Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This is a consolidation of several bills that passed the House, including H.R. 2289, H.R. 3673, and H.R. 3674. They are all combined with several of the Senate provisions. Notably, this is a culmination of fine bipartisan work that is a hallmark of our two Veterans' Affairs Committees. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to serve under the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Bob Stump, and former chairman and now ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery. Sonny, all of us in this body are going to miss you. You are a true American hero, and a role model of honor and integrity for many in this country. I have been at so many receptions that honor you, Sonny, the only thing left is either to create a statue or make a bronze something out there. I am afraid the pigeons might do something I disagree with. We will do things to continue your legends in this body. This is a great bill in bipartisan fashion. We are going to spend about $202 million in this bill to enhance and improve veterans benefits, and we are doing the right thing for America's heroes. I appreciate you service, Sonny, as does America. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1711, which is a consolidation of several bills passed by the House including H.R. 2289, H.R. 3673, and H.R. 3674, and are combined with several Senate provisions. Notably, it is the culmination of fine bipartisan work that is the hallmark of our two Veterans Affairs Committees. I wish to extend to the chairman, Mr. Stump, and to his dear friend the ranking member, Mr. Montgomery, my thanks for their leadership on this legislation. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the efforts of my colleagues on the Veterans Affairs Committee for their contributions--and interest--in this legislation. The bill contains several notable provisions that will enhance a wide variety of benefits and will spend about $209 million over the next 6 years. I will address the provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of my subcommittee. Section 101 overrides the Court of Veterans Appeals decision in Davenport versus Brown by reestablishing the long-standing requirement that a veterans's employment handicap be the result of a service- connected disability in order to qualify for vocational rehabilitation benefits. Section 102 would make permanent the program to provide GI bill funding for veterans enrolled in programs designed to certify teachers through nontraditional educational institutions. Section 103 removes the GI bill's 2-year restriction on all degree granting institutions, including branch campuses. Section 104 would allow individuals the opportunity to pursue their educational programs through open circuit TV without taking part of the course in residence. Section 105 allows veterans training under cooperative training programs to be paid full-time educational benefits instead of the current 80 percent of the full-time educational benefit rate. Section 106 will allow active duty service members to transfer from the old Post-Vietnam Era Education Assistance Program [VEAP] to the more generous Montgomery GI bill (chapter 30). Under VEAP, a veteran could expect a maximum benefit of $8,100. Under the Montgomery GI bill, a veteran can expect a minimum of about $15,500 for a 3-year enlistment. Section 107 will offer active duty Army and Air Force National Guard members who enlisted between June 30, 1985, and November 29, 1989, and who were not eligible for any sort of education benefit the opportunity to participate in the Montgomery GI bill. Section 201 extends VA's authority to guarantee the real estate mortgage investment conduits [REMIC's] that are used to market vendee loans on the secondary market for an additional year. Section 202 authorizes VA to refinance direct loans to native Americans. Section 301 would require that Regional Administrators be veterans. Section 302 would authorize broadening the duties of support personnel assigned to the offices of VETS State Directors for Veterans Employment and Training. Section 303 would authorize the Secretary of Labor to conduct a pilot program in five States under which the primary responsibilities of Local Veterans Employment Representatives [LVER's] would be case management and the provision of direct employment and training services to veterans. Subtitle B of title III of the bill provides for a series of technical amendments regarding the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 and greatly clarifies the rights and responsibilities of veterans and their employers. Section 510 would prohibit VA from moving the Education Service headquarters functions out of the District of Columbia prior to January 1, 1998. I want to emphasize that the bill does not prevent VA from downsizing the education staff or meeting any of the goals of the Government Performance Review Act. The bill was introduced as H.R. 3036 by the ranking member, Mr. Montgomery, and cosponsored by the chairman, myself, and Ms. Waters. It received strong support from the VSO's during the hearing. Seciton 601 extends the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project [HVRP] through fiscal year 1998 and authorizes appropriations in the amount of $10 million per year. The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project is a Veterans Employment and Training Service Program to assist homeless veterans with finding employment. Title VII of the bill establishes a Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance to assess the effectiveness of all veterans readjustment opportunity programs. The Commission will evaluate proposals for improving programs; and recommend to Congress actions of ensuring the continuing utility of readjustment programs. This is virtually our only opportunity to make these kinds of program improvements. These are good provisions that will make a difference in the lives of thousands of veterans and their survivors. Its a bipartisan bill and I thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle for their support. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, when a young man or woman joins our military, they make a commitment to support and defend our Constitution. At that same time, our Government assumes a sacred commitment to care for those personnel throughout their service. I am appalled by recent revelations, made in Chairman Dornan's Military Forces and Personnel Subcommittee, that on two occasions, our Government knowingly left live POW's behind at the end of a conflict. This is outrageous and inexcusable. This legislation restores provisions removed from the law by this year's Defense authorization bill that make it difficult for such a grave breach of confidence to happen again. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank Chairman Mica and his subcommittee for their magnificent efforts on this very important piece of legislation and for their dogged determination to shepherd this bill through the legislative process. I had the honor of testifying before Mr. Mica's subcommittee, and I am doubly pleased that some of the points I brought out during the hearing are in the bill. I wish to stress that the most important provision--that of an administrative and judicial method for veterans to pursue their employment claims--is not an expansion of veterans preference, but a necessary provision to ensure just protection of their rights as veterans. And to those who feel that veterans don't need the protections being provided to them in this bill, let me just quote an internal memo from Postmaster General Marvin Runyon to his Board of Governors. Mr. Runyon states that veterans preference will, ``have a detrimental impact on the Postal Service,'' it would ``tie our hands,'' and it would, ``be costly and make our personnel decisions more difficult and onerous.'' Finally, recognizing the average American's support for veterans he says, ``this is a difficult issue to oppose publicly, especially in an election year.'' The Postmaster almost got it right, but I would offer this. I would say that it is an issue that should never be opposed--election year or not--because veterans preference must remain the cornerstone of federal employment, simply because it is the right thing to do. Veterans preference knows neither color nor gender, nor ethnic origin, whether the veteran is a Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist. It is based on what is becoming a novel idea in this country--a willingness to sacrifice one's life for the good of the nation. I challenge anyone to point out a more appropriate group of citizens to receive some small advantage in securing and maintaining federal employment. This bill will do much to reverse what I call a growing anti-veteran culture among bureaucrats. There is no doubt that women and minorities have suffered employment discrimination in both the federal and private sector. But let me stress that our military forces have been in the forefront of promoting women and minorities among the ranks, and it is time for federal hiring managers to put veterans first. I am also pleased that S. 868 will apply veterans preference to non- political employees of the Congress, the White House, and the Judiciary Branch. The only thing special here is the nation's commitment to a very special class of person--veterans. The approach taken in the bill to these principles is reasonable and is not unduly restrictive. Mr. Chairman, let me close by noting that a little over 50 years ago, we were just winding up the bloody Pacific Campaign. A few years later, our forces were fighting and dying to maintain democracy's foothold on the Korean Peninsula. Slightly less than 30 years ago, our forces distinguished themselves in turning back the Tet Offensive. And just five years ago, the men and women of this nation struck like lightning against Saddam Hussein. In less than 60 years those wearing the nation's uniform have earned this small benefit at the cost of nearly 520,000 deaths. This is a benefit that costs the government nothing while honoring what is truly national service. I strongly urge my colleagues to join all the major veterans service organizations in their support of this bill and to vote in favor of S. 868.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, the matter before us today is a perfect example of how this institution can work effectively and in a bipartisan manner to combat bad policy. I am grateful to Mr. Ewing, Mr. Poshard, and Mr. Barcia for their strong support and diligent efforts in this matter. In addition, I appreciate the assistance and cooperation of Chairman Shuster, Ranking Minority Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rahall, and Majority Whip DeLay. For the past few months a bipartisan effort has undertaken a cause to address a little known proposed regulation, HM-200, regarding the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act that would most likely cost the average farmer between $2,000 to $3,000. The overall impact of the regulation could exceed $7 billion for the agriculture industry. The Department of Transportation's [DOT] proposed regulation would supercede every State exception granted to the agriculture industry in the transferring of agricultural production material from either retail-to-farm or from farm-to-farm. Besides the regulatory burdens of such a mandate, the enforcement is even less practical. On June 27, 1996, I spoke during consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill regarding HM-200. The next day many farmers, members of the agriculture industry, and colleagues contacted my office expressing opposition to HM-200. As a result, I introduced H.R. 3799, a bill that seeks to provide the States with the authority to grant exceptions to the agriculture industry. Soon afterwards, 48 of our colleagues joined my in sending a bipartisan letter to Dr. D.K. Sharma, administrator of the Research and Special Programs Administration of the Department of Transportation, in opposition to the proposed rule. Madam Speaker, many States have had in place for years exceptions that allow retailers and farmers to transport regulated agrichemicals to the farms without having to placard their trucks, carry shipping documents, and provide a 24-hour emergency response phone number. The rural, local transportation of agrichemicals under these exceptions has allowed agribusinesses and farmers to move product efficiently and safely during the farming season. In fact, most of these chemicals are transferred during a short 2 to 4 week period. Without the same exceptions that have been granted for the industry in the transfer of such chemicals in the past, farmers will have to abide by time consuming, burdensome, and costly regulations. Such regulations will not make our rural roads safer, but only increase the cost of doing business, cause confusion, and require farmers to complete useless paperwork. The penalty for not abiding by the regulations can run $2,500 to $10,000 per violation. Our bipartisan effort believes the one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize the unique seasonal and rural nature of this business. Second, by States already allowing such exceptions, they have weighed the concerns and found the risks to be minimal. Finally, the goal of these efforts has been to allow States the right to continue to provide exceptions for the transfer of such chemicals from retail-to-farm and from farm-to-farm if they so decide. To farmers, this proposed regulation represents another heavyhanded Federal regulation that is not needed, but inhibits farmers' ability to produce food for our Nation and the world. To me this is bigger--more intrusive--government. This is a perfect example of Washington bureaucrats not following the intent of Congress. When bureaucrats who have most likely never worked on a farm make rules that affect the industry the result is often bad policy. Madam Speaker, at every step, this effort has gotten stronger and stronger. Last week, Congressmen Ewing, Poshard, Barcia, and I introduced H.R. 4102 which is legislation that is more narrow than the original bill, H.R. 3799. Today, the language included in H.R. 3153 is a giant step in the right direction. Specifically, this bill would prohibit the final rule by the Department of Transportation under the rulemaking proceedings from prohibiting States from granting exceptions for farmers and farm-related service industries before the enactment of HAZMAT reauthorization or until the 180th day following the effective date of the final rule. This bill provides Congress the opportunity to address this matter when Congress reauthorizes the HAZMAT during the 105th Congress, thus, allowing Congress to write responsible legislation while prohibiting the DOT from prohibiting farmers and those in the agricultural industry from transporting such chemicals if their respective States allow. Again, I thank all those who participated in this bipartisan effort.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress abolished parole in the Federal system, and decided to phase out the Parole Commission. In 1990, Congress extended the time line for this phaseout by an additional 5 years, because there were still several thousand parole-eligible offenders in the Federal system and the Sentencing Reform Act had not made any provisions for the necessary, ongoing functions of the Commission. The Commission is currently set to expire November 1, 1997, and S. 1507, the Parole Commission Phaseout Act, would extend the Commission for an additional 5 years. If this bill is not enacted, the Commission must soon begin to take steps in preparation for shutting down the agency. There are several considerations which justify support for S. 1507. At the end of fiscal year 1996, there will still be approximately 6,700 parole-eligible, old law defendants in the Federal system. Constitutional requirements, specifically the ex post facto clause, necessitate the extension of the Commission or the establishment of a similar entity. Otherwise, those remaining old law offenders will file habeas corpus petitions seeking release on the grounds that their right to be considered for parole had been unconstitutionally eliminated. S. 1507 also includes provisions to guarantee the continued downsizing of the Parole Commission. It directs the Attorney General to report to Congress not later than May 1 of each year on the most cost- efficient and effective method for continuing the Parole Commission's functions. It also allows the Attorney General to provide an alternative plan for another entity to carry out those functions. If the Attorney General decides there should be a transfer to another division within the Department of Justice, the transfer can take effect automatically on November 1 of that year, unless Congress acts otherwise. This bill also mandates the reduction in size of the number of commissioners. By the end of 1999, the number of commissioners shall not be greater than two, and by the end of 2001, the only remaining commissioner shall be the chairman. It is necessary for Congress to pass this legislation this year to end any confusion concerning the ongoing functions of the Commission. Under the current law, the Commission will soon be required to set final release dates for the old law prisoners. This bill will extend the life of the Parole Commission, which at this point in time is necessary. But this bill will also force the Department of Justice to continue to monitor the number of old law offenders presently in the Federal system and to report to Congress on the progress of the phaseout. As the number of old law offenders decreases, it will soon be possible for another entity to handle all the Parole Commission's functions. The Parole Commission is supportive of this bill. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, for his cooperation in moving this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1507) to provide for the extension of the Parole Commission to oversee cases of prisoners sentenced under prior law, to reduce the size of the Parole Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3723) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect proprietary economic information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favor of H.R. 3723, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. This bill was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum, chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and cosponsored by Mr. Schumer, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. The bill is based, in large part, on draft legislation forwarded to the Subcommittee on Crime from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to help Federal law enforcement better combat the theft of proprietary economic information, more commonly known as trade secrets. According to the American Society for Industrial Security, thefts of this type of property cost American businesses approximately $24 billion a year in losses. Generally speaking, these types of crime fall into two broad categories: First, there are thefts by foreign companies, often with the cooperation of foreign governments. The FBI currently is investigating allegations of economic espionage conducted against the United States by individuals or organizations from 23 different countries. A number of these countries maintain friendly relations with the United States, yet in some cases these nations take advantage of their access to U.S. information and their ability to collect information more easily than our traditional adversaries. The second category of these crimes are committed by Americans or U.S. nationals who leave their employment and steal proprietary information which they deliver to new employers. The Federal Government has been frustrated in its attempts to combat this type of crime because existing laws are insufficient. There is no Federal criminal statute which directly addresses economic espionage or the protection of proprietary economic information. The statutes which Federal law enforcement does use to combat this crime were drafted decades ago, long before anyone had conceived of the kind of property we now call ``intellectual property.'' Another obstacle to enforcing these crimes under existing law is that there is no statutory procedure in place to protect the victim's stolen information during criminal proceedings. As a result, victims are often reluctant to prosecute for fear that the prosecution itself will further disseminate the economic information stolen from them. H.R. 3723 will establish criminal penalties that prohibit the wrongful copying or other acts of wrongfully controlling proprietary economic information if done either to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent, or disadvantage the rightful owner and to benefit another person. The term proprietary economic information is defined in the bill and includes financial, business, scientific, or economic information as to which the owner has taken reasonable measure to keep confidential and which has value, in part, by virtue of the fact that the information is not widely known. The bill provides for a significant enhanced penalty if the entity committing the crime is an organization. It also provides for criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and limited forfeiture of the property used to commit the crime. Additionally, it requires courts hearing cases brought under the statute to enter such orders as may be necessary to protect the confidentiality of the information involved in the case. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives Federal law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat economic espionage. It is the product of a bipartisan effort and was reported favorably by a unanimous voice vote of the full Judiciary Committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3676) to amend title 18, United States Code, clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition, as amended.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3676, the Carjacking Corrections Act, amends section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that rape constitutes a serious bodily injury for the purposes of the penalty enhancement provided in the Federal carjacking statute. Mr. Speaker, few crimes are as vicious as carjackings. It is a tragic reflection of our time that victims of carjackings are actually glad that they only lost their car. It is a sad day when people can say they are happy to have just been abandoned, often at night, far from home, having just had one of their most valuable pieces of property taken from them. But these victims know they could have been raped or killed. Could we ever forget the story of Pamela Basu, who died in a horrible carjacking right here in our Nation's Capital when she was dragged for a mile and a half while trying to rescue her 2-year old daughter who was still in the backseat of the car? Many Americans witnessed that account on our national news. Carjackers are some of society's most ruthless criminals--when we talk about carjackers, we are not just talking about car theft, we are talking about violent predators. Mr. Speaker, the federal carjacking law, section 2119(2) of title 18, currently allows for an additional 10 years in prison if serious bodily injury results from a carjacking. Serious bodily injury is defined in title 18 as ``a substantial risk of death,'' ``extreme physical pain,'' ``protracted and obvious disfigurement,'' or ``protracted loss or impairment of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.'' Under this bill serious bodily injury, for purposes of the penalty enhancement under the carjacking statute, will include sexual abuse and aggravated sexual abuse, as already defined in title 18. This legislation is responsive to a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision, on May 21 of this year, overturning a district court opinion in which a carjacking received a penalty enhancement for raping his victim. The first circuit panel held that rape was not a serious bodily injury. One first circuit judge requested that the first circuit have a rehearing en banc to further review this issue, and this request was denied. H.R. 3676 clarifies any confusion Federal judges may have about whether a carjacker can get a penalty enhancement for rape. The answer is an unequivocal yes. This legislation does not create any new Federal crime or expand Federal jurisdiction in any way. It does not even create a penalty enhancement scheme under the carjacking statute--that enhancement already exists in the law. All this bill does it make clear that anyone who commits rape during the course of a carjacking will get a longer, and certainly well-deserved, term in prison. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I also congratulate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for introducing it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not have to be shot by a bullet to understand pain. A man can be compassionate, can have sincerity, can love. I find it offensive that anyone can allege that judicial rulings based on one's gender are somehow what is wrong. I find it offensive, I have to say that. I believe that bad decisions are bad decisions regardless of chromosomes. I am going to stand here and say that, if there have been bad decisions that come from the court, if they are made from a woman, if they are made from a man, you are looking through it through the dimension of gender. I support this bill because a bad judicial decision was made. Rape is serious bodily injury. The court should have taken it into account. As for the sidebar comments, I believe that they are out of place.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman from Georgia that in subtitle A under ``Domestic Preparedness,'' section 1313, military assistance to civilian law enforcement officials in emergency situations involving biological and chemical weapons, there is an exception that is granted to the military that they are not authorized to participate in the following actions: Number one, arrest; number two, any direct participation in conducting a search or seizure of evidence to a violation of this section, or direct participation in the collection of intelligence for law enforcement. But this goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. Subsection 382(2)(b) is the section on which I want to work with the gentleman in the next military defense bill to remove that provision from this bill, and I want to salute the gentleman from Georgia's leadership to strike the proper balance between individual civil liberties and the protection of an American citizen's rights, along with the Posse Comitatus Act and its restraints upon the U.S. military's involvement in domestic law enforcement. I encourage Members to vote for this bill. We will work toward that end.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. I want to recognize that while there are many good things in this bill, I am disappointed by two items contained in the bill, one of which I know many of us have had discussions here with regard to and we will take up in separate legislation regarding the missing persons, the MIA issue, Missing Personnel Act. The other issue is concerned with the provision contained in the cooperative threat reduction portion of the bill. While I agree with measures that reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, I am concerned about the language in the bill that provides emergency powers to the military. I believe this additional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act represents a further drift toward increased military involvement in domestic law enforcement activities.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my colleague from Virginia, I lay the blame for a lot of this at the feet of a culture within the bureaucracy, whether it is a political appointee or not a political appointee. That is what this bill is trying to get at. I do recall in the hearing in testimony before the gentleman that there were only 4 percent of the hirings of veterans in the Executive Office of the President. When the President makes a decision for powers and influence of positions and they are going not to veterans, then I have a concern and a fear of what that means down range into the bureaucratic culture. I lay the blame at the bureaucracies, whether it is a political appointee or not. I think this is a good bill, and I appreciate the work on the bill by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman personally. There has been work from my subcommittee and his subcommittee on this issue. I want to congratulate the chairman; also Mr. Moran, the ranking member; and all members of the subcommittee for what I view are magnificent works for this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of testifying before the chairman's committee. I am doubly pleased that some of the points brought out from the hearing are in fact in this bill. It was a joy to work with the chairman. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has already addressed some of the important provisions with regard to discriminated or aggrieved veterans, they need a recourse for their grievances, and that of a new administrative and judicial method for veterans to pursue their employment claims. I also want to lay out some facts. I know that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] had said that some of those criticisms with regard to the administration are unfounded. To those who feel that veterans do not need protections provided to them in this bill, let me just quote an internal memo from Postmaster General Mr.. Marvin Runyon to his Board of Governors. Mr. Runyon stated that veterans preference will ``have a detrimental impact on the Postal Service.'' It will ``tie our hands''; and it would ``be costly and make our personnel decisions more difficult and onerous.'' Finally, recognizing the average American's support for veterans, he says, ``This is a difficult issue to oppose publicly, especially in an election year.'' That is the Postmaster General. We could go down the line, I guess, perhaps, and talk about others. The Postmaster, though, almost got it right, but I would offer this: I would say that this is an issue that should never be opposed, whether it is an election year or not. Veterans preference must remain the cornerstone of Federal employment simply because it is the right thing to do and it is an earned benefit. Veterans preference knows no color or gender or ethnic origin, whether a person is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or even an atheist. It is based on what is becoming a novel idea in the country, and it should not be, but a willingness to sacrifice one's life for the country. I challenge anyone to point out a more appropriate group of citizens to receive some small advantage in securing and maintaining Federal employment. This bill will do much to reverse what I call a growing antiveteran culture among the bureaucrats. There is no doubt that women and minorities have long suffered employment discrimination in both the Federal and private sector. I am proud to note that our military forces have been in the forefront of promoting women and minorities among all ranks. But it is time for Federal hiring managers to put veterans first and stop balancing the scales of the goals of diversity on the backs of veterans. I would also note that some statistics were quoted for 1990, 1991, and 1992 and we are saying, we have increased veterans hiring in 1993, 1994, and 1995. I think America should recognize that that was over the same time period that we brought down our military forces by over 27 percent. Let us be careful in the cheerleading. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both gentlemen for their work on this bill. It is a very good bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. Montgomery], our good friend, for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the culmination of years of hard work on behalf of the most pressing issues facing the Department of Veterans Affairs, that being eligibility reform. Anyone who has been to a VA hospital knows how difficult it can be to access the VA health care system. The patchwork of confusing and complex rules governing accessibility often defy medical common sense. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3118 goes a long way to change this system while staying within the current budget constraints. This bill requires the VA to manage its medical services through a system of priorities, giving service-connected veterans the top priority. We have some very difficult issues that face us, that being the veterans' community, and I want to thank Chairman Stump and Sonny Montgomery. As we have a declining veteran population out there, with a stabilizing VA medical system, this is a transition-type bill. I cannot predict what the VA system is going to look like in year 2010 to 2015, as we begin facing the reality of losing the World War II and Korean veterans, which includes my father, but how we visualize that system into the future is going to require some real leadership. This is a transition bill. It is far from a perfect bill, but I am very pleased with the hard work that the chairman has done. Appreciate it.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is long overdue. I am delighted that this legislation has not only passed two House committees but will pass the full House of Representatives today. There have been times that I never thought we would be able to get to this point. Those in the agribusiness industry know first hand what a truly historic agreement this is. I applaud the Agriculture Committee and the Commerce Committee for completing action on this legislation and bringing it to the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, almost 4 years ago, I formed the Fifth District Agricultural and Rural Advisory Committee. Made of those who daily work in their agribusiness and farm communities, this committee listed reforms of the Delany clause as one of their top concerns. The efforts of the 104th Congress to bring common sense to this matter without endangering the supply of food in the United States is to be commended. H.R. 1627, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], reforms the outdated Delaney clause and allows sound science to prevail. It offers a framework of standards that allows the EPA the flexibility to consider pertinent public health factors when setting pesticide residue levels. Mr. Speaker, most would agree that the United States enjoys the safest food supply in the world. The abundance and affordability is in large part due to the prudent use of pest control. Pesticides are necessary tools that when used in a responsible manner contribute significantly to the health of individuals and the environment. It is this bill, H.R. 1627, that takes into consideration both the individual and the environment. Mr. Speaker, technology today makes zero risk a much outdated policy. This legislation provides a commonsense answer to ensuring consumer access to a healthy, abundant, affordable, and most importantly--a safe food supply. I congratulate Mr. Roberts and Mr. Bliley on this historic agreement.