Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, in passing real welfare reform, thus ending welfare as millions know it, Congress is giving more hope, more opportunity, and more responsibility to families across America. Our current welfare system destroys lives by providing permanent aid to anyone. It creates poverty, dependence, hopelessness--repeated generation after generation in the same families. Some people are saddened that President Clinton vetoed real welfare reform not once but twice. I am more than saddened--I am angry. By keeping in place the same failed welfare policies of the past, the President has retained the status quo and denied the American Dream to millions of families. This is wrong. Government at the very least should not continue programs that hurt families and especially children. Welfare should be a helping hand in times of trouble, not a hand-out that becomes a way of life. I urge the President to not offer his veto a third time, but to provide his signature for the first time. The current welfare system subsidizes illegitimacy, destroys families, and promotes waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not a morally healthy environment when you have 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year- olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS and 18-year-olds graduating with diplomas they cannot read. Welfare as we now know it is a system that keeps over a third of poor Americans locked in a seemingly endless cycle of destitution that has not stemmed a steady and growing epidemic of people living in poverty--14.5 percent of Americans in 1994. The debate surrounding welfare should not be centered around cost-- although the costs have been enormous over the years--but rather about principles such as purpose, dignity, and hope. Currently welfare consists of 80 Federal programs which provide cash payments, food, housing, and medical benefits. When created, it was thought that providing these handouts would allow individuals time in which to make the necessary changes in their lives to become a productive and self- sufficient member of society. It is important to note that among industrialized nations at the start of this decade, the United States had the most murders, the worst schools, the most abortions, the highest infant mortality, the most illegitimacy, the most one-parent families, the most children in jail, and the most children on government aid. Many of our successes in fighting welfare have begun in communities and neighborhoods. There are a number of alternatives to Washington bureaucracy. Habitat for Humanity is one such example. While the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] requires absolutely nothing from tenants, Habitat requires recipients to learn the responsibility of home ownership and requires them to build a home for someone else before they help build their own home. One works to foster responsibility while the other fosters only more dependence. HUD requires only taxpayer dollars while Habitat for Humanity requires hard work and commitment from the individual, the family and community volunteers and donations. One works, the other does not work. The 104th Congress has passed two dramatic welfare reform plans, only to see them end at the desk of President Clinton and his veto pen. The overriding messages of this bill are compassion, work, and responsibility. Our welfare reform plan includes: Deadbeat dads: This bill assures that children receive the support necessary by establishing State tracking procedures, promoting automation of child support procedures in every State, takes measures to establish paternity, and toughens child support collections. Work requirement: In 1979, 14 percent of welfare beneficiaries were working at paid jobs. By 1990, the number had dropped by one-half to 7 percent. Today, fewer than 7 percent of AFDC recipients work. Approximately 4.7 million families currently are on AFDC and over 90 percent will spend more than 2 years on welfare, and 77 percent will spend more than 5 years on welfare. This bill provides tough work requirements and enforces those work requirements. Able-bodied food stamp recipients between the age of 18 and 50 years with no dependents are required to either work 20 hours per week in a job or participate in a State work or training program within 120 days for receipt of benefits. It also gives incentives to reward States who are successful in moving families off welfare and into work. Work offers the best opportunity for long-term prosperity. Congress also worked with the Nation's Governors to assure single parents will be able to balance work with caring for their young children. At the Governors' requests, exceptions can be made at the State level to the lifetime 5-year benefits limit if a hardship exists. States must have 50 percent of welfare families working by 2002 or face losing Federal funds. Child care: This bill provides for child care to allow parents to receive proper training and education in pursuit of employment. Child nutrition: Child nutrition programs are streamlined to reduce costs without making cuts in school lunch, school breakfast or WIC programs. Food stamp program: Food stamps remain a Federal program but it requires able-bodied single adults to spend at least 20 hours a week in work-related activity or lose food-stamp benefits. In addition, it allows States to use one set of eligibility rules for families seeking cash welfare and food stamps. Supplemental security income: Denies SSI to prisoners, people who fraudulently receive SSI while in prison, people who receive SSI from two or more States, fugitive felons, and probation and parole violators. Provisions for noncitizens: Present law requires that when aliens come to the United States to live they must sign an affidavit that states they will not become dependent on the State, in other words they will get a job and become productive members of society. Unfortunately, many come to the United States, never become U.S. citizens, and receive assistance from taxpayers. This bill ends, 1 year after enactment, Medicaid and food stamps for most noncitizens now on the welfare rolls until they become citizens. This welfare reform plan is the first step to allow millions an opportunity at the American Dream. Washington has finally come to the realization what our States and local communities have long known that dollars alone won't solve this problem. In changing welfare we must also change people's habits. If beneficiaries believe, as many currently do, that all they need to do is sign-up for benefits and wait for the check, then they have no incentive to find work. In contrast, if able bodies individuals know they only have 2 years to find a job, they will have to change their behavior and seek training that will lead to a job. By passing this bill we are extending our hand and offering real assistance, not just a handout but an opportunity for a new and better life. We are offering a way out of a system which has trapped adults and children for the past three decades. This welfare reform bill moves toward individual responsibility, work ethic, learning, and commitment. It allows individuals in their own communities to reach out and help their neighbors. It helps children, encourages families to stay together, puts people back to work and strengthens America's moral fiber. It returns the program to its original intent--a temporary helping hand for those most in need. In the end, it provides opportunities that do not currently exist for welfare beneficiaries to seek the American Dream with a sense of purpose, dignity, and hope.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3674 is really a consolidation of several bills taken up by two benefits subcommittees. I would like to thank my colleague, Terry Everett, for this work, on this bill, along with my other colleagues in the leadership, Sonny Montgomery and Bob Stump; and also great appreciation to the professional staff for the job that they have done on this bill. This bill contains several notable provisions that will enhance a wide variety of benefits and will spend about $229 million over the next 6 years to increase veterans benefits. The remaining $56 million will go to deficit reduction. I would like to take a moment and say what we really seek to do is override the Court of Veterans Appeals decision in Davenport versus Brown. It will clarify the causal relationship required between a veteran's service-connected disability and an employment handicap, for purposes of determining eligibility for vocational rehabilitation. It is my understanding in the Davenport versus Brown, Mr. Davenport, an attorney, with a 10-percent service-connected disability for a foot fungus wanted both rehabilitation in the form of a master's degree program in cinema so he could move to California for work in the movie industry. The VA denied the claim, saying that the fungus did not cause him an employability problem. He then appealed to the Court of Veterans Appeals, who then said that the service-connected disability did not have to cause an employability problem, merely had to be a service disability and have a employability problem due to any cause to get voc rehabilitation. I disagree with the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals and so do many of my colleagues in this body. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to draft this bill. Section 101, in fact, will override the Court of Veterans Appeals decision in Davenport versus Brown by reestablishing the longstanding requirement that a veteran's employment handicap be the result of a service-connected disability in order to qualify for vocational rehabilitation benefits. Section 102 would increase the basic monthly rate for the Montgomery GI bill benefits by $5 to $421.62 for 3-year enlistees and $343.51 for 2-year enlistees. That is an increase in veterans benefits over 6 years of $92 million. Section 103 of this bill will allow active duty service members to transfer from the old post Vietnam Era Education Assistance Program, known as VEAP, to the Montgomery GI bill under 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. This will increase veterans benefits by $18 million over 6 years. Section 104 of this bill will offer active duty Army or Air Force National Guard members who are not eligible for any sort of education benefit to participate in the Montgomery GI bill. These are Guardsmen and women who enlisted between June 30, 1985 and November 29, 1989. We are increasing veterans benefits by $14 million over 6 years. Section 105 would make permanent the program to provide GI bill funding for veterans enrolled in programs designed to certify teachers through nontraditional education institutions. We are increasing veterans benefits by $6 million over 6 years. Section 201 will allow a surviving spouse to retain compensation or pension payments prorated to the day of death instead of the end of the month before a veteran died. We are increasing veterans benefits by over $70 million over 6 years. Section 202 increases the period of time for which accrued benefits are payable to a surviving spouse to 2 years. These are spouses of veterans who die while their claim is being adjudicated. We are doing this because of the large increase in adjudication time at VBA. We are increasing veterans benefits under this provision by $17 million over 6 years. Section 203 would increase the maximum, one-time auto purchase allowance from $5,500 to $6,500. The allowance is available only to severely disabled veterans if their disability is service-connected. We are increasing veterans benefits in this provision by $6 million over 6 years. Section 204 will keep the pro bono legal representation program at the Court of Veterans Appeals alive by directing VA transfer $700,000 per year from the C&P account to the court. The pro bono program provides legal representation of financially needy veterans in connection with proceedings before the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals at no cost to the veterans. We are increasing veterans benefits by this provision $6 million over 6 years. That is a total increase in veterans benefits by this committee of $229 million over 6 years. I think that is an excellent action. A lot of things go out and get CNN headline news. It is a shame when we are working in this Congress that the work of my dear colleagues, Sonny Montgomery and Bob Stump, doing great things on behalf of veterans, is not shown. This is virtually our only opportunity in this Congress to make these kinds of program improvements. These are good provisions that will make a difference in the lives of thousands of veterans and surviving spouses. It is a bipartisan bill. I thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle for their support, and I urge the full support of this bill by my colleagues.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, permit me to be theological and philosophical, for a moment. I believe that as a people, as a people, as a God-fearing people, at times, that there are what are viewed, what I believe are called depraved judgments by people in our society. They come in all forms of sin. We learn that early on. I believe that the first creature of God and the words of the first days was the light of sense. We refer to it as God-given common sense. The last, perhaps, was the light of reason. His Sabbath work ever since has been the illumination of his spirit, the Holy Spirit. Above me it reads, ``In God we trust.'' It says, ``In God we trust.'' I believe that God breatheth light into the face of chaos and into the face of mankind to deliver his word to others who do not see the light of day, who do not follow the word of God. Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of people, a society based upon very strong Biblical principles. To lead a Nation at moments of chaos through the storm, you rely on God-given principles for that. He shineth the light into our face. We as legislators and leaders for the country are in the midst of a chaos, an attack upon God's principles. God laid down that one man and one woman is a legal union. That is marriage, known for thousands of years. That God-given principle is under attack. It is under attack. There are those in our society that try to shift us away from a society based on religious principles to humanistic principles; that the human being can do whatever they want, as long as it feels good and does not hurt others. When one State wants to move towards the recognition of same-sex marriages, it is wrong. The full faith and credit of the Constitution would force States like Indiana to abide by it. We as a Federal Government have a responsibility to act, and we will act.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think there are many here in this body who did not know that the proposed regulation in the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act in the 103d Congress will most likely cost the average farmer in America approximately $3,200. The overall impact of the regulation could exceed $7 billion. The Department of Transportation has proposed a regulation that would supersede every State exception grant to the agricultural industry in transferring of agricultural production material from either retail to farm or farm to farm. Besides the regulatory burdens of such a mandate, the enforcement is even less practical. Please note that most farmers take training classes to be certified every 5 years to even use many of these chemicals. Most 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 shipments, documents, and provide a 24-hour emergency response phone number. The rural local transportation of agrichemicals under these exceptions has allowed agribusiness and the farmers to move product efficiently and safely during the farming seasons. In fact, most of these chemicals are transferred during a short 2- to 4-week period. Without the same exceptions that have been granted to the industry in the transfer of such chemicals in the past, farmers will have had 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 useless paperwork. The penalty for not abiding by the regulations can run between a $2,500 to a $10,000 fine per violation. Today I was going to offer an amendment that would simply have retained the current intrastate exceptions by limiting the use of such funds appropriated. The one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize the unique seasonal and real nature of these businesses. Second, by States already allowing such exceptions, they have weighed the concerns and found the risks to be minimal. Finally, my amendment would have allowed each State to determine if they want to continue the exception for the transfer of such chemicals from retail to farm and from farm to farm if they so decide. To those in this business, it is just another bureaucratic nightmare that the cost of such a proposed regulation outweights the benefits. To me, this is a bigger and more intrusive government. We eliminated the Interstate Commerce Commission and deregulated the areas of the trucking industry. Now we must continue our efforts to lessen the regulations on farms who transfer these agricultural production materials 2 to 4 weeks a year. I will be back to offer this amendment in a more appropriate vehicle and hope that my colleagues in the future will join in this endeavor to reduce the burdensome regulation from the Federal level. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] on this measure.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. That is pretty disgraceful.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I am curious. Did not Carol Browner and the EPA come before the gentleman and ask for an increase in funding, and now the gentleman is telling us they are spending dollars, taxpayer dollars, on coloring books?

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to the Markey amendment here tonight. I did take special interest, though, when the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, spoke, when I noticed and it first came to my attention that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, had 32 sites in his own district, of which only 2 had been cleaned up, and then when I noticed the district of Mr. Pallone, the 6th District of New Jersey has 9 Superfund sites, zero have been completely cleaned up, 7 of those sites came in 1983. Really, I find it very fascinating that Members would want to defend the status quo when in fact so many Superfund sites have been on the books for so long. If our commitment is to a healthier and safer environment, what are we doing? Time out. What in fact are we doing? The purpose of Superfund is to protect public health from the dangerous release of materials in a cost effective manner. Sixteen years after the law was enacted, lawyers, not the environment, have become the big winners. What I have here is a scroll. On this scroll is a list of thousands and thousands of lawyers who have been retained at over 1,300 of the Superfund sites. Let me just continue on, and I will speak as this goes on, and I will move slowly and everybody in America can read this list of lawyers. Each year on average, only 5 sites are removed from the national priority list, and each year citizens pay $4.5 billion on the cleanup costs. That is because 47 percent of the total Superfund costs are spent on lawyers and legal expenses. It is difficult right now for the Democrat Party here because they have to face a choice. The choice is between a constituency that supports them on the environmental issues, that gives a lot of money to their congressional campaigns, and trial lawyers who fund their campaigns with a lot of money. What we have here are all these trial lawyers, so I guess I have to assume that they are siding with the lawyers here tonight. The liability aspect is so measured that even local governments are being sued millions of dollars on Superfund simply because they picked up the garbage. In Indiana alone, 32 Superfund sites are awaiting action. In my district, we have Continental Steel in Kokomo, IN. It has been on the national priority list for 10 years. The Federal Government has already spent nearly $13 million on contamination removal, yet it is still considered worst on the Indiana list. I applaud Chairman Mike Oxley for having come to Indiana to actually look at the Continental Steel site. I imagine the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] can recall looking at the spent pickle liquor that was right next to Wildcat Creek. That spent pickle liquor still has the risk of contamination into the water because money is going to all these lawyers. It is all the lawyers. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio because he chooses the environment. He wants to side with the millions of people who live next to these Superfund sites. But what I find here today is the Democrats are siding with the scroll and all the lawyers. Everyone must agree that Superfund is broken and will require additional funding to fix it. We need to reform Superfund, the joint and several liability, in order to immediately clean up the Superfund sites by using Superfund business taxes to clean up these sites rather than litigating and negotiating. This amendment would prevent significant reform of the current Superfund liability system by preventing these funds from being used to clean up the sites. Instead, this amendment will keep the status quo of taking money from taxpayers and lining the pockets of all of these lawyers. The list keeps going and going and growing as environmental law continues to grow. Forty-seven percent of all of the money has gone to all these lawyers instead of cleaning up all the sites. One could say, ``This is a little bit about theater here tonight.'' It is Mr. Chairman. This is a little bit about theater. But the reality and the fact fo the matter is that money that should be going to make our enviroment healthier and safer is going to line the pockets of trial lawyers, who will in turn send that money into many campaigns because the Democrats want the majority back. I think that is shameless, that they would choose that over the environment. I will stand with the environment, and I applaud the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] here tonight. God bless you. Vote down the Markey amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 262, the first amendment, I inadvertently voted ``yea.'' I meant to vote ``nay.'' I ask that the Record reflect a ``no'' vote on rollcall vote 262. amendment offered by mr. istook

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the President's budget. I agree with the Secretary of the VA that the President's budget will, in fact, be devastating to the VA. The President slashes VA medical care spending by $4 billion while at the same time raiding $18 million from the National Cemetery Service at the same time as more veterans, in fact, are dying. It bothers me tremendously. One point I would like to make is, I have to ask where is the President's commitment? I ask that because the President, first he said he would balance the budget in 5 years, then he said we can do it in 7 years, then he said I think we can do it in 9 years, then he said I think we will balance the budget in 10 years, then he said I think we can reach it in 8 years, then he said somewhere between 7 and 9, and today he sent to the floor a budget for 6 years. Where is the commitment? This is a President that opposed the balanced budget amendment. Bill Clinton has the commitment of a Kamikaze pilot on his 37th mission. Where is your commitment, Mr. President?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California, Mr. Duncan Hunter, hit it right on the head, this university's graduates are expected to serve 18.5 years and about 50 percent are expected to stay on active-duty service for 20 years or longer. In comparison, regular scholarship graduates are expected to serve about 9.8 years, while deferred scholarship program graduates serve 5.3 years on average. Now, military medical commanders also believe that the university's approach produces physicians who are at least initially better prepared than their civilian-educated peers to meet the demands of military medicine. Additionally, the medical commanders believe that compared with other military physicians the university graduates have a better understanding of the military mission, organization, customs that are more committed to the military and to a military career. I would also, Mr. Chairman, place into the Record a letter from the American Legion in support of the university, along with the Military Coalition. This is supported by not only the American Legion, the Air Force Association, the Army Aviation Association, Commissioned Officers Association, CWO, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard. The list goes on and on and on. The letters referred to are as follows: Vote Against the Klug Amendment to Eliminate the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences The Military Coalition (signatures enclosed) representing more than five million current and former members of the uniformed services, is very concerned over Representative Scott Klug's proposed amendment to the FY 97 Defense Authorization Act to close the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS). The rationale that it is less costly to train physicians in civilian medical schools than through USUHS is defective. The General Accounting Office (GAO) cost estimates cited by Representative Klug are misleading in that they fail to account for the taxpayer subsidies and other resources ($4.2 billion) given in grants, research and clinical services to civilian medical schools. In fact, in its report (page 33), the GAO also concedes that the total federal costs for USUHS graduates and Armed Forces Health Professional Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) graduates are virtually identical. Aside from cost considerations, USUHS graduates a military officer who is well trained in military operations and fully prepared for joint service leadership positions. Finally, the retention rate for USUHS graduates is considerably greater than those in AFHPSP (86 percent versus 14 percent) making their education a sound investment in the future of this country. Representative Klug proposes to increase the AFHPSP service obligation with a view toward increasing career retention in that program. However, based on past recruiting experience, an increased service obligation is expected to aggravate AFHPSP accession problems, and is not expected to materially improve the retention of enrollees in that program. The Military Coalition strongly urges you to retain USUHS as a national training resource by voting against Representative Klug's amendment. We appreciate your support on this very important issue. The Military Coalition Air Force Association; Army Aviation Assn. of America; Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health Service, Inc.; CWO & WO Assn. US Coast Guard; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the US; Fleet Reserve Assn.; Jewish War Veterans of the USA; Marine Corps League; Marine Corps Reserve Officers Assn.; National Military Family Assn.; Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.; Navy League of the US; Reserve Officers Assn.; The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA; The Retired Enlisted Assn.; The Retired Officers Assn.; United Armed Forces Assn.; USCG Chief Petty Officers Assn.; US Army Warrant Officers Assn.; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Personnel.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin for his efforts to save money, but he has chosen the wrong target. There have been no hearings or an in-depth analysis of the effects of closing the university. In fact, the GAO report, which he just cited says: As Congress makes decisions regarding both physician accession programs, it will need information not only about the programs' relative costs, but also about their effects on the short- and long-term requirements for military physicians and the value of the other university activities. Acting without an understanding of the full implications of these actions could have a devastating impact upon military medical readiness, as well as medical recruiting and retention. The proposal to close the school is based on a very selective and misleading use of the GAO study results. While the GAO report did indeed find the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to be the most expensive source of military physicians, when comparing educational costs only, it also found that when all Federal costs are considered, the cost of a university graduate is comparable to that of the scholarship program graduates. The chart for which the gentleman just referred does not take into account all Federal costs. It does not spread out all costs on the years of service or, in fact, take in the requirement of having to militarily train these doctors. This action is premature. It would be premature to undertake an action that could have a significant impact on both the department's short-term and long-term ability to recruit and train physicians to perform the department's medical requirements. The GAO report also relied upon the 733 study which before our Subcommittee on Military Personnel was slam-dunked. Not only was it slam-dunked by a lot of the chiefs, it was slam-dunked by the Democrats and Republicans in attendance, to also include Dr. Steven Joseph. So I think it is premature for us to act at this time. The GAO report also, I would cite, states the alternative strategy to meet DOD's long-term enrichment needs could include an enrichment component, in other words, stretching out the tenure in which someone serves. That is much what the gentleman is requiring in his amendment. But this amendment only provides for that longer obligation. It does not include any additional benefits or training that would entice physicians to accept a longer obligation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the service Surgeon Generals have consistently testified at both House and Senate hearings that the university provides a unique medical training that cannot be readily secured at other sources. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the Federal debt is over $5 trillion. Interest alone on the Federal debt this year will cost $2,340 for every household in Indiana's Fifth Congressional District. The Federal Government will spend more than $4.3 billion each day this year; and of that amount, $446 million per day is deficit spending. Our Nation's Federal debt and yearly deficit continues to be one of America's darkest clouds. Even if we do balance the budget in 6 years, our Nation's debt will increase to over $7 trillion. The debt stymies personal economic growth, business development, job creation, and puts in doubt whether we will hand our children an opportunity for a better life that we have had. The national debt is still manageable. We can and we must balance the budget by fixing ineffective government programs and slowing the growth of government spending. It is a commonsense approach to balancing our budget. My hope is to balance our Federal budget using a thoughtful and caring process of time, as we move to streamline Federal programs and shift functions to the State and local level. It is unfortunate the President continues to embrace a big Federal Government in the hope it can be all things to all people. Just weeks after President Clinton told America during the State of the Union Address that the day of big government is over, he sent Congress a budget that is more of the same. Greater than 64 percent of his deficit reduction comes after he would leave office if elected to a second term, effectively ``passing the buck'' once again. In fact, his budget would raise the deficit from $158 billion this year to $164 billion next year. The President's budget does not reform welfare as we know it, it does not preserve and protect Medicare which is going broke at a faster rate than the President previously stated, nor does it eliminate one Federal agency. I believe this is the wrong direction during a time when over 40 percent of all the money taxpayers earn goes to paying taxes. That's right--for every dollar the average Hoosier makes, 40 cents goes to pay local, State and Federal taxes. Taxpayers know how to better spend their money than the government does. The President's budget increases taxes on capital gains that will result in Hoosiers paying more in taxes once again. At a time when Republicans are trying to decrease the capital gains tax, the President's budget increases taxes on capital gains to a tune of $4.1 billion. There is nothing in the President's budget that would encourage venture capitalists to put up money to provide new or existing companies with means to create and ensure Americans jobs. Wages are stagnated and more and more people believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. In contrast, the Republican Congress has a very different agenda. We have passed a number of measures to eliminate Washington's reckless nature when it comes to spending taxpayers hard-earned dollars. In the past year and a half we have passed: The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act II. This legislation saves the American taxpayer over $23 billion in 1996 alone. Signed by the President. The line-item veto. This legislation will allow the next President the ability to cut wasteful spending. Signed by the President. Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act. Provides working Americans, senior citizens, farmers, and small businesses with $245 billion in tax relief. This bill was incorporated in the Balanced Budget Act. It was vetoed by the President. Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. Allows senior citizens who need or want to work to earn income up to $30,000 without penalty to their Social Security benefits. Signed by the President. Balanced Budget Act. It balanced the Federal budget by the year 2002 by eliminating over 163 wasteful Government programs while reducing the growth of many programs. Vetoed by President Clinton. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Restricts the ability of the Congress to pass laws which impose additional costs to State and local governments, unless Congress provides funding to cover such expenses. Signed by President Clinton. The Personal Responsibility Act. This legislation would have brought true reform to our failed welfare system. It focuses on strong work requirements, the preservation and importance of the family, the reduction of illegitimacy, and the elimination of certain benefits to noncitizens. The President vetoed this legislation. The Republican budget resolution continues our efforts to end the fiscal madness. It shifts the power, money, and influence out of Washington and back into the hands of Hoosiers. It provides at least $176 billion in tax relief--including a middle-class tax credit, a reduction in the capital gains tax rate and other incentives for saving and investing for economic growth and job creation. The budget resolution incorporates repeal of the 1993 Clinton gas tax, an adoption tax credit, enhanced health insurance deduction for the self-employed, medical savings account, and long-term care incentives. The budget resolution reforms the failed welfare and Medicaid systems, promoting work and self-reliance. It assumes a 27-percent increase in funding for welfare and a 46-percent increase for Medicaid. In addition, it calls for increasing Medicare spending from $179 billion in 1996 to $304 billion in 2002--a 70-percent increase in Medicare spending. Under this plan, Medicare spending per beneficiary would increase from an average of $5,200 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002. The plan cuts bureaucracy by terminating the Departments of Commerce and Energy and the elimination of 130 Federal programs. It recommends the elimination of special interest corporate subsidies and tax loopholes, including the advanced technology program. National defense spending would increase $12.1 billion. It provides $4.1 billion in 1997 for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and $5.1 billion more over 6 years in discretionary spending for veterans than the President's budget. In education and the environment, the Republican budget resolution again calls for the elimination of Goals 2000, continued growth in student loan volume from $26.6 billion in 1996 to $37.4 billion 2002, elimination of the Government-run direct lending program, and level funding for title I programs. At the same time it calls for continued funding of Head Start, Pell grants, Aid to Disadvantaged Children, and the Drug-Free Schools Program at current levels and increases funding for total student loans. The budget resolution calls for funding to improve the quality of the Nation's parks and reform and increased funding for the Superfund Program. Balancing the Federal budget is vitally important to our Nation's ability to be a world leader. It also has very real effects on the personal pocketbooks of Indiana families. Balancing the Federal budget means a reduction in interest rates by approximately 2 percent. As a result: A family with an average mortgage of $75,000 will save $37,000 in interest rates over the life of the loan--an annual savings of $1,200. A student with an average loan of $11,000--over 10 years--will save $2,160 over the life of the loan--an annual savings of $216. A family buying a $15,000 car will save $900 in interest over the life of the car loan--an annual savings of $225. For the first time in over 40 years, the discussion has turned from not ``if'' we will balance the Federal budget but to ``when'' we will balance the budget. This is a significant achievement. The debate has been shifted and we must now pass a balanced budget that places our goals into law. Our current balanced budget debate involves two very different visions for America's future. The President defends the status quo of bigger government, deficit spending, and more government intrusion into our daily lives. I see a different future. Government over-regulates, has grown too big, spends too much, and taxes you too high. We must work together to achieve a balanced budget for a more prosperous future.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and offer compliments to the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to speak on two amendments that are in the en bloc. First is the McInnis amendment on chem demil. I rise in strong support of the McInnis amendment to add $5 million to the chemical demilitarization technology approaches on that project. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. stockpile consists of 30,000 tons of chemical weapons. Four percent of its total is stored in my district, the Newport Army ammunition plant in Indiana. To destroy this stockpile the Army has undertaken a 12-year plan to incinerate this material at an estimated cost of $12.5 billion. I expect this figure to rise dramatically as the program proceeds. Alternative technologies to safe incineration could offer us-- alternative technologies to incineration could offer a safe, effective, and more cost efficient method of destroying certain agents and material in the stockpile, such as bulk nerve gas stored at Newport. Currently the Army and the National Research Council are evaluating five alternative technologies to incineration. A decision to proceed with this pilot program will be made later this year. This additional $5 million will help accelerate this process. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote on his amendment which will be offered en bloc. The other for which I rise in strong support is on the Solomon amendment with regard to veterans preference. I serve as chairman on the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs with regards to the veterans preference issue. I am very concerned right now and I lay most of my concerns at the feet of a professional bureaucracy within the Federal Government which seems dedicated to routing out veterans through an avoidance of proper hiring and downsizing procedures. Veterans preference must remain the first criteria in hiring, promotion, and retention. To me, veterans preference is blind as to race, gender, age, and religion, and I believe that America understands the sacrifices of veterans and that we must maintain veterans preference in regard to our hiring of veterans in the country.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, with quite a bit of interest I listened to the debate, because I was not here in the Congress back during the Bush administration, but I recognize that in 1991, the United Nations, with the full support of the United States Government imposed the arms embargo on the entire former Yugoslavia. Then, as outgunned, the Bosnian military suffered repeated defeats and the Bosnian civilian casualties mounted, many people came to see the embargo as unfair to the Bosnians. In January 1993, when President Clinton took office, he attempted to persuade our allies to multilaterally lift the embargo. This attempt was not successful, but President Clinton would not support a unilateral lifting of the embargo. They continued to support the embargo and enforced it with U.S. Naval forces. The Clinton administration has always opposed the unilateral lifting of the embargo, until the Dayton peace accords were signed in late 1995. Now the Undersecretary of State has confirmed the United States officially, by this alleged secret agreement with Croatia, turned a blind eye to covert arms shipments by Iran into Croatia and Bosnia. This leads to the potential of a terrorist state such as Iran claiming a foothold into Europe. I think that there are many important questions to be asked. What prompted the President to enter into a secret agreement with Croatia to allow the shipments of large quantities of arms into Bosnia and Iran, in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, at the time he was lobbying Congress not to lift the arms embargo? Did the administration officials initiate this deal, and did it involve them directly or indirectly with Iranian officials? Why did the President not notify Congress of the secret agreement when it was made at that time? Has the administration been honest with the public and private statements on the issue during its testimony before Congress, in statements to the American people that it is diplomatic dialog with our European allies? And were any laws violated? We do not know the answers to those questions, and I think it is very, very appropriate to ask.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dick Chrysler, for his thoughtful time and concern on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I support the hill before us, which provides enhanced penalties for crimes where the victim is a child or a person over the age of 65. We want to take care of those who are most vulnerable in our society, especially when we look back at some of the crime statistics and see that from 1985 to 1991, there was a 90 percent increase in personal crimes committed against senior citizens; that is, from 627,318 to 1.1 million. While the overall homicide rate decreased from 1985 to 1993, there was a 47 percent increase in the homicide rate for children. And in 1992, one out of every six reported rape cases was a female under the age of 12. When criminals see our children or the elderly, perhaps, as the enemy or as ripe targets for a successful outcome to violent behavior, I believe it is very deserving of our contempt. They are also deserving of harsher sentences. They are preying upon the most vulnerable members of our society and very often they are not able to defend themselves. It is very appropriate that we should provide enhanced penalties against such reprehensible attacks. Let me also thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] for her amendments to this bill that in fact improved the bill. There are only so many tools before us that we can use in guidance and leadership to the States. Right now, under our sentencing guidelines, we have the philosophies of education, prevention, retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. We have been involved in this trend toward greater prevention and rehabilitation, and we are asking, victims of our society are asking, what about retribution, what about deterrence? And if we do not begin to move toward harsher penalties against these criminals, then the victims are going to say, what about me? If they do not feel the retribution, it begins to breed contempt with regard to vigilantism. That is not good and it is not healthy in a free and lawful society. if people live in fear, then they are really not free. So what we are trying to do on the Committee on the Judiciary, not only with this bill but with others, is to enhance the penalties and go after the real thugs, the criminals, whether it is in the gun legislation, if they use weapons in the commission of a crime, they should feel our contempt. They should feel our harsh penalties. Go after the thugs. If these thugs prey upon the elderly and prey upon the children, they should feel our contempt. They should feel the harsh penalties. If they are going to commit a rape against a female under the age of 12, we should have these Federal judges enhance the penalties against them. Let us pass this bill. Mr.CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, they chose not to enhance the penalties. So what I am saying here is I agree with your point about reverent, I agree with your point about deference. What we have here, though, are victims in our society who are asking the Congress to respond. We did it in the 1994 crime bill, whether it was three-strikes-and-you're-out. We have also done it with this bill on increasing the penalties. We asked them to take a look at increasing the penalties against the most vulnerable in our society, the children and the elderly, and they chose not to increase it. So when they chose not, I think it is now very appropriate and I applaud the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] for bringing the bill. I am also concerned, though, on how this bill in fact is getting saddled down with a lot of other things. The point of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is very well taken. But I do not believe we should be redirecting the Sentencing Commission to do that which is highly predictable, which they will do, and that is, they are not going to take the action. I think the impetus for the legislation is in fact their failure to act and we are now telling them what they have to do. His amendment in fact kills this bill, and I agree with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice that we must vote down the Watt amendment.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from North Carolina, he would have my greater attention, perhaps support of this amendment if in the 1994 crime bill we did not ask the Sentencing Commission to look at it. When in fact that was done, the Sentencing Commission chose not to increase these penalties.