for two principal reasons: First, the military had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform abortions. In 1993, this policy permitting abortionists, when it was first promulgated, these military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire a civilian doctor to do abortions in military facilities. So we have to ask the question: If the Harman amendment is adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities overseas be used to support abortion on demand, but new personnel would be hired simply so that abortions could, in fact, be performed. Are all the expenses of searching for, hiring and supporting an abortionist to travel from base to base going to be picked up by the private funds? It is an interesting question to ask. Second, military doctors must in fact obey the laws of the countries where they are providing services, so that they still could not perform abortions in locations where abortions are not permitted even if the Harman amendment were in fact adopted. The current law is in fact consistent with the Hyde language. It allows military women and dependents to receive abortions in military facilities in cases of rape, incest, or when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. This is the same policy that has been in effect from June of 1988 until President Clinton signed the Executive Order. The House has voted several times to ban abortions in overseas military hospitals. In fact, between the 1996 defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill, the House voted eight times in favor of the ban. Furthermore, the House voted down the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriation conference report because it did not contain an amendment to ban abortions in the military. In those overseas areas where the female beneficiaries do not have access to safe, legal abortions, beneficiaries have the option of using the space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is not an issue of whether it is women's rights or of men's rights, this is an issue of life and the use of those taxpayer funded facilities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman, we have report language in here that is pretty stern about the issue of residual value, as we move into the negotiations about the special measures agreement on the Korean Peninsula. Let us not repeat the mistakes of Europe. I will work with the gentlemen to make these corrections as we go to conference.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to begin by responding to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. As certainly chairman having direct oversight of the military judicial system, the subcommittee is moving systematically and methodically in its reviews of many of the issues regarding sexual misconduct, fraternization, and sexual harassment, and I believe that she is jumping to incredible conclusions by saying inequities with regard to race or gender which called a racial target group, group targets. We are moving methodically. This commission was not at all timely. We have some reviews already as an amendment in the bill itself, and I commend the chairman for not including this commission. On the issue with regard to Bosnia, I want to commend the chairman for permitting my base amendment with regard to Bosnia. As I understand, that in the rule we have my colleague has permitted a perfecting amendment to my base bill. My base amendment is that I want the President's date of June 30, 1998 to be the cut-off date, no more funding for the troops, we bring the troops back, we have a reporting mechanism. We want the President to report to the Congress his plans for withdrawal, and we also want him to report to us on his plans post- June 30 date on how we cooperate with our allies because we also, as Republicans, and every Member of this House wants to insure that it is, in fact, a durable peace in the Balkans. By the Committee on Rules having permitted a perfecting amendment, does that mean that the Republican leadership supports the Van Hilleary position over my position?

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing so many different opinions to shine on the issue in Bosnia. This is very important to our Nation and that of our allies.