Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time.

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky very much for yielding me time. Also let me compliment both of the gentlemen, who are valued members of the Committee on National Security. The support by the gentlemen of the total force concept in this Nation is to be congratulated, and I appreciate your service. Actually, gentlemen, kind of what was going through my mind as I listened to both your comments is that while time marches on, there are certain values and principles which most of us hold dear, which are ageless, and that is duty, honor, and country. They are ageless. When I think of the citizen soldier, the citizen soldier was a concept that was brought about by General George Washington who presented it, the idea, before a congressional committee created by Alexander Hamilton in 1783. So it has been a concept and principle that has been with us for a very long time. The other thought that was going through my mind as I listened to both of the gentlemen is that there are many things and there are many places which define our national character, our struggles and our triumphs, from the revolution that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] mentioned, where enraged revolutionaries first ran at Lexington Green. We do not like to talk about that, though, do we? It is interesting, we forget about that part. But they first ran at Lexington Green to the Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts. It marks the spot where merchants and farmers actually grabbed the muskets and took a stand. That is why the Old North Bridge now is so famous, is because that is where the first stand was taken. They challenged the British army on April 19, 1775. So from the Civil War to the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, a lot of these peace operations that are about, whether it is Somalia or Haiti or in fact in Bosnia, that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis] in fact mentioned, the Reserves have been there. They are citizen soldiers who have answered the call to duty. But when I said nothing defines our national character more, it is the individual who steps forward to answer the call to duty. The easiest thing when an individual is called is to say, ``I am too busy,'' or ``I have got other things to do. I have other commitments. I have my family to take care of. I have my business to take care of. Oh, the Nation, you do not need me.'' We, as a nation, struggled through that during the Vietnam era, where there were many that disagreed with the war and chose their personal values over that of the country or the national interest at the time. But when I said nothing defines our character more, I think it has to do with through the emotions of war, because why is it that the soldier serves? The soldier serves for the protection of the liberties, the freedoms, the economic opportunities, the sense of equality, justice, and equity from a free society. These are men and women that said, ``Yes, we will protect the motherland of America, but we will also protect the vital national security interests of the United States,'' which goes far beyond the continental borders of the United States. War has been with us through the ages of time, and from those of whom have participated and others of whom have witnessed, stories have been told and have been written, each capturing some form of glory about war, but war may not be glorious in verse or prose. In reality, it is the soldier, it is the airman, it is the marine, sailor, whether they are on active, whether they are a guardsman, whether they are a reservist. They are the individuals who answered the call to duty, a sense of honor and commitment to country, and they have felt the cold stings of battle. They have witnessed new levels of fear and new levels of courage that mankind would never witness had it not been for the theater of war. They see the long dark shadow afore, and they have challenged and spat into the face of death. War is not glorious. But what the writers seem to try to capture is that citizen soldier who answers the call to duty, left their family, and felt new levels of fear and courage that could only be felt as exhibited from the American character. That is what is exciting. That is why my two colleagues have come here today to say happy birthday. What they are saying, really, happy birthday because they are paying tribute to many men and women who have answered the call to duty who are a cut above, because the easiest thing is not to participate. The easiest thing is to sit at home and to reap the reward and benefit of a free society without the responsibility. It is common, everyday people called upon to perform uncommon acts of valor, and we witness that in a theater of war, but it does not necessarily take a war to define it. We also see it as individuals in our society respond to natural disasters. We have that, we have seen that. But we are here talking about the Army Reserves, and I congratulate the gentlemen for coming to the floor to discuss that.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. I think the challenge of those responsibilities that we face on the Committee on National Security is that in this new modern era, I guess that post-cold-war era, we have such greater reliance now as the force has been downsized. Our belief in the total force concept places great stress on the Reserve system and that of the National Guard. We have to be forever mindful and thoughtful with our hearts with regard to the stressors that we are placing upon the employers that both of the gentlemen mentioned, upon the families. Take the Air force Reserve, for example. It is not like advertisements where they say well, it is 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer or some plan. They are spending so much time now with that Reserve commitment that employers are being stressed and it is a great stress on the family, and we have to be forever mindful with regard to how we take care of the Reserves so we can keep quality men and women in the reserves.

Mr. BUYER. Makes you feel good, does it not?

Mr. BUYER. I think America right now can be very proud of the Reserves and the Guard as they stand side-by-side, toe-to-toe with the active forces. We have a total force concept today that works. Sure, there are areas for which we can try to work out those differences, but I stand here in the well of the U.S. Congress giving assurance to the American people that they have a quality force. We can discuss whether or not it is of the correct size, whether it is prepared and the readiness, and those are debates that we have with the administration, but there are individuals who came before us who laid the groundwork which we are very proud of. There is an individual, he is going to be leaving us soon, but we are ever mindful reverent and respectful for the gentleman from Mississippi who has laid a lot of groundwork with regard to making sure that the total force concept and the volunteer force works. I yield back my time to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. BUYER. If the gentleman will yield, let me just say, Sonny, when I look back, I am going to look back with warm memories of having served in this Congress with you. You are really one of the true statesmen that serve in this body. I want to recognize you for that. Also I want to share with you, I read a passage not long ago, you are one of the American heroes. You landed there at D-Day and you marched across Europe, and I read a passage, a story about the policing of the battlefield. As a battlefield in Europe was policed of the dead, they came upon a body where there was no one around to listen to a soldier's last words. He pulled out a pad and wrote his last words down on a piece of paper and it was found. And it said, ``When you go home, tell them that I gave this day for their tomorrow.'' It is very powerful. There are many people, unfortunately, that take our freedoms and liberty and economic opportunities for granted. That is unfortunate. But hopefully people will begin to recognize that there are men and women who serve in the Army Reserve, in the National Guard, who are committed to duty, honor, and country, and recognize that upon their first breath was free air, because of the sacrifices given by a lot of people who came before them. General Patton went and paid homage at a cemetery there in Europe, and he said ``I didn't come here to pay homage that they died; I came here to pay homage that they lived.'' And that is what is exciting. That is the rejoicing part, that we have men and women in the Army Reserve and the National Guard, that we stand here tonight to celebrate their service to country, out of their value and commitment to freedom and liberty and preservation for future generations. Sonny, you are one of my heroes. Thank you.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have several remarks I would like to make. One is, I have enjoyed being a conferee on this particular bill, moving matters of substance. Also, I think we have to be very careful here when we are talking about family victims, of acts of terror or acts of violence, whether it is the ranking member that has his particular letter that gives, espouses one position, or I have a letter also from victims who espouse another position. Matters of statecraft have to be based on the intellect and not giving to the emotions of the moment, and that is what is important here. So let me say another comment I would like to make is that with regard to the acts of terrorists, especially international terror, the world and the dynamics of the world in which we live in have drastically changed. These international organizations have changed the lethality and increased the lethality of their actions. They used to rely upon their carjackings, and now what they have done are these bombings that are in public places, that are cowardly acts of terror that actually move the emotions of people because their actions are so outrageous. So what we must do in order to combat those outrageous forms of terror is, in fact, give law enforcement the necessary tools. Now, what is so difficult here is, in a free society, how we balance the protection of individual civil liberties with that of promoting public safety, and in this bill I believe that, in fact, has been achieved. It is not as strong as what some would like, perhaps the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], for example, but the bill is that balance that I just discussed. The bill also addresses, though,the need to insure the United States does not become the haven for international terrorists. Well, this legislation, members of terrorist organizations can be denied entry into the United States; that is extremely important. An alien terrorist discovered in the United States can be deported expeditiously. Our silent proceedings will not be perverted to let international terrorists slip into our country, as happened with the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing. Known terrorists organizations cannot take advantage of the generosity of American citizens to bankroll their heinous activities. This bill includes mandatory victim restitution in Federal cases. Finally, the victims of crimes are going to be seen not by Federal courts as deserving of compensation. Not only will the criminal have to pay a debt to society, the criminal will also have to make amends to the victim. Finally, the essence described as that crown jewel of this bill is the reform of habeas corpus for an effective death penalty. The bill sets time limits on the application and considerations of habeas writs; I think that is extremely important. No longer will petition after petition be filed with the courts, delaying endlessly the carrying out of sentences handed down by judges or juries. We have a paradox in our society whereby someone serves on death row for life. If, in fact, we are going to have a strong deterrence, retribution so that the victim can actually feel as though they have been vindicated, we need an effective death penalty. This bill will give it for America.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation which will return common sense to our legal system as it applies to products. While these reforms do not go as far as I would like, they are essential to restoring balance to our legal system as we seek to protect consumers while providing predictability to manufacturers. The bill establishes a 15-year limit on when a manufacturer may be held liable for its products. Product sellers will not be liable in cases where illegal drugs or alcohol contributed more than 50 percent toward the harm. In addition, producers will not be liable for the percentage of blame attributed to product misuse or alteration. This measure makes clear that punitive damages should be awarded only in the most serious cases of egregious conduct. Punitive damage awards will be linked to the actual harm caused by allowing punitive damage awards of up to two times the compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. There are special rules for individuals of limited net worth and to small businesses. Liability for noneconomic damages will be several, rather than joint, making defendants liable only for their proportionate share of the fault. This addresses the deep pocket syndrome. The bill also addresses the unique difficulty faced by biomedical device manufacturers. Medical device manufacturers are quickly losing suppliers of materials due to litigation. Huge awards are often sought from suppliers even though they had no role in the design, manufacture, or sale of a device. The courts are not finding suppliers liable, yet millions of dollars and countless hours are spent on defense in court. This bill will provide expedited dismissal against suppliers in court and they cannot be sued unless they are a manufacturer or a seller of devices and as long as they have abided by the contract and supply specifications of the manufacturer. Biomedical device manufacturers in Warsaw, IN, BIOMET, Zimmer, DePuy, and Danek, are producing the needed devices, pacemakers, heart valves, artificial blood vessels, hip and knee joints, that add so much to the quality of life for countless individuals. There are so many small businesses in the Fifth District of Indiana that will be helped by this legislation. These businesses will be able to concentrate on product development and expansion rather than fighting lawsuits. One such company is Whallon Machinery of Royal Center, IN, which manufacturers industrial material handling machines. In nearly 30 years of business, over 83 percent of all machines built are still in use. Prior to 1993, Whallon had no product liability claims. One customer had modified a Whallon machine. Had this legislation been in place then, Whallon Machinery may not have faced a fourfold increase in insurance premiums. It is time to return a sense of reasonableness to ensure that injured parties are compensated in a manner that protects all consumers and America's competitiveness. This legislation is a very good start.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do today is to address the House, and the subject is the environment and you, the environment and me, and the environment and us. I am one that believes in the preservation of our natural resources, to do that in a managed way. I also believe in clean water, our water quality, and clean air. I want my colleagues to know that I grew up on the Tippecanoe River in Indiana. When you grow up on the river, you do not belong to anybody but the river itself. My father taught me a lot of valuable lessons on the river, not only to myself but to my brother, the same lessons that his father taught him and I am now teaching to my son. Dad bought a small little farm there on the river. Dad is kind of a Johnny Appleseed. He planned everything, from 3 acres of strawberries to all these fruit trees and an acre of vegetable garden, and that is what we did. We managed all of that since I was 9 years old. So he taught us about being good stewards of the land, and how you have to take care of the land for the preservation so that you can make sure you have good yields year in and year out. So I know what it is like to be on my hands and knees and weed 3 acres of strawberries without the use of pesticides. It is a lot of work. The reason I took the moment to share that with you is the two issues I would like to discuss on the environment are the Superfund issue and that of out of State waste. Let me start though with out-of-State waste. I bring that up because in the Fifth District of Indiana, we receive two-thirds, almost in excess of 1 million tons of out-of-State waste is dumped into my congressional district. My constituents are forced to handle the millions of tons of waste generated by States and other localities that do not dump within their borders; they dump within our borders. And almost every day when I am on the road I get to witness, not far from the Tippecanoe River along the plains in Indiana is a mountain. This mountain is the largest thing that you could ever see, and it is a mountain of trash. It does not bother me that the trash is there. What bothers me is that in Indiana and States like Indiana who are trying to act responsibly on the issues of solid waste, and we create our solid waste districts and we minimize the amount of landfills that we have so that we can do things correctly and move toward proper management, the preservation of our environment, there are States that are not acting responsibly; all they want to do is take it and shove it into other States that are acting responsibly. So basically what we have is in America we have a nonsystem. When you have a nonsystem, it begins to penalize States that have a system, and that is what we have here. So I am very concerned on the issue of the interstate waste. The Supreme Court has already stepped forward and says it is the Congress that has to decide this issue. Now, it seems session in, session out, the issue has come up, and this Congress has not acted. Those in the States of New York and New Jersey have made their effort to move on the flow control issue in this House, and it failed. It failed because the issues of interstate waste and flow control must move together in this House. And I encourage this Congress to finally move with sensibility, with ration and reason and good thought with regard to how we manage our environment, and move a bill together to address the issues of flow control and interstate waste together in this House; because if we do not, we are not acting responsibly, like I think we should. Let me address the issue of the Superfund. The reason I want to discuss the Superfund is because we are also looking at reforming the issue. Fifteen years after the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program began, over $25 billion have been spent and only 12 percent of the toxic waste sites have been cleaned. I have a Superfund site in my congressional district. I have to take a particular interest in it. That is only an average of five sites, though, a year are being cleaned up. I believe that we have to stop, I think, let us stop the frivolous spending of taxpayer money on litigation. That is what is happening. This is an issue between those of us that want to preserve and clean up the environment versus those who want to line the pockets of the trial lawyers and the lawyer lobbyists. I think this game has got to end. So let us find a good balance here with regard to moving Superfund reform this year so we can stop it. I know the President is playing the environmental game, saying, ``I am an environmentalist, I want to do some Superfund reform,'' at the same time the trial lawyers are backing his Presidential run. You cannot have it both ways. So let us act responsibly again on the issue of Superfund, and let us act in a way that moves with our passion for how we want a healthier environment in this country, how we want not only the beauty and the spirit of what makes this country good, but also what makes us well.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to open access and make health care affordable. Mr. Speaker, today, with the passage of this bill, H.R. 3103, we will be expanding health care coverage to millions of Americans. After years of discussing how best to bring reform to our health care system, this bill brings meaningful incremental health care reform. H.R. 3103, the Health Care Coverage Availability and Affordability Act, addresses two crucial needs in our health care system--access and affordability. First, let's review our current situation. Eighty-five percent of the population has health insurance, mostly through their employer. The uninsured, approximately 39 million Americans, today are not poor and are not elderly. The poor are covered by Medicaid; the elderly are covered by Medicare. Of the uninsured, 47 percent were employed full time; 38 percent worked part-time; 16 percent were unemployed. If incentives can be created in the market so more employed individuals can get affordable coverage and those between jobs can get coverage; then, the number of uninsured individuals will go down. Meaning millions of Americans will be covered by medical insurance. Furthermore, many individuals cannot get coverage due to pre-existing conditions or because it is too expensive. Many businesses cannot get coverage because one of the employees or a dependent of an employee has a pre-existing condition. Employees are discouraged from changing jobs or starting their own businesses because they cannot get coverage due to a pre-existing condition. H.R. 3103 will help create incentives so more individuals receive affordable insurance. First, it addresses the problems of access and affordability. Under H.R. 3103, group health plans (large employer plans, insurers, health maintenance organizations) are prohibited from imposing a pre-existing condition exclusion that exceeds 12 months for conditions that were diagnosed or treated within the previous 6 months on individuals that move from one group plan to another group plan. Pre-existing conditions would not affect newborns, adopted children, or pregnancy. Health insurance providers must reduce previous condition exclusion periods for an individual who enrolls in another program by the amount of time the individual was covered by a group health plan, health insurance, and HMO or Medicaid. Health insurance providers may not deny coverage to individuals in group health plans because of (1) a medical condition, (2) claims experience, (3) receipt of treatments for a medical condition, (4) medical history, (5) evidence of insurability or (6) disability. H.R. 3103 also ensures portability of health insurance for those moving from group coverage to individual coverage, such as someone leaving a large employer to start a business. Many States, including Indiana, have addressed this issue. Under H.R. 3103, States are given the flexibility to address this problem such as by risk pools, or conversion policies, open enrollment periods, guaranteed issue, or any means that a State sees fit. However, for those State's that have not acted adequately, an insurer or HMO issuing individual health insurance coverage would have to offer an insurance policy equal to the average acturial value of the plans offered in the individual market by that insurer. The insurer would be prohibited to decline to issue coverage based on health status. One of the key provisions of the bill allows small employers to voluntarily form groups for the purpose of self-insuring or providing health care coverage. Associations, like the NFIB or the Farm Bureau, would be able to band their members together for health insurance purposes and be treated like large multi-state employers. The regulatory structure that enables General Motors or IBM or AT&T to offer health insurance coverage, will now exist for the local hardware store, the corner grocer, and the farmer to purchase affordable health care coverage. Voluntary health insurance associations are not new. In northwest Indiana a group of businesses have banded together to gain market clout to buy health care coverage for their employees. Typically, the employers in the alliance enjoy savings of 10 percent to 40 percent and can access 11 different health plans. H.R. 3103 should make their task easier and the bill should encourage other entities to band together to get access to affordable health insurance. These provisions address the regulatory side of health insurance. By themselves, they make this bill worthy of support, but H.R. 3103 does not stop at insurance reform. It includes noteworthy tax relief as well. First, H.R. 3103 increases the health insurance deduction for self- employed individuals from 30 percent to 50 percent by the year 2003. In 1995, Congress made this deduction permanent and raised it from 25 percent to 30 percent. We need to take care of the entrepreneurial spirit of America which lies in small business. This bill will increase the deduction to 50 percent. As large employers get a complete write- off of health insurance expenses, this bill brings an element of tax fairness to the system. The bill also extends the medical expense tax deduction to include long-term care services that are curing or rehabilitative in nature, or are maintenance and personal care required by the chronically ill. This should give some relief to taxpayers who need long-term care. In additon, benefits paid out under life insurance ``accelerated death benefits'' contracts would not be treated as taxable income to the terminally or chronically ill beneficiary. H.R. 3103 also includes Medical Savings Accounts. Individuals covered by a high deductible health insurance plan or their employer could make tax deductible contributions to a medical savings account. Funds could only be used for qualified medical expenses and disbursements for non- medical reasons would be treated as taxable income and subject to an additional 10 percent penalty. MSAs are true portability. The account belongs to the individual and is under the individual's control. This is a creative solution to provide more affordable insurance coverage and greater choice. Finally, H.R. 3103 addresses fraud. Recent studies estimate that fraud costs consumers 5 to 10 percent of ever health care dollar spent. This is literally billions of dollars and leads to higher costs and higher premiums. It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to jointly establish a national program to combat health care fraud. Under Medicare, the Secretary of HHS is required to establish a program to encourage individuals to report suspected fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program. Individuals who have been convicted of felonies relating to health care fraud or controlled substances would be excluded from Medicare and State health care programs for a minimum of 5 years. Criminal penalties would be revised and enhanced. H.R. 3103 is a good bill with much needed reform. It goes beyond simple portability and addresses access, affordability, and choice. Once enacted, it will mean that someone today without insurance has a better chance of getting it and affording it tomorrow.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act [FAIR] is truly an historic opportunity for farmers and for rural communities. This legislation seeks to reform Federal agriculture programs that begin to wean farmers off government subsidies and move them toward more market oriented principles. In addition, it consolidates existing grant and loan authorities and places primary administrative responsibility with the states and is the most environmentally friendly farm bill in 60 years. This legislation is a giant step in the right direction and I enthusiastically support it. Hoosier farmers will be the beneficiary of such incremental steps to move the farmer into the next century and be able to plant for the market. Washington bureaucrats have told farmers for far too long what to plant, when to plant, and where to plant. The result has been ineffective farm policy. The weaning of farmers off government subsidies is important to our country's financial health. Government should not be in the business of subsidizing inefficient operations. Technology is ever so important to farmers. If Indiana farmers are to successfully move into the next century and compete in the world marketplace, we must continue the public/private research initiatives. This legislation will aid in the transition into the market-oriented farm policy of the future. Furthermore, this legislation reduces the regulatory burden on farmers. Every time I meet with Hoosier farmers, the discussion quickly turns to regulatory relief. The regulatory demands on time and resources upon the family farmer is too great. This bill is the beginning of the end of needless, overbearing regulations. The FAIR Act continues our commitment to rural communities. Indiana, and particularly the Fifth District, have benefited tremendously over the years from rural development programs. Many rural communities throughout Indiana need assistance to meet needs which include rural housing, rural water supply and wastewater infrastructure, and rural economic development. There are several Federal programs to assist rural communities in meeting their needs through a combination of loan and grant funds. It is this position that streamlines and consolidates a variety of existing rural development programs, in order to provide a more focused federal effort and encourage additional decision-making at the state level. It is important that we address rural programs that: First, provide assistance to attain basic human amenities; second, alleviate health hazards; third, promote stability of rural areas by meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal systems; fourth, meet national safe drinking water and clean water standards. Most very small systems have no credit history and have never raised capital in financial markets. Increasingly, many small communities are being forced to install or remodel water and wastewater systems in order to meet state and federal water quality standards. It is these smaller, mostly rural communities that have the most difficulty in complying with drinking water regulations and securing the financial resources to meet their needs. This legislation seeks to authorize a new delivery system for rural development programs called the Rural Community Advancement Program. It would consolidate existing grant and loan authorities and place primary administrative responsibility with the state directors of USDA's RECD offices. Existing rural housing, development, and research programs would receive $300 million in mandatory funding. The demand by local communities in Indiana's 5th Congressional District facing these funding concerns during my three years in office have included, Medaryville, Francesville, Goodland, Bass Lake, Lake of the Woods, Monticello, Buffalo, New London, Lowell, Cedar Lake, Cayuga, Wheatfield, DeMotte, Kewanna and Fowler. All of these communities are small towns with limited resources. Municipal water supplies and wastewater treatment facilities not only help protect the environmental resources of these communities, but they also form the infrastructure framework necessary to attract economic development. Rural development is an integral part of the farm bill. Rural America must have access to the economic infrastructure to enable it to compete, including clean water, adequate housing, and good/low cost sewage infrastructure; all of which are prominent issues to Hoosiers in rural America. The FAIR Act marks the most environmentally friendly farm bill in 60 years. It lifts the requirements that tie farmers to the same crop year after year, which will allow them to maintain soil health and fertility through crop rotation. Thus, farmers will rely less on chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to maintain yields. The FAIR Act promotes soil conservation and wetlands protection by requiring all regulations of such, to be met in order for farmers to qualify for payments. Additionally, it reauthorizes for seven years two successful programs, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Programs, creates the Quality Incentives Program, and protects wetlands, water quality, and fights erosion. Hoosiers will be the beneficiary of this legislation. Weaning farmers off government subsidies and lessening government involvement will provide America's agri-businesses the opportunity to continue to be the most productive and the most cost effective in the world. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act is an historic opportunity for farmers and for rural communities. The FAIR Act reforms programs designed in the depression area and moves them into the next century. This bill gives Hoosier farmers the opportunity to do what they do best--farm the land with minimal government control and provide the resources to improve the quality of life in rural communities. I strongly support the FAIR Act.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that through this whole debate, gun control is not crime control. Here in Washington, where the possession of handguns are illegal, you can walk right out that Capitol Hill door and you see windows that have bars on them in homes and businesses, and, to me, it is highly reflective that the wrong people are behind bars. People are living in fear in this town. What this is about is giving citizens the opportunity to defend themselves from the real thugs. It is the thugs, it is the criminals, who pull the trigger. We should have greater deterrence to go after them. That is what this bill does.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about the vote that we just had here recently on the repeal of the assault weapons ban and measures to enforce statutes with regard to criminals who use a weapon in the commission of a crime. I want to talk about our judicial system at the Federal level and how it impacts at the local level. During the debate, I only had about 30 seconds. It was a limited debate. This was a debate that could have gone on on this floor for a long time, so I understand why the Committee on Rules had to limit the debate. But one thing really I believe is very clear, is that there are, and I do not question the sincerity from two different groups that we saw in this debate, you have got those people who believe with all their heart that if we just get all the guns off the streets, that there will be no crime in our society. Then there are those, of whom I am in the camp, that believes gun control is not crime control, and understands the right of free citizens to own and bear arms and the protections of the second amendment of the Constitution. But, folks, I do recognize, and those of us who live in this town in Washington and have to work here, that when you go out in those streets and you see those homes and you see the businesses here in the city whereby it is illegal to possess a handgun, and in those homes and in those businesses are citizens who live in fear, it is clear that the wrong people are behind bars in this town, as the thugs continue to roam the streets. So as we live in a free society, if in fact you live in fear, you are not free. This bill was about giving law abiding citizens the opportunity to live in freedom and not in fear. What did not get sufficient time in the debate, what I believe was the substance of the bill, was increasing the penalties for the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. In the last session of Congress, there was a great debate about increasing the penalties on criminals that use a firearm, and it was knocked down in the 1994 crime act. I was very upset that that happened. Let me talk for a moment about that. In this bill, what we have done is, if a thug walks into a 7-Eleven and he has got, stuck in his pants, he has a handgun right here, for the fact that he just walks in there and he has it and if his buddy pulls his gun, they both are arrested. For the fact that he had possession of a firearm in the commission of that crime, even though he never pulled it, it is a mandatory minimum of 5 years. I believe that deterrent is very important. If he pulls that weapon and he brandishes that weapon to incite fear in that individual, to rob them or hurt them or maim them, even to threaten to kill them, minimum 10 years. If in fact he discharges that firearm, 20 years. You might say, my gosh, Congressman, that is very harsh. You are right. That is harsh. Because there are those of us that believe if you use a weapon in the commission of a crime, it better be a harsh penalty. And let us send that signal out there to the thugs, because to me the real assault weapon is the thug who pulls the trigger. Let us talk about theories of punishment in our judicial system. The theories of punishment, as I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, I talk about it so often with my colleagues, theories of punishment are prevention, education, rehabilitation, restitution, retribution, and deterrence. So in prevention, whether they are programs in our communities for youth activities in our cities and towns or multi-drug task forces, or take education, the DARE Program, in our schools, rehabilitation, whether it is by alcohol, drug or schooling within our prisons. How about restitution to the victim, retribution to the criminal and deterrence. We need a proper balance of all of these in our society. There is a great need, because of victims crying out that they are not being heard. And when they are not heard, it breeds individual vigilantism in our society. So we need a proper balance. That is what we are trying to strike here in our society for the benefit of all mankind.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate being noted as learned, being a Hoosier, I would say to my fellow Illinois chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued by the comments of my colleague who was just in the well. Often we hear about these cop-killer bullets. It is interesting. I would like to know why. Any bullet out there, no matter what you call it, if you point it at the right time, can kill someone with the same lethal effect as a knife or a tire iron, if you want to whop somebody up side the head. The real assault weapon, Mr. Chairman, is the thug. That is what the real assault weapon is. What we have now, Mr. Chairman, are international groups that commit acts of terror indiscriminately, cowardly acts of terror, who form these groups throughout the world. They have increased their lethality in how they operate, so it used to be in the 1970's and 1980's it was the highjackings and hostage takings. Now they have become more sophisticated. Now there are bombings, and that is how they operate, but they are more cowardly in what they do, because the lethality of their actions now is against the innocents. So we see, whether it is the World Trade Center bombings and others that have operated throughout the world, we, the United States, want to take a responsible role not only here domestically, within our own borders, but internationally, with our neighbors throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I think that is pretty important. I am extraordinarily disappointed when we do not give the tools and the resources to law enforcement to meet those goals. Why we gut a bill, and for some reason say we should be more frightened of our own Government; wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I believe in good government. Why do we form governments? We form governments to take care of people. If people are living in fear, there is not freedom. There is not liberty. That is what we cherish most in our own country. We want to give the power and authority to the FBI to go after these thugs, when these illegal aliens come into the country, and then we do not want to give, whether it is roving wire taps and things to go after them; why? Then when we do come after them, they flee from the Philippines to Pakistan, and finally we catch up with them, as in the World Trade Center case. Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman. I do not want to ever say he is ambivalent, but I noticed the remarks from yesterday and the remarks from today, to support this bill. I am going to support this bill. When the Senate has theirs, we are going to go to conference and we are going to give them the tools necessary to make this an effective bill, and we will come back to the floor then at that time. However, let me make a closing comment with regard to this thing about let us throw out habeas corpus reform and talk about victims' rights. To me, that just blows my mind. Those who coddle and hug the thugs do not want to be for an effective death penalty, yet we are going to talk about victims' rights? We need in this country a good balance in sentencing guidelines between education, prevention, restitution, retribution, and deterrence, and the rights to victims are extraordinarily important.

Mr. BUYER. My only question, Mr. Chairman, is does the gentlewoman support an effective death penalty?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for yielding this time to me. Let me compliment the gentleman on a lot of great work on this bill. It has taken a lot to get through the committee, and we still have a lot of ground yet to cover. The Senate passed theirs last week. I compliment the chairman on permitting a cooling-off process after the Oklahoma City bombing so we could move legislation with good intellect, and thought and reflection. I believe that the threat to Americans from international acts of terror is very real. From 1990 to 1994, Mr. Chairman, 40 percent of reported international terrorist acts worldwide were directed against United States' interests. Although many Americans do not realize the risk, U.S. citizens and their property are the targets of choice, often called soft targets. They are either business sites or tourist sites. Because of our status as a world superpower, our economic success and our military prowess, we have, in fact, acquired adversaries throughout the world. Whether we like it or not, we must face the dark truth, that there are those who wish us ill on not only our system of liberty, freedom and justice, but that of the American people. These groups or individuals can be highly structured or have more loose networks, but their aim is the same, to disrupt our systems, thwart our democratic policies. Unfortunately these groups do not hold life in the same light as we do and are willing to use innocents to further their aims. In this bill also is the effective death penalty, and I think that is extremely important. We have individuals who serve on death row for life. What an oxymoron. I think that it is extremely important that we also send a message that those that participate in acts of terror, indiscriminate acts of cowardly terror, should experience the death penalty. I know that there will be a great debate here on the floor of what to take from the bill and what to leave in the bill. Recognize that there is a process left here. I think that to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle it is important to move this bill, and let us get it to conference. But the most extremely important is let us have a good, effective bill. If we absolutely live in fear, then we have no freedom. So if we have the World Trade Center bombing, and we have it repeated, or the Oklahoma City bombing, and it is repeated, we are living in fear and, therefore, we really cannot enjoy freedom or liberty. So when we as a people hold the power and we then extend the Government to insure that we protect ourselves, it is called national security. We think of national security so often internationally, but it is also domestic. I compliment the chairman for this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today to share an insight with my colleagues. About 10 days ago I was in London, the United Kingdom, actually there by invitation of the Royal British Legion to discuss the gulf war illness issues to coordinate our research efforts between the two countries. What brings me to the well today is, I was constantly asked the question, whether it be from the news media, members of the Parliament, House of Lords or even the citizens in the United Kingdom, what are you doing in the United States? Many people in the United Kingdom were extremely upset with the United States, in particular the President of the United States, with a coddling of Gerry Adams of the IRA, now that they have broken away from the peace process and have continued the indiscriminate acts of terror. I was almost left speechless, having to defend the President of the United States in what he had done in the past and not only in the past, but I am now deeply disturbed that while in Northern Ireland they have broken away from the peace process, that the President continues to coddle Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein, the political party of the IRA, while the citizens in London and the rest of the United Kingdom do not know if they can walk down the streets in safety, whether the phone booth will explode, whether they can ride on a city bus. And I can understand why they ask, what are you doing in the United States. My only response is that for some reason this one does not resonate with the American people like it should. For so long we have been insulated from indiscriminate acts of terror, yet we had the explosion in the World Trade Center. We had the experience of Oklahoma City bombing. And how it moved everyone in this Nation that someone could actually commit a cowardly act of terror, such as the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal building. Yet when trying to relate this to what Gerry Adams and others in the IRA are doing in London, for some reason it does not resonate. You see how would we feel if the President of the United States had coddled those involved with the Oklahoma City bombing at the White House prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, how would we feel in this country? We probably would be having impeachment proceedings right now. Now what we have is the President, who now exempts them from the terrorist list, permits fundraising to occur in this country, and the President now, even though they have broken away from the peace process, says, OK, and we will grant this visa to Gerry Adams to come to the United States. Something is not right here. This is a disconnect. How can that happen? So I want to share to my colleagues, if you are going to travel the United Kingdom, be prepared to answer that tough question, what are you doing in the United States coddling Gerry Adams and the Sinn Fein Party while indiscriminate acts of terror are occurring? You know we are going to have an antiterrorism bill come to this House floor here relatively soon, and I think what we should do is take a good hard look here as to whether or not it is going to permit fundraising to occur. Perhaps what the President should do; he has not asked for my advice; but I think what he should do is in fact not grant the visa to Gerry Adams, play a much harder line. I would also stop any forms of fundraising to occur in this country. We all want the peace process to be successful in the United Kingdom with regard to Northern Ireland. So I wanted to share with the American people and with my colleagues my dismay and my disappointment with the President of the United States and with regard to how he is treating Gerry Adams and the Sinn Fein Party.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, seizing a historic opportunity, the Agriculture Market Transition Act seeks reforms to the Federal agriculture programs that begin to wean farmers off Government subsidies and move them toward more market oriented principles. This legislation moves agri-business from the Depression era policies of the past toward strong incremental steps that move the farmer into the next century. The Agriculture Market Transition Act allows Hoosier farmers to finally be able to plant for the market. In passing this legislation, the Congress is keeping its word to allow the American farmer the freedom to farm while making substantial reductions in Federal expenditures. Moreover, this legislation helps America move toward our goal of a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, retaining present policy is not an option if Indiana farmers are to successfully move into the next century and compete in the world marketplace. This legislation will aid in the transition into the market-oriented farm policy of the future. It does so while providing farmers with fixed, declining payments over 7 years that will help in the economic distortions as a result of these changes. It seeks reform of commodity programs such as sugar, peanut, cotton, and the dairy program. These reforms are a win-win situation as it provides flexibility to farmers and the American consumer benefits as well. Finally, this legislation reduces the regulatory burden on the agriculture community. Farmers in the Fifth District of Indiana tell me time after time that they spend more time fulfilling bureaucratic requirements than farming their land. Allowing farmers the freedom to farm gives them the resources to get the most out of their land, reduces the regulatory burden, and provides farmers the opportunity to plant what will produce the highest profit on their land. Mr. Chairman, I support the Agriculture Market Transition Act, because it is good for farmers, good for consumers, and good for agri- business.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This report represents one of the most monumental, deregulatory, and sweeping legislation ever considered in the history of Congress. I commend my colleagues, Senators Pressler and Hollings, and Congressmen Bliley, Hyde, Fields, and Dingell for their relentless efforts to produce such unprecedented policy in a balanced and thoughtful manner. I consider it a great privilege to have been a member of this conference committee which took upon the task of examining every aspect of the converging telecommunications industry. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. Today, with passage of this legislation, this Congress is breaking the shackles of repressive government regulations. It is forging a new era where consumer choice, technological development, innovation, and competition control the marketplace, while we keep a watchful eye upon monopoly power. This legislation marks only the second time the Government has addressed telecommunications policy. The Communications Act of 1934, representing the first time, was enacted when our Nation was highly dependent upon telegraph, and believed radio and telephone technology to be luxuries. Frankly, the Communications Act has governed telecommunications policy for far too long. Readily available and highly used technologies of today, such as digital overt analog transmission, cellular and wireless technology, as well as digital compression and interactive data transmission were not even within the realm of imagination of society in 1934. I am here today to acknowledge that over the past several months I have had the opportunity to observe and examine advanced technologies which are not yet available to consumers. That is why I will be the first to admit that it would be impossible for us to predict what technologies and their applications will be available next year. This legislation was crafted fully aware of the fact and the stranglehold the Government was placing upon its development. I firmly believe that this legislation will unleash such competitive forces and innovation that our Nation will see more technological development and deployment in the next 5 years than we have already seen in this century. With that technological development will come hundreds of thousands of new jobs and tens of billions of private industry dollars being invested in infrastructure and technology in an explosive, yet steady, manner. This landmark legislation is predicated upon two things: competition and the consumer. Our society is founded on the belief that competition produces new technologies, new applications for those technologies, and new services, all at a lower cost to the consumer. S. 652 puts the consumer in control. Cable companies, local telephone companies, long- distance companies, broadcast stations, wireless providers, utility companies, among many others, will all be competing for the consumer's business, offering new technologies, better services, and more choices at a lower cost. Much of my support for this legislation is based on not only the consumer benefits gained through lower costs and better services, but through the access and availability to services and technologies in rural areas such as the Fifth Congressional District of Indiana. The impact of this nationwide network and universal access in rural areas will be revolutionary. We're not talking about just making sure small communities have cable services and can order a pizza from their television sets. This legislation will bring the world's leading heart surgeon into the surgery room at Jasper County Hospital and other rural hospitals. It will allow hog farmers in rural Carroll County to access the latest veterinary research to diagnose their herd's disease. Classrooms in Cass County can have access to the libraries of Oxford University. We will be bringing precision farming technology to Benton County, IN, through the use of global positioning satellites. All of these extraordinary services and benefits are being obtained by ending the strangle hold of Government on the telecommunications industry. I truly believe that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 represents one of the greatest proconsumer, job creation, and infrastructure investment bill ever considered by Congress. I fully support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Flow Control Act of 1996, House Resolution 349, as it is currently drafted. While I support the provisions of this resolution, I do not in any way support this effort to address flow control without addressing the issue of interstate transportation of municipal solid waste. It is my feeling that doing so, the House of Representatives is again failing to provide a national framework of controls and incentives for states and localities to implement responsible, solid waste management programs. Failure of this House to include comprehensive waste control legislation, including granting States the authority to control the flow of waste as well as to limit the amount of out-of-State waste which can be dumped within their borders, reveals that the real intent is not to encourage responsible waste management. Instead, taking this action sends the message that this House is more concerned with the financial resources which are being depleted by the lack of flow control authority, than it is with the limited, natural resources being depleted by the lack of State authority to regulate the amount of municipal waste which can be imported and dumped. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress has sole jurisdiction over the regulation of interstate commerce. Over the past 5 years, the Congress has acknowledged it should exercise this authority with regard to the issue of municipal waste. In the 104th Congress, the Senate passed comprehensive legislation which addresses the issue of municipal waste management affecting all 50 states. Early last year, I introduced H.R. 1288, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste Act, which is identical to the bill introduced by Senator Coats. Senator Coats and I did so recognizing the necessity of developing a comprehensive national waste management policy, one which addresses the severe problems facing our own State of Indiana. I represent a district in Northcentral Indiana which received two- thirds, or around 1 million tons, of the amount of out-of-State waste dumped in Indiana last year. House Resolution 349 does not address this problem of out-of-State waste which faces many States such as Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. These States are forced to deal with the millions of tons of waste generated by other States and localities, and dumped within their borders. I am greatly concerned over the lack of progress this House has made on this issue. I believe this House is ignoring its responsibility and addressing only the financial problems of a limited number of states. I believe that Congress' lack of action penalizes States like Indiana, which have not only reduced their production of solid waste, but have devised a responsible management plan to dispose of it. I am here in support of a national system which will enable and encourage each State and locality to develop and implement responsible, solid waste management plans. The only way to do so is to address the issue of municipal solid waste management, which includes both the problems of flow control and interstate waste. Mr. Chairman, I urge this House to continue the work of the past 5 years, to follow the work of the Senate, and to consider the work of Chairman Oxley and his colleagues on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Material, who have approved H.R. 2323, a comprehensive waste management reform bill. That is why I must stand here today and call on my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, actually, I do believe with some of the Members here on the floor, we could actually work out the budget deal. Don't you think? That is about how I feel at the moment, is to override that which is down below the hill so that we can get it done. One thing that did bother me, before I start in on this, is when I heard one of my colleagues mention the word ``perhaps.'' Balancing the budget is perhaps a laudatory thing to do. Perhaps is kind of a word like a maybe. Like balancing the budget may be a good thing to do. It does not imply any form of desirability, which, in fact, bothers me somewhat, and that is the problem that we have. It is easy to talk about let us balance the Nation's budget, but when we actually get down to doing it, it is very difficult. One thing that is bothersome is, whether it is the Republicans or whether it is Democrats, there is this blame game that goes on in this town. And when we feel the heat back home by our constituents or Federal workers or someone who cannot get a passport or visa, it is easy to quickly blame someone else. Or if, in fact, someone is working in a Veterans Administration and someone calls to have a need and they say, well, just call your Congressman. They would like to blame the Congress, and that is an easy thing to do. There is something that confronts us, though, and that is the Federal Government cannot sustain its current fiscal policies. I do not care who we are or what our background is or our partisanship, that is a fact. The spending commitments will far exceed the revenues available to meet the Federal Government's obligations. That is a fact. So we cannot deal on assumptions. Assumptions carry great liability. Facts are stubborn things. It is a condition, not a theory, which presently confronts us. Look at this chart here for a moment. This is what confronts us. We have a national debt. Look at this national debt and the explosion. There is a great blame game when they say this national debt. They blame it on the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush era, as if Congress did not pass spending bills. So when they cut taxes, they did not cut spending, and we got a mushroom in the national debt. I came to Congress in 1992. I am not interested in a blame game here. I know what confronts us. Fact is what confronts us. If my colleagues would time travel with me and we say, now in the year 2002 we balance the budget, well, this bothers me. I am not satisfied. I am not satisfied because I know the national debt will continue to grow from its $4.9 trillion today to around $6.8 or $6.9 trillion. This national debt, this will take us up to about 2030 to 2035 to bring it back into better balance. I will not even be alive. So people say, Steve, why are you doing this? It is very easy to come here to the floor and say all of these things. Oh, my gosh, we have Federal workers not being paid. Here are some of the impacts. Here is someone that needs a visa to come back to school from whatever country they are from. Or here is someone that needs to go overseas for a particular job, or whatever is going on. There are numerous examples, and we can go on and on and on. Do we give in to the moment or do we permit the eyes of our minds to see the greater vision? And the greater vision is saving the country. Save the country. Because if we permit the national debt to just mushroom and balloon like it is, I know what countries do whose debts become unmanageable. They devalue their currency. I will submit this to the American people. If they see Members of Congress leaving this institution and they are starting to buy gold, Americans better buy gold, because we can see what is about to happen. So it is easy to come here and wrap ourselves around whatever issue. There is no ownership on the issues of compassion. Some like to believe there are, but there are not. I neither believe that the milk of human kindness has soured, nor will I give in to the tears of vexation. Mr. Speaker, I look at this chart and I think what a luxury President John Kennedy must have had when he came to this town in the early 1960's. Because at that time he had 70 percent of the budget that was discretionary spending. Seventy percent. Twenty-three percent was entitlement, 7 percent was interest on the debt. By 2002, the discretionary spending will have gone from the 70 percent all the way to only 28 percent. So when we subtract 16 percent of the 28 percent for the military budget, we are not arguing over much anymore, because the mandatory spending side, entitlements and interest, they overtake itself. It is wrong and we have to balance the budget. Let us not give in to the rhetoric today.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order in place of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a strong heart I come here. I am really surprised that Members would even take the well and somehow try to claim ownership to issues of children and demagoguery. It is completely unfortunate, and to say that somehow because I am a Republican in this body that I do not care about children is incredibly insulting. Let me also say that even to say words about assault upon children shows poor judgment. We get that kind of language here on the floor. I do enjoy and I am one who advocates the opening up, and I love the dialog that happens in this body, but perhaps because we are moving into the Christmas season and many of us are upset that we still have to be in this town, we get some of those words come about. I have no regrets being here in this town at this moment. I have no regrets, because the Reserve unit which I went to the gulf war with has been called up and is on their way to Bosnia. So when I think of them, I remember what that deployment was like, and I think of them now being in the snow of the mountains of Bosnia away from their families. But I also view that, yes, what they face, the cowardly acts of terror and the threats to the force, we also have the same cowardly acts of terror that face those of us who seek to balance the budget. The acts of terror come in the form of words. You see, I am one who believes that words have meaning. So when you say, ``Oh, I want to balance the budget,'' then you ought to really mean you want to balance the budget. Do not say, ``I want to balance the budget, oh, sometime in the future but I am unwilling to make tough choices.'' Let me share that when I returned from the gulf, I was one that was extraordinarily upset with regard to the direction of our country. When you are touched by the experience of war, you begin to understand that there are many people throughout our society who have sacrificed, sacrificed for future generations and recognized the obligations that we have to take care of our parents and our grandparents, at the same time our obligation to see that our children have it better than what we had. My fear when I look at our children is, are they going to have it better than what we have had? When I look at economic stagnation and the effects upon the wages, there are a lot of issues out there. But when I look at the national debt, I look at that and say that is the greatest threat to our security. Serving on the Committee on National Security, we have briefings all the time about threats abroad to national security. But what about the threat from within? The threat from within when we have Members of Congress who are unwilling to act responsibly, and only want to reach into their wallets and pull out the credit card and keep stealing from future generations so they can continue to come back here. Then they wrap themselves in the cloak as if they are compassionate and they have ownership of sincerity, and that if you want to act responsibly, then you are cold, callous and uncaring. That is wrong. That is wrong. But that is kind of the words that are used in this body and it is extraordinarily unfortunate. What it does is, it seeks to divide this body instead of unite the body. So you have the far left and you have the far right and they seek to pull, and those in the middle when we seek to bridge an agreement, we scratch our heads and say, ``What is going on?'' When I go back home to Indiana, they scratch their heads and say, ``Jeez, put Newt and Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in the same room so they can solve it.'' Come on. Coming to this body and saying that the national debt is the greatest threat to this country, and then finally to be able to do something about it. You see, for the longest time conservatives, we advocated freezing the budget. Then when we got control of the Congress, we no longer advocated freezing the budget, because now we have an opportunity to change systems. So when over the years we work hard to change systems, streamline and make government more effective, we get attacked. Well, we are going to hang firm and balance the Nation's budget because this is about the future of the country.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], who said we really should be talking about what is before us. That is, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I take my duty and responsibilities very seriously to the 26 million veterans. The bill which the President vetoed was very disappointing because we had over a $400 million increase in VA medical care. The research budget totaled $257 million. Veterans' benefits programs funding will increase from $36.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $41.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. So during the next 7 years, more than $275 billion will be spent on veterans' programs, $40 billion more than the previous 7 years. I think that is very important. The Budget which is being attacked here all of a sudden, it fully funds the important veterans' compensation, pension programs, the GI bill, vocational rehabilitation insurance, the home loan program, and a COLA increase of 2.6 percent. The bill that is before us will ensure the on-time payment of benefits for compensation, pension, DIC, and the GI bill. It will also ensure that contractors who supply the services directly related to patient health and safety will be paid, and it will also ensure that such services as ambulance service and contract physician coverage for emergency care will continue. I also would like to share with my colleagues, as I witnessed the debate on the rule, I would almost caution my colleagues, my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues, that I was disappointed in some of the lack of civility shown here in the House. No one in this Chamber by political party has a cornerstone on the concerns of veterans. Many of us in this body, when we wore the uniform, no one ever asked us were we a Republican or were we a Democrat. This is why we operate in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in a tremendous bipartisan spirit, not only in the authorizing committee but in the appropriating committee. Here is what is going to happen here tonight. We are going to continue to play a little politics, but America will receive a message here tonight. This body will overwhelmingly support this because we believe in bipartisanship for veterans.