Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. Your No. 1 argument is in fact my argument, also, when you said that you want the military to have access to the greatest minds in this country by way of research. You see, I would like for the military to also have equal access and opportunity to great minds who can be great leaders, whether they are noncommissioned officers or officers. We are denied that opportunity from a high quality recruiting pool. We share the very same argument, perhaps on different policy grounds.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, who I would say I am in opposition to his statements, but to say my opposition is a position that would not be true in his eyes would, I think, be a misstatement. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Burdensharing is a vital component of our national security strategy. Requiring our allies to pay their fair share for their own defense is a prudent and commonsense policy. However, I object to this amendment directly linking mandatory troop withdrawals from Europe if NATO nations do not meet burdensharing goals by a date certain. The United States has fought two hot and one cold war in Europe during this century. In the case of the two World Wars, the rush to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe created a vacuum that necessitated our return to that continent at a later date with a greater cost in lives and treasure. We must not repeat this mistake. Our presence in Europe is a commitment too valuable to the vital national security of the United States to jeopardize lightly. This amendment ties the hands of the Commander in Chief and could force our withdrawal from NATO at a dangerous and difficult time for the alliance. I urge my colleagues to vote to maintain our flexibility in NATO and reject this amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bipartisan committee- passed version of H.R. 961. One message that the American public has made clear--one message that this Congress has seen fit to heed in passing several pieces of legislation this year--has been the fact that this Nation has entered an era in which new approaches and local flexibility are needed to provide lasting solutions to our Nation's greatest problems. Mr. Chairman, this bill continues the great traditions of the leaders of the Republican Party who made the protection of the environment and natural resources a top priority--Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. This bill not only reaffirms the importance of the 1972 Clean Water Act and preserves its successes, it significantly updates that historic legislation to meet the water quality needs and circumstances of this Nation in 1995 and beyond. As many members have explained throughout this debate, our State and local communities are now well-equipped, and in most cases, better equipped, to devise and implement solutions to the expensive point source and nonpoint source pollution problems within their communities. H.R. 961, as it stands now, gives the State and local governments the flexibility and authority they need to implement those solutions. Solutions, mind you, that will improve our communities' water quality both more quickly and at less cost. Let me share a couple of examples of particular problems in my district which will greatly benefit from passage of the committee- passed H.R. 961. In a rural town in my district, Francesville, IN, a major wastewater treatment facility construction project which will greatly improve the quality of water for tens of thousands of people along the watershed, was delayed. This delay lasted more than 2 years due to a concern that the plant would interfere with less than 1 acre of a man-made pit which environmental officials had determined to be a wetland. Another example in my backyard illustrates how small communities throughout Indiana are struggling to meet complex Federal requirements which are financially prohibitive. H.R. 961 seeks to loosen these types of regulatory constraints on small communities which have the effect of actually hindering their ability to improve their water quality. My hometown of Buffalo, IN, which has a population of 250 is undertaking a sewer system construction which will improve the water quality on the Tippecanoe River and Lakes Shafer and Freeman. Unfortunately, they've been bitten by these same regulatory restrictions that hinder their ability to use new and innovative technology like constructed wetlands treatment facilities. The impact could not only be the delays they now face in construction, but local sewer bills could soar from a projected $35 per month to reach $90 per month. As if that isn't clear enough, I have another example of the impact of current law and enforcement on municipalities and small communities. Approximately 5,000 people reside in Rensselaer, IN. They have a $3.5 million sewer treatment facility serving their community. The city of Rensselaer was informed by regulators that they are not in compliance and must conduct combined sewer overflow [CSO] monitoring. They learned that it was estimated to cost each person in the town $1,000 per year. This translates into nearly $5 million in costs to implement this CSO Program, nearly twice the amount it costs to build the entire sewer treatment facility, all just to monitor and not treat the water. My final story shows the inability of the Federal Government, without clear definitions and political accountability, to provide simple, effective, and cost-efficient solutions to the situations families, farmers, businesses, and communities face. A Cass County farmer in my district had less than one-quarter of an acre of ground in the middle of a farm field determined as a wetland. Despite the fact that he could potentially have profited only $20 annually from farming the area, Federal regulators slapped him with over $300,000 in fines and lost benefits. Yet, as if it isn't enough, under the current law, he could have sold this land to any number of retailers, such as Wal-Mart, who could have paved this wetland and made it part of a parking lot without any penalties or fines whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that these are not isolated instances. We must continue and follow up on the bipartisan message which was sent to not only State and local governments, but also the Federal regulators. We must encourage flexible, commonsense rationality to our regulatory policies. For instance, title VIII of H.R. 961 establishes a new Federal wetlands policy by replacing the current section 404 of CWA with comprehensive new language to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials into U.S. waters and wetlands, as well as the drainage, first time in legislation, this bill establishes a procedure for both classifying and delineating wetlands, directing the Secretary of the Army to issue classification regulations and delineation rules within 1 year of enactment. It outlines application procedures for persons seeking to undertake activities in wetlands, as well as property owners who seek a determination of whether a wetland exists on their property, and provides for judicial review. Thus, H.R. 961 provides for greater certainty and expedited procedures to applicants. This provision is comparable to legislation I cosponsored last year to address wetlands issues. This bill modifies the list of exempt activities in order to clarify the intent of Congress where agency and court decisions have resulted in broader regulations than intended. H.R. 961 includes the following to those activities already exempted by the act: First, maintenance and emergency reconstruction of facilities for flood control, water supply, reservoirs, utility lines, and transportation structures; second, farming activities such as constructing stock ponds, irrigation canals, and drainage ditches; third, activities to enhance aviation safety, such as clearing vegetation that obscures a control tower's view of the runway approach; and fourth, activities that are consistent with a State-approved land management plan approved by the Army Secretary, as well as a few other limited activities. It is also extremely important to note that H.R. 961 is consistent with the provisions bipartisanly passed by this Congress under H.R. 925. In doing so, this bill requires that property owners who have their property value diminished by 20 percent or more as a result of a Federal agency wetlands management action must be compensated by the Government for that amount. H.R. 961 provides not only flexibility with the reiteration of regulatory reforms and just compensation, but it also authorizes billions of additional dollars for State and local governments to prioritize solutions and utilize advanced technologies. I support the commonsense bipartisan solution H.R. 961 provides.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is in dire need of improvements. Medicare part A will go bankrupt by 2002; in just 7 years. Medicare part B, has already begun to lose money. Medicare is our forth largest Federal budget item, consuming 12 percent of the budget. If the Medicare system is not reformed now, we may not have a program to reform in the very near future. Since 1992, Medicare has been paying out more money in claims than it has received in payroll taxes. These services must be run in a more responsible and fiscally prudent manner while maintaining Medicare's quality. [[Page E1050]] Medicare part A, the hospitalization insurance program, draws its revenue from a trust fund that currently contains $135 billion. This trust fund will begin losing money next year and will be insolvent by 2002. We must provide security to our seniors that there will be a safety net for their use if needed in 7 years. Enrollees in Medicare part B, the program that finances outpatient medical treatment, will pay a premium of $46.10 a month and a deductible of $100 this year. In return they will receive benefits averaging nearly $2,400 per enrollee, with taxpayers subsidizing $1,800 per beneficiary. By 2002, that subsidy will reach $3,900 per individual. This subsidy will cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years if the current course continues. The average one-earner Medicare couple will receive $126,700 more in benefits than they contributed over their working life. In April, I completed another round of town meetings in the Fifth District of Indiana. The solvency of Medicare was a top concern. I heard a similar message from young and old alike from Kokomo to Winamac and from Logansport to Plymouth. Hoosiers don't want a quick fix that doesn't work. They don't want accounting gimmicks. They don't want political posturing. They want Congress to reform the system to ensure security for years to come. The solvency of Medicare is very real to Hoosier families and seniors. House Republicans have proposed a budget plan that balances the Federal budget by 2002, without touching Social Security or raising taxes. This means that for the first time since 1969, our deficit by 2002 will be zero. Medicare spending is projected to increase from $178 billion in 1995 to $258 billion in 2002. That's a 45 percent increase over the next 7 years. What does this mean for the average Medicare recipient? In 1995, the average Medicare beneficiary will receive $4,684 in benefits which increase to $6,293 in 2002. Again, benefits increase--not decrease. The Board of Trustees for the Medicare Trust Fund, appointed by President Clinton, have issued a report saying Medicare's short-term fiscal health requires either an immediate increase in payroll taxes of 44 percent or an immediate decrease in Medicare spending of 30 percent. Yet both of their proposals would only ensure solvency for 25 years. I support a less draconian approach such as reducing the growth of Medicare by just 5 percent a year. No tax increase nor enormous cuts. A 5 percent reduction in growth will provide for long term security of the Medicare program. Because a centralized Government monopoly is inherently inefficient, wasteful, and too slow to adapt to new ideas and new solutions, we must transform Medicare. Every senior citizen should have more choices in health care and more control over their own lives, thus providing more security. a transformed Medicare system will provide better health care at lower cost with greater choice. Failure to transform Medicare will lead to cuts in services and financial crisis. The President should be a leader, not a follower. The President's own Cabinet members, as trustees of the Medicare Trust Fund, have issued a report clearly stating that Medicare is in dire need of reform. President Clinton has been absent from this debate. Frankly, I am very disappointed that it will take Congressional legislation to bring the President into this discussion. I hope the President will take a seat at the table and help the Congress address this important issue. If not, the Congress clearly has the determination to do so without him. I support H.R. 1590. Finally, the imminent crisis in Medicare funding is real and unavoidable. Responsible reform of Medicare is a top priority of this Congress. It should be everyone's purpose to reform and improve Medicare to provide the best possible service to its beneficiaries. I look forward to working with my constituents, my colleagues, and hopefully the President to find real solutions to improve these programs.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. To my good friend from Colorado, I think there is a big difference between families in America. Her vision is she wants every family in America to drive the very same type of car and for everybody to have the same piece in size. I submit right now we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric with regard to the Nation's budget. It is interesting, this morning, though, when I saw C-SPAN, I got to see the Vice President, the minority leader here in the House, the minority leader in the Senate. They were asked a very important question by a member of the press. Intriguing. ``What is your plan to balance the Nation's budget without a tax increase in 7 years?'' They looked at each other, and there was complete silence for a good 4 or 5 seconds. It was wonderful. It reminded me almost of the Three Stooges; I saw Curley, Larry, and Mo. They stood and all kind of looked at each other. The answer is they have no plan. So my message is: Stop the squawking, stop the whining, and let us get down and work on the Nation's business, roll up our sleeves, and let us do it. Because this is very serious business. You want to talk about what happens to the American family, the lady from Colorado, the greatest threat to the American family today is the national debt. That is the greatest threat. Folks, if we are successful, and it is now 2002, the national debt will be in excess of $7 trillion. Stop squawking, and let us exercise leadership.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of one of the most beloved Hoosiers of the 20th century on the 50th anniversary of his death. He was a man of strong character. unwavering dedication, and a common touch. Born in the American heartland, he became world famous by chronicling the struggles of countless ``G.I. Joes'' during World War II. his writing remains some of the most poignant and moving in the history of warfare. I speak, of course, of that most beloved war correspondent and friend of the common soldier, Ernie Pyle. He was born in Dana, IN, on August 3, 1900. It could have been Anywhere, USA. An only child, he was a wiry, red-headed, shy boy raised on a farm. After a short stint in the Navy, he enrolled in journalism at Indiana University. Restless and eager to move on, he left school his senior year to pursue a career in writing. His early jobs included positions with the La Porte Herald Argus, the Scripps-Howard Daily News in Washington, DC, and the Evening World and the Evening Post in New York. Ernie Pyle began his career as a syndicated columnist in 1935 when he took a 3 month sick leave from the Washington Daily News and toured the country by car with his wife, Geraldine Elizabeth Siebolds. Returning to Washington, he wrote numerous columns describing his experiences. His chatty style, which became his trademark, was popular with readers and the Scripps-Howard group created the post of roving correspondent for Pyle. In this position, he criss-crossed the continent 35 times gathering material for his columns. Ernie Pyle's first experience with war came in 1939, when he was sent overseas to cover the outbreak of World War II. His early coverage of the Nazi bombing of London was so gripping that his dispatches were cabled back to Britain for readers there. Soon Pyle found himself accompanying military units to the various fronts that developed as the war progressed. It was here that Pyle developed his now famous love for the combat infantryman--the ``G.I. Joes'' of the U.S. Army. His coverage of the North African campaign, written in the folksy style that became his trademark, included the names and hometowns of the junior officers and men who actually did the fighting. Known affectionately as ``the little guy,''--he weighed only 110 lbs--Pyle accompanied the soldiers through North Africa and into Sicily. His writing is best described by Pyle himself: I only know what we see from our worm's-eye view, and our segment of the picture consists only of tired and dirty soldiers who are alive and don't want to die; of long darkened convoys in the middle of the night; of shocked silent men wandering back down the hill from battle; of chow lines and atabrine tablets and foxholes and burning tanks and Arabs holding up eggs and the rustle of high-flown shells; of Jeeps and petrol dumps and smelly bedding rolls and C-rations and cactus patches and blown bridges and dead mules and hospital tents and shirt collars greasy-black from months of wearing; and laughter, too, and anger and wine and loverly flowers and constant cussing. All these things it is composed of; and graves and graves and graves. Exhausted, Pyle returned home following the invasion of Sicily, only to return to Europe in time to cover the Italian campaign, including the Anzio landing. Although sick with anemia, it was here that Pyle wrote his most famous column on the death of Capt. Henry T. Waskow of Belton, TX. He returned to England in April 1944 to await the invasion of Normandy. During this period, he received the Pulitzer Prize for his war correspondence. He continued his coverage of the European theater from the Normandy landings to the liberation of Paris. After 29 months overseas and 700,000 written words on the war, Pyle returned home once again. His restlessness continued. Half-bald, grey and thin, Pyle declared himself a deserter, and decided to return to combat, this time in the Pacific. He landed with the 77th Infantry Division on Ie Shima in the Ryukyus on April 17, 1945. It was here that Pyle's luck ran out. After spending the night under fire, he started out for the front in a jeep on the morning of April 18. Caught in a machine gun ambush, he dove into a ditch for cover. He was killed minutes later by a Japanese sniper when he raised his head. On learning of his death, the Secretary of War stated that ``They like him because he talked their language. They trusted him because he reported them faithfully to the public at home.'' Originally buried where he fell, Pyle's body was later interred on Okinawa and finally at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, the Punchbowl Crater, Hawaii. But he was never forgotten in his home in Vermillion County. In 1975, Pyle's farmhouse was moved into Dana and became a museum. On April 18, 1995, 50 years after his death, two Quonset huts will be dedicated as additions to this museum to store his memorabilia. There can be no more fitting symbol to honor a man who covered America's finest in the farthest points of the globe. Today we remember Ernie Pyle. Not for his Pulitzer, or his honorary degrees, but for his world at war, he reminded us that it is people--regular, everyday people from places like Dana, IN--who love, and fight and die in war. It is for this reason that as long as we remember World War II, we will remember the chronicler of America's G.I. Joes--Ernie Pyle.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCollum amendment. I do not believe that the Founders ever visualized a system of incumbency that produces lifetime politicians here in Congress. The uniformity issue I think is extremely important. We can talk about whether or not the Supreme Court is going to act on that issue, but I think we have to be very careful. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to set a constitutional amendment, it would be very unfortunate if we had Members serving in this body, those only here for three terms, some here for only four terms, some five, some six. It would be very difficult to operate in this body, especially if you could try to visualize a system of seniority, I think it would be very, very difficult. I think that the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], who spoke, with regard to the sinking of the Contract With America. I would only say to the gentleman, I do not believe that he meant to insult conservative Democrats who have been supporting most of the issues in the Contract With America with regard to his issues. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the last comment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was probably the most correct one. This is an issue of policy. Do not allow politics to overtake policy and try to think of other reasons. I am one who gave the suggestion that this should be taken out of Americorps. Listen to some of the testimony before the Readiness and Personnel Subcommittees of the House National Security Committee. The Marine Corp Sargeant Major testified that for the first time since 1980 the Marine Corp missed its fiscal year 1994 recruiting goals. If we look at DOD's fall 1994 Youth Attitudes and Awareness Survey, after hearing about Americorps, 47 percent service in the United States military. Just yesterday Lieutenant General Shoup testified the propensity to enlist now is the lowest it has been in 10 years and it has fallen 39 percent amont 16- to 21-year-olds. The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I do remember being on the House floor and yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in the past, and it was with great disappointment to hear that he would consider it rude to request the return. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, about partisanship, these cuts of $206 million, I remember he was the former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. It was that 1993 budget, that tough vote that occurred on this floor that only passed by one vote, that cut $2.5 billion out of veterans' programs. Therefore, do not be coming to the House floor and saying ``Gee, what is going on right now?'' The President's budget that he just sent to us cuts an additional $3 billion, so President Clinton is personally responsible for $5.5 billion in cuts in veterans' programs. So I would say to my colleagues on this side that now all of a sudden want to bash on this side, read the budget. If you read the budget and read the fine print, look on page 128 and come back and talk with me. Mr. Chairman, let me say, first, why these things need to be restored. They need to be restored because we want to bring the VA into the 1990's. You do that by moving to the outpatient clinics. It is very, very important that we do that. Why AmeriCorps? I do not know about this political stuff that is going on now. I am speaking as someone who has knowledge with regard to the military. That knowledge with regard to the military, Mr. Chairman, when those of us that talked about the AmeriCorps and the problems it is going to have upon a volunteer military, if you support a volunteer military, then you want to be very careful about the pool from which we recruit. It impacts upon the propensity of those who are in the pool from the age of 18 to 25, and what impact it has. If there is another program out there that gives benefits that far exceed that of the Montgomery GI bill for a 2-year enlistee who completes his or her term, they are eligible for $2,960 per year. Compare that to AmeriCorps, 2-year service, educational benefits, 1 year, they will receive $4,725 per year plus health care.

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, in the past 50 years, the cost of torts-- personal injury, product liability, and medical malpractice cases--have grown at 4 times the rate of the overall economy. Currently, the cost of this system is in the neighborhood of $132 billion. Other than diversity jurisdiction in Federal court, predominately, tort actions have been tried in State courts. Historically, consumers bought goods and services locally--intrastate--where many companies primarily conducted commercial trade locally. State rules for tort actions were probably quite appropriate. In the last half century, however, interstate commerce has dominated the market. Consumers buy products that are manufactured in other States, with company headquarters in still another State. Companies no longer serve local markets, but sell products nationally, even internationally. The mechanism by which civil disputes are settled has not kept pace with a changing world and its economy. From 1973 to 1988, product liability suits in Federal courts increased 100 percent; in State courts the increase was between 300 and 500 percent. This increase in litigation has not come without a price. Because 70 percent of products manufactured in any one State cross State borders before the point of final sale, American manufacturers must contend with the uncertainty of 50 different civil justice systems. The awards for damages in one State affect the prices to consumers, insurance rates, and job market in other States. According to surveys reported by Pace University Professor of Law M. Stuart Madden, because of liability costs, 36 percent of American manufacturers have withdrawn products from the world market, 47 percent have withdrawn products from the domestic market, 30 percent have decided not to introduce new products, and 25 percent have discontinued new product research. It can be argued that our tort system is already federalized, except that no consistent standards apply. Even criminals in our criminal justice system face a clear definition of what constitutes crime and there is a limit on what punishment is deemed to be just. For the average American, the current tort system denies the right of free choice in the marketplace and inflates the prices for available products. It also discourages innovation, retards capital formation and creates a distinct competitive disadvantage in the world market, affecting ability of the economy to create and maintain jobs. The chief flaws of the existing system is that it is unpredictable and there is little individual responsibility where all are considered victims. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The intent of H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act, is to return a sense of reasonableness and predictability to this system. H.R. 956 would: First, limit the liability of product sellers; second, limit the liability of manufacturers for injuries due to drug or alcohol abuse, or to the misuse or alteration of their product; third, institute a 15-year statute of repose on product liability; fourth, impose sanctions for bringing frivolous product liability suits; fifth, eliminate joint liability for noneconomic damages in product liability suits; sixth, require a higher standard of proof for punitive damages in all civil suits; seventh, cap punitive damage awards in all civil suits at $250,000 or 3 times economic damages, whichever is greater, and eighth, require strict standards of proof for claims against biomaterial suppliers. In no way does H.R. 956 limit the ability of a plaintiff to recover actual economic loss--medical bills, lost wages, and the like. This legislation will help benefit many of the small businesses in the 5th District of Indiana. Let me site just two examples. Whallon Machinery of Royal Center, IN, manufacturers industrial material handling machines. The machines incorporate hydraulic and pneumatic components as well as sophisticated electronics. This equipment can be found in nearly every State and many foreign countries. In nearly 30 years of business, over 83 percent of all machines built are still in use. In 1993, Whallon received notice of an incident involving their equipment. Previous to this, Whallon had no product liability claims. A customer modified a Whallon machine to the extent that an operator could place himself into the working mechanism of the equipment while the machine was still in automatic operation. An operator, without first hitting the emergency stop button, as instructed by the owner of the machine, entered the machine while it was running and sustained injuries. Whallon ultimately settled out of court. Whallon was quickly affected by this. First, its insurance carrier decided to not renew Whallon's policy. New insurance was found but at nearly 4 times its 1993 premium. The company had to alter plans for plant improvements and expansion, which meant neither additional hiring nor improvement in employee benefits. In another example, medical device manufacturers, such as BIOMET, Zimmer, DePuy, and Danek in Warsaw, IN, provide critically needed products to patients across the country and in the world. Medical device manufacturers have improved the quality of life for countless individuals, through pacemakers, heart valves, artificial blood vessels, hip and knee joints. Three major suppliers--DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Dow Corning-- recently announced that they would limit, or cease altogether, their shipments to medical implant manufacturers. Under current law, suppliers of the raw materials used in implantable devices may be brought into the litigation process. Huge damage awards are often sought from these biomaterial suppliers, even though suppliers have no role in the design, manufacturer, or sale of the implantable device. The courts are not finding the suppliers liable--one supplier has a record of 258 to 1. Nevertheless, it can cost millions to defend and win these lawsuits. The risks and costs of responding to product liability suits far exceeds the limited revenues generated from the sale of these materials and it is driving suppliers away from the medical device industry. Alternate suppliers have been identified for certain of the materials, but they have expressed similar liability fears. In many cases, no other supplier exists. Alternate suppliers will likely sell materials only to those medical implant companies with the financial ability to back stringent indemnification agreements. According to Dane Miller, president of BIOMET, he is having to look at offshore biomaterial suppliers and the substitute materials made available may be substantially different and require quality assurance and new testing. Small implant manufacturers and start-up companies, however, are not in a financial position to guarantee adequate indemnification to suppliers. Small medical technology manufacturers are a primary source of innovation in the medical technology industry. By limiting liability to instances of genuine fault, H.R. 956 will enable life-saving and life-improving medical devices to remain on the market. We must return a sense of reasonableness to ensure that injured parties are compensated in a manner that protects all consumers and America's competitiveness. H.R. 956 is a good start in that direction.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 831, a bill to allow permanent deductibility of health insurance costs for the self-employed is long overdue and I enthusiastically support it. The old saying, ``It may be late but it's not too late,'' is so true in this case. I applaud my colleague from Texas, Mr. Bill Archer, for recognizing the huge injustice that would fall upon many self-employed if this legislation would not pass. It is my belief that the Tax Code should be fair to all. Under current law, employees of a company that provides health benefits are allowed to exclude those benefits from their taxable incomes; the self-employed enjoy no such benefit. To the estimated 3 million who would file for the 25-percent deduction, H.R. 831 prevents a tax increase many self-employed would most likely incur on this year's returns. Mr. Chairman, restoring the deductibility for small businessowners, the self-employed, and family farmers is of great interest to residents of the Fifth District of Indiana. They are the backbone to the rural economy and should be provided the same benefits that the big corporations are permitted in major metropolitan areas. The Tax Code must not be discriminatory. Furthermore, I support Mr. Archer's scrutiny of our current tax law and the Ways and Means Committee's efforts to establish a system of law and public policies that are indifferent to race or gender. Mr. Chairman, it is becoming more and more clear that section 1071 of the Internal Revenue Code has increasingly been abused. For example, of the minority-owned radio stations that received FCC tax certificates between 1979-92, only 29 percent of those stations were still controlled by the original minority purchaser at the end of 1992. In many cases, such investors often turn around and sell their stake in the company for millions of dollars above their initial interest. Thus, by allowing a section 1071 in many of these cases, hundreds of millions of dollars--even billions of dollars--have been lost to the American taxpayer. Section 1071 has been abused for too long. It has become one of the most grotesque abuses of our tax system I have seen in all my years. Let us close the loopholes, reform our Tax Code so it is race and gender blind, and allow our small businessmen, self-employed, and family farmers to receive the same benefits the giant corporations are privy to. In short, H.R. 831 is a beginning to make the Tax Code more friendly and fair.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. No, not at this particular time. If you became sensitive, that is your particular problem. In regard to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], I have great respect for you, and you have been a hawk with us on a lot of issues. But on this particular issue I am in agreement with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. The Bottom-Up Review became suspect. It became suspect because of how it came about. We have talked about this on the Committee on National Security often. And that is, and I have to say it again, when Bush- Powell put together the numbers for defense cuts, they cut the $50 billion. Les Aspin said I can go $60 billion further on top of the $50 billion. Then all of a sudden Bill Clinton is a candidate for President, endorses Les Aspin's $60 billion in cuts. None of us were surprised when Les Aspin became the Secretary of Defense. Low and behold, when we did the 5-year budget resolution, it was $127, $128 billion, on top of the existing $50 billion. Then all of a sudden, quickly, to cover themselves, Les Aspin comes to our committee and talks about having to do the Bottom-Up Review, a review of how to justify the numbers after the fact. That then made the Bottom-Up Review a very politically suspect document, and those of us then in the committee of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] last year then had to deal with the difficult decisions about the open secret in this town. The open secret is, my friends, and to those in our country, it is that we do not have a force structure to even meet the national security objectives and being able to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. So what we are saying is right now, time out. Let us not deal with the politics. Let us have the independent commission to give a real assessment. I understand the politics between the White House and the Secretary, and those are the chiefs that must salute constitutionally.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have many advisory committees and task forces to help us through the process, and that is exactly what this is. I think it is an excellent compliment to how we want to govern.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how we can debate an issue of $1.5 million and interject all the rhetoric as if it is $1.5 billion. Well, gentleman that have particular defense contractors in their districts may be asking for particular things, but come to the House floor and then want to talk about what things are particular, what things are a joke, and what is not a joke.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues I would like to comment on this. I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] when he talked about the seriousness of what we are debating. We are debating really a change in policy in this country. So I was disturbed as I was sitting in my office and kept hearing all the comments about Star Wars, Star Wars, Star Wars. I was not around. I was not here in the Congress when Star Wars came up, and I know there is some political gamesmanship being used with regard to a national missile ballistic defense. I can only share with you from personal experience. The gentlewoman cited Israel. All of you know I served in the Gulf war, and the first Scud that came in in Dhahran was exploded by a Patriot interceptor above our head, and the fuselage landed in a John Deere implement plant. So I understand what theater missile ballistic defense is about, and I congratulate the gentleman for his sincerity in his effort to move in further development of theater ballistic defense. But I also share a concern about national ballistic defense, and the present vulnerability that we have and the present policy that this President has undertaken. So I think that there is a major shift in policy, and one which this Congress should debate about and one which we should in fact change. To the reference to Star Wars, I do have to add this though to my colleagues, that science fiction becomes science fact. Think of that. Science fiction does become science fact. So when you use the word ``Star Wars'' and you throw that out there as if you are trying to say we are going to throw some money down some rat hole and we about a couple of things. Those that say that a national missile ballistic defense is some flight into fantasy, think of this: The use of a submarine I am sure was a flight into fantasy for John Paul Jones; and I am sure that the use of air power in the land battle was a flight into fantasy for General Sherman, to utilize balloons in the Civil War; and I am sure the use of an atomic weapon would have been a flight into fantasy for General Pershing and General Summerall in World War I. And I am sure that the use of satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles was a flight into fantasy, that we used in the Persian Gulf war, to in fact General Eisenhower. Mr. Chairman, Jules Verne turned science fiction into science fact when he foresaw man walking on the bottom of the ocean, for which we have today. My gosh, even those of us that grew up in the George Jetson era saw teleconferencing in the early 1960's on TV. But the reason I bring that up is when you use star wars out there, I think you are complementing America. You really are. You think you are trying to tear down something. But when you refer to star wars, you are buying into something. You are buying into the saying yes, America has the innovation and the initiative and the drive to develop new technologies. So you can use star wars. Some people get offended by it. I think it is a compliment. You are complimenting those of us that want to pursue the development of technology. So use it. I am not offended. I know what it is like to be there on the ground floor, under a missile attack, and have it intercepted by a Patriot. Thank God there were people here in this body that had the willingness to develop such technologies. And if any of you were here that made those decisions, God bless you, and I am thankful to you.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the American people have spoken and we in return have proposed an aggressive agenda for the 104th Congress. We made a promise that this new Congress would bring to the floor of the House a true line-item veto bill. Today, Republicans will again hold true to our promise in the Contract With America and we will vote on the line-item veto, H.R. 2. In the Fifth District of Indiana, whether it be Wabash, Kokomo, Plymouth, or Crown Point, Hoosier families continue to be concerned about wasteful Federal spending. They do not want their legacy to their children to be one of saddling future generations with increasing debt. They want Congress to pass a line-item veto. The line-item veto will no longer allow useless projects to be funded and buried in the budget without accountability. H.R. 2 forces the President and Congress to be responsible. In essence, it makes Congress stop its habitual practice of wasteful and excessive spending. This is an opportunity we cannot let pass. By giving President Clinton and those who follow him the same tools for which 43 Governors currently use, we will take a giant step in restoring fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget process. We must answer the public's call for a leaner, more efficient, and less costly effective Federal Government. I support passage of the line-item veto as a necessary budget reform responsibility.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, for far too long the Federal Government, I believe, has usurped the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That specific intent of our Founding Fathers was to recognize States rights. This usurpation has stifled the growth of not only the Nation's business because of the cost of compliance with many Federal mandates, but I am also very pleased that finally this body will recognize States rights and will insure that States and local communities are allowed to determine how best to resolve their problems. It must also be fully aware of the burdens it is placing on the business community and those in the public sector. You see, many across this Nation, elected officials, local responsible leaders, have been called, challenged to solve many of many of the local problems, create economic growth and development and provide necessary services at minimal cost. However, the Federal Government for years has been redefining the responsibilities of the local level as being held to comply with Federal regulations, forcing them to sift through the Federal bureaucracy to obtain grants and Federal assistance. The time is now to stop that. Let us pass this bill.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as the recent elections have proven, the Washington-knows-best attitude can be no more. For too long the Federal Government has usurped the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the specific intent of our Founding Fathers. It has also stifled the growth of our Nation's businesses because of the cost of compliance with Federal mandates. It is time this body recognized States' rights and ensure States and local communities are allowed to determine how best to resolve their own problems. And, it must also be fully aware of burdens it is placing on the business community. The people of my district have elected several ingenuitive and responsible leaders in cities like Plymouth, Lowell, DeMotte, Warsaw, Knox, Peru, Kokomo, and Marion, as well as others. These elected officials have been challenged to solve local problems, create economic growth and development, and provide necessary services at minimal costs. However, recently, the Federal Government has redefined their responsibilities into being able to comply with Federal regulations, sift through the Federal bureaucracy to obtain grants and financial assistance, and practice budgetary wizardry to fund these mandates along with all of the necessary local programs. By shifting costs to local communities and setting its agenda, unfunded Federal mandates breach the underlying principles of federalism which assume a working partnership and shared responsibilities between the Federal, State, and local governments. Over the past few years, State and local officials in my district have continually pleaded for relief. Business leaders have explained that they are being forced to make decisions based on Federal regulations rather than the market economy. The Federal Government has not only tied the hands of these officials and business leaders, but, through mandates, it has determined the agenda and has set the priorities at all levels of government. In fact, both Cedar Lake and Monticello, cities in my district, have had to bear the cost of additional loans to address much needed sewer projects, which had been deferred due to the costs of compliance with Federal mandates. Last week, I spent the day talking and listening with the members of the Indiana General Assembly. They want to work with the Federal Government, but they know all too well the Federal Government's help too often means more burdens, requirements, and budget outlays--the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Motor Voter Act, and last year's crime bill to name a few. They explained that instead of being able to address the concerns and needs of their communities, they have become administrative servants of the Federal Government. They are constantly compelled to comply with mandates, rules, and regulations, which demand too much time and too many resources. Business leaders have told me the same thing. They are forced to devote their time and additional employees to make sure they comply with Federal rules and regulations, rather than assisting customers and promoting growth and development. Some businesses have closed plants and eliminated jobs because of the cost of compliance with certain mandates. These Federal regulations have forced many producers to rely, in part, on foreign sources, rather than their own. A small businessman in my district confessed to me that even though the growth of his business is such that he would be able to hire additional employees, he will manage with his current 46 employees. He explained that the Family and Medical Leave Act, which affects business of greater than 50 employees, would place too many costs and burdens on his business, even though he has already instituted a policy allowing for employee leave. We have set an ambitious agenda to meet the demands of the American people. However, we would only be fooling ourselves and conducting more business-as-usual if we were to pass the balanced budget amendment, increase defense spending, grant family and business tax cuts, and enact another crime bill without also passing the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Congress, by passing this legislation, will finally show it is committed to not only limiting the heavy Federal arm, but also to being better informed in its decisionmaking and accountability, including being aware of the costs State and local governments and businesses would bear. This Congress should require cost estimates on mandates, funding to be identified in the legislation, agencies to do cost/ benefit analyses of regulations, and, most importantly, input from those who would be affected by mandating legislation. This opportunity amendments.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rules package before the House of Representatives, which is the fundamental first step toward restoring the accountability of this House to the American people. To my colleagues who have recently participated in this debate on the other side, when the gentleman spoke of the diminishment, you begin to diminish your credible standing as a lady and gentleman in the House when you act as if you carry the mantle to an open process. When I first came to this Congress 2 years ago, I was shocked to see the Congress being run as an undemocratic institution. The 103d Congress was a closed, mismanaged, undemocratic institution. The standing rules of the House were continually waived to avoid accountability. Fortunately for the American people, that was yesterday. Today I am pleased that this House will adopt a provision that I have advocated requiring the committee chairmen to make every attempt to abide by the House rules and disclose provisions that do not meet those rules, therefore requiring a waiver by the Committee on Rules. By simply following the House rules, we will help bring much needed sunshine, accountability and fiscal responsibility to this body.