Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my good friend from California that I am not an advocate of smoking at all. What I'm trying to do here on the floor is to help improve the public health of our Nation, and this is a bill that actually locks down the marketplace. To the speaker, as to my reference to Ms. Harman, I want you to know that that is my sincere effort here. How do we improve public health? Other nations around the world are all struggling, like we are, for good, sound public policy in how we regulate a legal product by adult users. There are restrictions with regard to access to children. Then, with regard to adult users, countries around the world are beginning to look at harm reduction and at applying those strategies to tobacco. We had an opportunity to do that. It failed here on the floor, and I recognize that. It's probably something that's new. I welcome the opportunity to join with the gentlewoman from California, as we've worked really well together our entire time we've been here, and I would love to work with you on harm reduction strategies. I'll just read this from the American Association of Public Health Physicians. Since, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee doesn't want me to cite the Royal College of Physicians, I'll cite an American institution. The American Association of Public Health Physicians found, In practical terms, the enhancement of current policies based on the premise that all tobacco products are equally risky will yield only small and barely measurable reductions in tobacco-related illness and death. The addition of a harm reduction component, however--and that's why I want to work with Ms. Harman--could yield a 50 to 80 percent reduction in tobacco-related illness and death over the first 10 years and a likely reduction of up to 90 percent within 20 years. That's why I'm so passionate about a harm reduction strategy. I embrace your personal story, and that's why I am so sincere about a harm reduction.

Mr. BUYER. I would yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, I will embrace that, and probably what we need to do if the President signs this bill into law, I offer to work with the gentlelady and we'll introduce a bill to incorporate harm reduction. I agreed earlier when I had spoken with Chairman Waxman, he recognizes that a pragmatic approach is truly incorporation of harm reduction with abstinence. And when we're talking about teenage sex or the use of tobacco, if we really, truly want a hand, four fingers and a thumb don't make a hand without a palm. So you have to use pragmatism along with new science. And I will welcome the opportunity to work with the gentlelady.

Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUYER. I want to make sure the record is clear. Earlier in your remarks you referred to the issue on spiking. Spiking was an allegation that was made in a newspaper article; the investigation had taken place. Former FDA Commissioner Kessler found that spiking allegations of nicotine were found to be false.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to congratulate Henry Waxman and Senator Kennedy and others with regard to their tenacity and persistence over the years. What is unfortunate is that we were not able to incorporate harm reduction strategies. It is also unfortunate that we are continuing to place more burdens and responsibilities upon FDA. What I had sought to do is to regulate tobacco. I do not smoke, I do not encourage anyone to smoke. The health risks associated with smoking, I believe people recognize them and are cognizant. Tobacco is an adult product. It's legal. And we are faced with this question of moralism versus pragmatism. And you have to be careful when you go down this path in weighing the balance of moralism versus pragmatism. So what I had sought to do was choose the pragmatic side of the equation and to incorporate a harm reduction strategy with the abstinence approach in the Kennedy-Waxman legislation. While the authors of the bill, Madam Speaker, would say, Well, Steve, we have harm reduction in the bill. Well, it is mentioned in the bill, but there is a 2-tier standard in the bill that has been cleverly written in a manner to be an entry barrier to new innovative tobacco products. And that 2-tier standard is one that first must be achieved at the individual level, and then you must achieve this standard at the public at large. And the purpose is truly an entry barrier. Now, if we wanted to work together and truly have a new scientific, pragmatic approach to improve the public health of our country, we would be doing both; we would be doing abstinence along with harm reduction. You see, that's exactly what Henry Waxman and others in this body do when it comes to teenage sex. They say, okay, by this body, Democrats and Republicans enjoin, we have both; we promote abstinence while also we have policies that promote harm reduction in our efforts to lower sexually transmitted diseases. With regard to HIV, there are needle-exchange programs while we also try to promote abstinence. But all of a sudden now, when it comes to tobacco, approaches that we take in other forms of public health, whether it's in sanitary issues or whether it's in teenage sex issues or in HIV issues, all of a sudden we don't want to apply it to tobacco. It is a curious thing for me that we don't want to apply harm reduction strategies to tobacco. So I would say to my good friend, Mr. Waxman, I think where we are is that you can have your day in the light, you have earned it, but we are going to have to come back to the table because what we have done is we have locked down the marketplace. You have given a big checkmark to Phillip Morris and said that your market share is okay. And when you lock down the marketplace, and we then stifle innovation and we do not have competition in that marketplace, we truly don't have the ability, then, for these companies to track at-risk capital to make investments in a harm reduction strategy whereby we can migrate people down the continuum of risk. So if this bill becomes law, we've got some real challenges in front of us. One of them is how do we stand up this new mission within FDA, an agency that is already very stressed and underresourced, and we're already going to be addressing issues in the committee regarding food safety and drug safety while we pile on more missions. So I would say to my good friend that as soon as this bill is signed into law, a couple of things are going to happen. Number one, the lawyers will make a run to the Federal courts, and the Supreme Court will be back sitting in judgment over the provisions on advertising restrictions, not only potential unconstitutional provisions on the First Amendment with regard to the regulation of commercial speech, but also in the Fifth Amendment with regard to whether it's a constitutional taking or not. So while that is going on, I will introduce legislation, I'll work with Ms. Harman, I'll work with others, I'll work with the chairman, on how we can best incorporate these harm-reduction strategies to truly improve public health. Madam Speaker, I embrace the sincerity of Mr. Waxman and Mr. Kennedy that they truly want to improve public health in the country, but this legislation, when we lock ourselves down to only what is presently available and that these nicotine replacement therapies only have a 7 percent success rate, I don't believe anyone here would endorse a 7 percent success rate as a good thing. It's failure. So we are going to have to go back to the drawing board here and figure out how we do a harm-reduction strategy to improve public health. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my good friend Mr. Waxman. To say that harm-reduction strategies are best left to the FDA gives me great concern. If you truly believe that, then you should have never set a 2-tiered standard and built a paradigm in which they are to make judgments, if you truly believe that they're the ones who should have designed the strategies to improve public health. So I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to repeal the 2-tiered standard if we're going to let them set the standard based on sound science to improve public health. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is nicotine that causes the consumption of tobacco. So I understand how truly, in my words, outraged then Chairman Waxman was and still is with regard to testimony that occurred years ago when he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health. Now, if it is the nicotine from which adult users receive their satisfaction, the real issue is how do they gain access to nicotine in a manner that reduces their health risk? That's the issue. That's my passion. I am not a smoker. I don't advocate for people to smoke. My charge and challenge is how do we improve public health in our country? And I don't want this abstinence-only approach. So if it's nicotine for which people want to gain access to and it's an adult product, then shouldn't we be trying to figure out methods or products where people can gain access to nicotine that is less harmful? During the debate on the rule, Madam Speaker, I would share to my colleague, Chairman Waxman, an individual brought up a head of lettuce and said that there is more regulation on a head of lettuce than tobacco. And I guess it was an effort to be cute, but the real point here is what I shared, Madam Speaker, and to my friend Mr. Waxman, you could have smoked that lettuce and you would still end up with the same problems. You could cut the grass in your yard, dry it and roll it up in a cigarette and smoke it, and you're still going to have a lot of problems. It is the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. It's the smoke. So when you look and you say, well, if the smoke is the killer because of the inhalation of the tobacco smoke, that's responsible for the pandemic of cancers, heart disease, respiratory disease, and these deadly results. So I'm going back to this harm reduction. So despite decades of intense efforts to eradicate smoking, more than 40 million adults continue to smoke cigarettes, and they're likely to continue because we don't have this ability to migrate them to other products. It's extremely important, when we talk about a harm-reduction strategy, that not only is it the access to a particular product, it is the education of the people at large as to what type of products that they can avail themselves to that have less harmful health results. That should be our goal and that has been embraced. The American Association of Public Health Physicians noted last year, Enhancement of current policies based on the premise that all tobacco products are equally risky will yield only small and barely measurable reductions in tobacco-related illness and death. So in the public debate, there is sort of this presumption that all tobacco products are harmful. Well, all tobacco products have a degree of health hazards, but some are more harmful than others. So cigar and pipe are not subject to this legislation; yet they are the most harmful to the human body of all of the carcinogens that can be inhaled. So how do we migrate people? And I think that's what is extremely important. And let's stop this premise that all tobacco products are equally risky; that Swedish snus, even though it's 98 percent less harmful than an unfiltered cigarette, should not be treated as though they're both just as harmful. They're not. If you're able to pasteurize and take away the nitrosamines, yet people can gain access to their nicotine, you know what? That ought to be something we should talk about. That ought to be something we should promote. And the reason, Madam Speaker, that if we just turn this over to the FDA, like Chairman Waxman has just suggested, and let them come up with these strategies, it's not going to be able to get into the hands of the American people because of the 2-tiered standard that has been set in this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It is with great disappointment that I hear the words of the Speaker because she is truly endorsing a 7 percent success rate as an acceptable level of success for those who are trying to quit smoking. Also, if we really wanted to try to help children, then she should have endorsed what I sought to do; that is, put tobacco on an equal plain as alcohol to make it illegal to possess. But we're not doing that today. I also said that the States, with regard to the MSA, the Master Settlement Agreement, the States are not spending the money like they should. In the last 10 years, States have spent just 3.2 percent of their tobacco-generated revenue on prevention and cessation programs. In the current fiscal year, no State is funding tobacco prevention programs at levels recommended by the CDC. So I had offered an opportunity here to the body to strengthen and truly protect children, yet it was not adopted by this body. So be very careful about coming to the floor and saying we're doing it for the children when, in fact, the opportunity was there and you did not. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. I yield myself 30 seconds. I would say that the gentleman and I are not always in total agreement. The substitute that I brought to the floor actually sought to regulate tobacco, and I know you did not agree with my substitute. I believe in the regulation of tobacco. I sought to do that. I just don't believe it should be done in FDA. We tried to create a harm reduction center to do that. But I respect the gentleman's views. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues that I would like to address that I mentioned in my opening. The last two issues that I will address are, one, on the constitutionality, and, secondly, is the FDA the right agency. While we all agree that steps need to be taken to help lessen the use of tobacco products by underage youth, we must not do so in ways that clearly violate the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the bill in front of us I believe fails to meet that test. The speech restrictions in this bill are clearly the most sweeping in the history of the United States for any legal product. Numerous top legal experts from every point of the political spectrum have looked at these provisions and declared that they will not meet First Amendment scrutiny. During the debate on the rule, I questioned the responsibility of this body. I believe it is irresponsible for us to pass legislation that is prima facie unconstitutional. What we are doing in this body is two things: we are taking the regs from the 1996 rule that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional and we are making them statutory, which means, attention to lawyers in America: you have an access and avenue right back to Federal Court immediately upon the President's signature of this legislation. Also under the Constitution, private speech, private speech and the regulation of private speech among individuals, that is, companies, if individuals seek to restrict their speech between themselves or how they seek to communicate, they can do that in the private marketplace between themselves. Where the First Amendment comes in is when governments, States, municipalities or the Federal Government then step in and begin to regulate speech. In this case, it is commercial speech, and that is what we are doing. When we take the MSA, the master settlement agreement, and also place these restrictions and then make them statutory, bang, we are right back to the Supreme Court. And I just find that very bothersome. Larry Tribe, the noted constitutional expert and Harvard University law professor, commenting on the types of provisions in this legislation, stated, ``Given the extensive regulation of tobacco manufacturing (for example, the creation of manufacturing standards, the regulation of cigarette ingredients, and so on) elsewhere in the proposed legislation, and the mandates for new and improved warnings, it would be difficult to defend the sweeping restrictions on advertising as being narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest. The paternalistic view that tobacco advertising must be restricted because consumers might find it pervasive is antithetical to the assumption on which the First Amendment is based.'' Wow. Now you are going to find me quoting the American Civil Liberties Union. You may want to listen to this, because it is probably the first time I have ever cited the ACLU. They also said in their testimony on identical language contained in this legislation, they stated if this type of legislation were to be passed, it would be ``wholly unprecedented'' and ``will most likely fail to withstand constitutional challenge.'' On the other side of the spectrum, the Washington Legal Foundation and Judge Bork also have called these proposals ``patently unconstitutional.'' Numerous other legal scholars have taken similar positions. Now, in our zeal here to restrict tobacco products, there have been these comments by some, Madam Speaker, to say we are doing it for the children. It is wonderful. We can say we are doing it for the children. What does the Court say about that? The Supreme Court has already examined one of the provisions in the FDA proposal, and that is the 1,000 foot ban on outdoor adds, and has suggested it violates the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court rejected the efforts of the Massachusetts Attorney General to ``childproof'' the flow of information in our society. Children deserve to be protected from inappropriate or harmful material, but the government may not use the guise of protecting children to impose sweeping restrictions on information intended for adults. So we come to the floor and we say we are doing it for the children. Yet we are taking provisions which the Supreme Court has already found to be unconstitutional, i.e., commercial speech that is not merely tailored to a legitimate government interest. In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corporation, the court stated that efforts to restrict advertising cannot lower disclosure in society ``to the level of the sandbox,'' and cited in the case Butler v. Michigan that ``government may not reduce the adult population to reading only that which is fit for children.'' So the type of drastic speech censorship that is contained in this legislation is almost certain to lead to challenges in the Federal courts, and I find that troubling and counterproductive. Let me move to the FDA. This bill establishes a general standard that actions by FDA are in the best interest of public health, that they're the ones, that they can reasonably be likely to have measured scientific results. What do we mean by results? Substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality rates among smokers. That's what we seek to achieve. So the great challenge that I have here is that, in the committee, we are now looking at legislation with regard to food safety and drug safety. The FDA is charged with approving medical products based on scientific evidence that benefits of the products outweigh the risks. Tobacco products are inherently risk products that cause disease when used as directed. Now, we're going to turn to the FDA and say, we want you to regulate the tobacco product. So we take the gold standard of the FDA now, and apply it to tobacco, and now there is this inference that somehow the FDA has said that tobacco's a safe product. That is something we should not be doing. It's why I sought to create a separate agency, rather than the FDA, creating a mission that is counter to their present mission. You see, if you use a cigarette and follow the instructions, and you do that every day, it will kill you. Now, think about that. It will kill you. We don't want the FDA to create some type of inference into society that somehow it's okay. President Obama stated on March 14 of this year that 95 percent of America's 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses go uninspected each year. Wow. Each year, 74 million people in the United States are sickened by tainted food, and about 5,000 die, according to the CDC. That's on food alone. Then, with regard to drugs, I look forward to working with Chairman Waxman, Madam Speaker, and with Mr. Dingell, with regard to drug safety because right now we have 11 international mail facilities by the United States Government. You count the three private carriers that also have international mail facilities, and they are taking up to around 30,000 drug packages that are coming into our country by people who are going on to the Internet. Every time we do an inspection of those mail packages, we find that 80 percent of them are either counterfeit knockoffs or adulterated drugs. When, in fact, you do the math and you say, okay, wow, take that 14 times 30,000 times 365, then times 80 percent, we are looking at 96 million. Think about that. 96 million drug packages coming in. So what we're doing now is we're lumping this onto FDA, and FDA is a challenged, a very challenged agency. I urge individuals to vote ``no'' on this legislation. There is a better way to regulate tobacco.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Veterans' Group Life Insurance Improvement Act of 2009 which increases the amount of life insurance available to veterans. Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The purpose of this program is to give veterans the option to convert their Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage that they carry when they are in service to a competitive life insurance product for them and their family in post-military life. Under current law, veterans have up to one year to convert the amount of SGLI coverage they carry to VGLI. Many separating servicemembers are young and don't see the need to carry a large amount of life insurance coverage. However, as they get older and have a family, many of these servicemembers have expressed a desire to purchase additional coverage but are barred from doing so under current law. The Veterans' Group Life Insurance Improvement Act of 2009 allows veterans to purchase up to $400,000 of VGLI coverage in $50,000 increments, every five years, until the age of 60. The costs of such increases in coverage will be offset by premiums veterans pay, so there is no direct cost to the government. This bill gives our veterans greater flexibility in their life insurance choices and I urge all members to co-sponsor and support this legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition, and I would say to the chairman, as a history professor, I know that you must embrace history and not be a revisionist of history. I'm greatly disappointed with regard to this legislation. I'm disappointed because this is an attempt to say that he wants to resolve an inequity through discrimination so that your bias towards one specific group is so strong among the veterans community that you will discriminate against others. And I will even use your example of your friend with regard to his service as a merchant mariner, as a prisoner of war building the bridge over the River Kwai. It means that other POWs who served with him would not be entitled to the special monthly payment, that you believe that that merchant mariner is so special that all other prisoners of war should not receive such payment. You see, there's a reason that those of us who have worn the uniform do not do this. The only time we have provided a service pension, a service pension, are for Medal of Honor recipients. We do not provide service pensions, and that's exactly what this is. So we're paying $1,100 to Medal of Honor recipients, and you want to pay now $1,000 to merchant mariners. Yet there are 28 groups of whom are similarly situated, individuals of whom were contractor status during the war. Now, we need to stop and pause and think about what we are doing here. Ever since the American Revolution, our government has utilized contractors as our combatants go to war. Whether it was in the Revolution, whether it was the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, and, in fact, the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we all used contractors. So after World War II, we created a process whereby these contractors then could be granted that ``veteran status.'' So for merchant mariners, the question of their valor, even the question of their status has now been resolved. What's before the House is now with regard to a particular group of veterans that we're going to treat them differently, that we're going to say that you have such unique status that we are going to give you a $1,000-a-month payment, a service pension, when, in fact, we don't even do that for anyone else. So I am greatly disappointed that this type of legislation is brought to the floor. This is legislation that should never have been done. Members are just flying back now, so they aren't even sure about this legislation or what it's about, and they're thinking that, well, because it came out of the committee, it must be great legislation. It must be veterans legislation. We all must be arm in arm and let's go ahead and pass it. Time out. I think we should be very cautious and careful. Like I said, we don't even give a specialty payment to prisoners of war, and we're going to select a particular group of individuals to give them. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I have further comments I would like to make.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This conversation we are having here on the floor with regard to degrees of valor is off the mark. Merchant mariners exhibited valor. They have been granted their veteran status. The question is whether we should now give them a service pension, which we do not do for any other veterans groups except the most highly decorated veterans, our Medal of Honor recipients. The argument being made is that merchant mariners were shortchanged because they did not receive GI Bill benefits, unlike the members of the Armed Forces who then served in World War II. However, 28 other groups that also provided military- related service in the U.S. during World War II have received veteran status in the same manner as merchant mariners and, likewise, did not qualify for GI Bill benefits. If equity were really the issue, this bill would help these groups, too. But H.R. 23, as amended, does not. This bill unfairly ignores them and, thus, does not provide full equity. It creates an inequity among veterans, distinguishing the value of one group over and above someone else, something that we don't do in the military. We're very cautious and very careful not to do that type of thing, to say that, well, if you're a combatant and you're on the front line, then your service is more important than someone who is in a rear echelon, or, gosh, if you were back in the home States or in the National Guard, then your service isn't as important as somebody who is on the battlefield. Time out. We don't do that in the military. The reason we don't do that is we look at everybody as a team, as one team. So when we go to a theater of operations, it may take seven to actually put one combatant on the field of battle because everybody is important, from the theater Army all the way to the actual combatants. And as a matter of fact, when they fall on the battlefield, maybe when they go to Landstuhl, Germany, they come back to the States. Everybody is an important part of the team, and we don't then make discriminatory judgments that someone's military service is more important than another and, thereby, Congress then awards a service pension. I'm just appealing to the Members do not do this. It will have consequences among the ranks and the services of our military. I would like to talk about the other 28 groups. One of these other groups of veterans of whom are being discriminated here against if this legislation passes is the American all-volunteer group famously known as the Flying Tigers. They were American P-40 pilots and ground crews who worked for the Chinese Government in the air defense of Rangoon and other parts of China before and after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Flying Tigers are credited with destroying an impressive 297 enemy aircraft and had one of the best kill ratios of any air group in the Pacific theater. There were approximately 80 pilots that flew for the Flying Tigers, of which 21 died in service. An amazing 19 of them were credited with five or more air-to-air victories, making them aces. Nineteen out of the 80 pilots were aces. But they are not worthy for this service pension, okay, because we are not going to do that. Of the over 300 original members of the Flying Tigers, 18 of them are still alive today. Another one of the groups that is being discriminated against here today I would like to highlight is the Women Airforce Service Pilots, the WASPS. There is even a colleague of mine who has legislation to get them the Congressional Medal of Honor. Yet a vote in favor of this legislation today discriminates against the Women Airforce Service Pilots. These were female pilots who flew every type of mission that an Army Air Force male pilot flew during World War II, except combat missions. They freed up their male pilots for combat by flying planes from factories to air fields and flew over 60 million miles in every type of aircraft in the Army Air Force arsenal, from the fastest of fighters to heaviest of bombers. More than 25,000 women applied for WASPS service and less than 1,900 were accepted. After completing months of military flight training, 1,078 of them earned their wings and became the first women in history to fly American military aircraft. Thirty-eight of these brave women died while serving their country. Madam Speaker, these are just some of the stories of two of these groups out of the 28 who all served loyally, selflessly, and courageously. Yet their service also contributed directly to victory in 1945, but they are being ignored and discriminated against by the legislation before us. In May 11 of this year, a letter to all Members opposing H.R. 23, as amended, the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated with respect to the Merchant Mariners of World War II that ``singling out this group, no matter how valiant their service, will create inequities. Congress should not single them out for special benefits when they are not provided to other groups.'' Madam Speaker, I offered an amendment at the full committee of H.R. 23, as amended, to include these other 28 groups, who are similarly situated. It was rejected on a 15-14 vote. I would like to insert the May 11, 2009, letter from the VFW and the names of the other 28 groups who have been granted veteran status of World War II to be placed into the Record. Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Washington DC, May 11, 2009. Dear Representative: This week, the House of Representatives is expected to take action on H.R. 23, the Belated Thank You to the Merchant Marines of World War II Act. This legislation would grant a $1,000 monthly benefit to individuals who served in the Merchant Marines between December 7, 1941 and December 31, 1946, The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. has serious concerns with the equity of this bill, and we urge you to oppose it. The VFW has no doubt about the dedication and bravery the Merchant Marines demonstrated during World War II. Their contributions to the war effort in transporting cargo to keep forces supplied enabled the Allied forces to win the War. They suffered heavy casualties. with nearly one-in-26 dying in the Atlantic theater. We value and salute their efforts. However, the VFW cannot support a special monthly benefit for this single group. Merchant Marines are just one of 28 civilian groups that have been awarded Veterans status by virtue of their military-related service. Not one of these other 28 groups receives a special monthly benefit such as this. In fact, the only group of veterans that receives a special monthly benefit is Medal of Honor recipients. Singling this group out--no matter how valiant their service--would create inequities. Congress should not single them out for special benefits when they are not provided to other groups, such as the Women's Air Force Service Pilots (WASPs) or those honorably discharged members of ``The Flying Tigers.'' Further, many World War II veterans who served on the front lines are not receiving any form of compensation, and certainly not a $1,000 monthly benefit. We cannot put one group ahead of all others. The VFW is also concerned about the funding for this proposal. The special monthly benefit would consume almost $500 million of the VA's budget over the next five years. With waves of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and presenting challenges for the entire VA health care system, especially for those who are grievously wounded, taking away money to give a special bonus to one segment of veterans is not right. This is especially true because the vast majority of the Merchant Marines covered under this bill are already entitled to VA health care and most veterans' benefits. The VFW greatly respects their bravery and their dedication, but we cannot support legislation that singles them out above other deserving groups. We ask you to keep these issues in mind, and to oppose this bill's passage. Very truly yours, Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director. World War II Service by Particular Groups A number of groups who provided military-related service to the United States can receive VA benefits. A discharge by the Secretary of Defense is needed to qualify. Service in the following groups has been certified as active military service for benefits purposes:

Mr. BUYER. I urge all Members to oppose this legislation before us, and I appeal to them, do not create a service pension that will differentiate members' service from others. This is the wrong approach. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank my dentist friend for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor. I come from a family of dentists. My grandfather is a dentist, my father is a dentist, my brother is a dentist, my sister is a dentist, my uncle is a dentist. I chose not to follow halitosis, so I became a lawyer, which means that I sit in the kitchen with the children at Christmas and Thanksgiving. I come to the floor to honor my grandfather, Dr. Clarence Cornelius Buyer, my father, Dr. John Buyer, Sr., who on February 24 turned 80 and 4 days later retired from his dental practice. That's a lot of years, isn't it, practicing dentistry? My deceased uncle, Dr. Earl Moore, was an orthodontist in Indianapolis. My sister, Dr. Diane Buyer, practices dentistry on the north side in Indianapolis. And my brother, Dr. John Buyer, Jr., is a periodontist and recently retired in January from the United States Army. One thing I note about growing up in a family of dentists that has helped me is when you mention the words ``prevention'' and ``wellness,'' when I think of the professions in health that are out there, dentists take the lead. It is almost to the point where I believe that anthropologists, a thousand years from now, are going to dig us up, and they are going to look at our bones and say, look at the stress on those bones, but look at those teeth. They've got to be Americans. Because, see, Americans, what has happened to us? I will eat what I want, I will drink whatever I want; by golly, the health system better be there to take care of my body, but I'm going to take care of my teeth because my smile means everything to me. I just wish the people would put the same focus they have in their teeth that they also place in their bodies. If we were to do that, how much better in wellness as a society would we be? The contribution that dentistry has had to me, as a leader in health policy for the country, even goes back to the 1990s, when we began to examine Medicare, for example, and we noted that one-third of our Medicare expenditures was diabetes-related. Well, I spoke up and said, I come from a family of dentists, and we focus on preventive medicine. If we spent billions of dollars on the front end, we wouldn't be spending the multibillion dollars on the back end. So it's about wellness of the whole body. So I want to compliment the dentists. Now I want to pause and talk about military dentistry, too, for a second. If we are going to compliment the ADA, it is not only in their contributions to our society, but also to military dentists. Military dentists are combat multipliers because there are so many non- battlefield casualties, individuals who are taken off the battlefield because of what happens with regard to the deterioration of their dental hygiene. It is those dentists that put them back in, and I want to truly applaud them. Let me close with the infinite wisdom of the United States Army. I came out of The Citadel. I received my commission as a second lieutenant in the Medical Service Corps. My first assignment in the United States Army was with a dental clinic. I did everything I could, dad, to get away from dentistry, but for whatever reason, it totally consumes me, even in my life today. Let me say congratulations to the ADA and to all the dentists and the dental assistants and the dental hygienists and the specialties for which the ADA represents. Thank you, and good job.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on S. Con. Res. 13 the democrat budget for Fiscal Year 2010. This budget spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. The overall democrat budget is not good for Americans, including veterans. The democrat budget contains the largest tax hike in American History, a $1.5 trillion tax hike, including a tax hike on veterans and their families, and veterans who own small businesses. While I am supportive of the increase that the President's budget proposes for veterans, the overall budget request is really nothing more than more of the same old Washington shell game. Instead of proposing an open and transparent budget, as President Obama and the Democrats had promised, this budget contains many of the same old tax hikes and gimmicks that hide the truth from the American people about our real fiscal situation and the impact this budget will have on our current economy and our children's and grandchildren's future. This budget also allows the use of the reconciliation process to force government-run health care down the throats of the American people without even considering how such a proposal could adversely affect the VA healthcare system. We don't need a government run health care system that takes life changing medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and puts them in the hands of government bureaucrats, while dulling the innovative and radical research that has increased the quality of healthcare in America. Madam Speaker our nation's veterans deserve a budget that funds their priorities without causing harm to these same veterans with radical new taxes and a ballooning deficit, unfortunately this budget does not do this. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report on the democrat proposed budget.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work, and I thank you and your staff also for creating this alternative budget. It is a budget I believe that you can be very proud of. Madam Chair, this alternative budget for fiscal year 2010 would provide $106.4 billion for veterans health care and programs. This budget is $540 million above the administration's request. The Republican alternative also reduces spending, it brings our national debt under control, and creates 2.1 million jobs, actually, more than the Democrat plan, all while not raising taxes. This alternative budget also reflects the priorities of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Republican views and estimates for FY 2010, which included ensuring a seamless transition from DOD to VA. It also provides for the innovative programs to help veterans gain job skills and good-paying jobs, and making sure the VA provides world- class health care to veterans; and, ensuring that veterans disability compensation claims are adjudicated quickly and accurately. I believe all of these are issues for which both Republicans and Democrats would equally embrace. Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the President's budget proposed for veterans, the overall budget request, for which we are having to vote on here, is nothing more than the same old shell game that we have come to know here in Washington, D.C. President Obama had promised this open and transparent budget; however, this budget contains many of the same tax hikes and gimmicks that hide the real truth from the American people about the real fiscal situation. Earlier this year, it was rumored and later confirmed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, that the administration was planning a proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for VA treatment of their service-connected injuries. I, like many of my fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal. We strongly believe that the same military values help guide us in our military service, and define the principles and allow us to say unto the administration that you should not be billing veterans to pay for their disabilities. It is one of the solemn obligations of government. The budget views and estimates of the Republicans on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee took a very strong stand, while the Democrats' position was very muted. It wasn't until the veterans service organizations met with President Obama at the White House did this proposal then get out unto the American people. Only then did some of my Democrat leaders here in the House then, in order to get in front of that parade, said, ``Oh, yes, I am just as outraged.'' I look at it like this: Character is defined at the moment of calling. What do you do at the moment of call? Are you muted, or do you stand up and take charge and take control? It didn't happen, and I was greatly disappointed. Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for your hard work on this alternative budget. It is a budget of which we can be proud. Madam Chair, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution would provide $106.4 billion for Veterans healthcare and programs. This budget is $540 million above the Administration's request. The Republican Alternative also reduces spending, brings our national debt under control, creates more than 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrat plan all while not raising taxes. The Republican budget alternative reflects the priorities of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Republican Views and Estimates for FY 2010 which include: ensuring a seamless transition from DoD to VA; providing innovative programs to help veterans gain job skills and good paying jobs; making sure VA provides world class health care to veterans; and ensuring the veterans disability compensation claims are adjudicated quickly and accurately. Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the President's budget proposes for veterans, the overall budget request is really nothing more than more of the same old Washington shell game. Instead of proposing an open and transparent budget, as President Obama and the Democrats promised, this budget contains many of the same tax hikes and gimmicks that hide the truth from the American people about our real fiscal situation. Earlier this year it was rumored, and later confirmed by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shineski, that the Administration was planning a proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for VA treatment of their service connected injuries. I, like many of my fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal and I strongly believe that the same military values that guided me and my fellow servicemembers should define how our government provides benefits and assistance to them now as veterans. The prospect of VA collecting from third-party insurers for care provided for service-connected conditions is contrary to these military values and our obligation as a grateful Nation. This proposal was soundly rejected by the Republican Members in our FY 2010 Views and Estimates and in the March 18th letter to the President by all members of the Republican House leadership and all of the Republican members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It was only after the voice of reason was heard from Republicans and numerous veteran service organizations that President Obama dropped his proposal. However, by dropping his proposal the President left a $540 million hole in the VA budget. And, I am proud to say that the Republican Alternative budget includes $540 million to fill the gap. While I am happy that this crisis was averted and this outrageous proposal was rejected, the fact that President Obama would even consider such a proposal is worrisome to me and other veterans advocates. Madam Chair, the overall Democratic budget is not good for Americans, including veterans. The Democratic budget contains a $1.5 trillion tax hike. This includes tax hikes on veterans and their families, and veterans who own small businesses. It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to try to pass the largest tax hike in American history. This is the wrong message to send to our veterans and their families when our country is in a recession. Madam Chair, we are a nation at war, and we will win these wars. The best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is to make tough decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom. I believe that the Republican alternative helps do exactly that, while honoring the promises we have made our veterans and their families.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Isn't it normally a custom at the end of the bill for me now to ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. BUYER. Further inquiry. You will then place the House on notice as to when we could then ask for the recorded vote for tomorrow, not only on the substitute, but also on Mr. Waxman's bill?

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my friend from California, Congressman Waxman, for his persistence over the past decade and all Members who have supported his legislation in the past. However, Mr. Waxman's legislation was drafted over 12 years ago and has not taken into account the positive outcomes from the Master Settlement Agreement and the changing conditions of the tobacco market in our country. Additionally, the legislation has unconstitutional provisions, and according to CBO, will only reduce smoking rates by 2 percent over 10 years. Over the past 2 years I have participated in three markups of Congressman Waxman's bill, and I, along with my colleagues, have offered numerous amendments to improve and update Mr. Waxman's bill. Unfortunately, no significant changes have been incorporated, and our concerns have not been addressed in totality. That is why I introduced a new bipartisan bill this year which I offer today as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1256. This substitute mirrors the legislation that I introduced with Congressman Mike McIntyre of North Carolina which has strong bipartisan support, including the support of Chairman Collin Peterson of the House Ag Committee along with Chairman John Spratt of the Budget Committee and other ranking members. This strong bipartisan substitute amendment seeks to regulate tobacco by creating a new science-based, pragmatic harm-reduction strategy to improve public health. The amendment combines education, prevention, and cessation goals while using public policy to migrate over 45 million smokers to nonsmoking tobacco products and nicotine therapies which are scientifically proven to be significantly less harmful to human health and greatly assist in our efforts to decrease tobacco- related deaths and disease rates in our country. I strongly believe that no tobacco products are safe. However, Americans today are left in the dark about the relative risks of all tobacco products, and it is false to assume that all tobacco products have equal health risks. Adult smokers deserve to understand the relative health risks of all tobacco products so that they can make informed health decisions. According to the Royal College of Physicians, ``The application of harm reduction principles, to nicotine and tobacco use, could deliver substantial reductions in the morbidity and mortality currently caused by tobacco consumption.'' Making such information available to adult tobacco users is one of the purposes behind this substitute amendment. Tobacco harm reduction adds to current tobacco-control policies in order to drastically improve our Nation's health outcomes. It is important to note that harm reduction strategies do not replace tobacco cessation programs but work along with them. That is why when I first put this bill together, I was very, very hopeful that Mr. Waxman and I could combine our efforts, but unfortunately, that did not prevail. If we can move our smoking population away from smoking products, the most dangerous tobacco products on our market, and move them to less risky tobacco and nicotine products as we move in this effort to wean them off nicotine and tobacco, we have a chance to decrease the adverse effects of tobacco by up to 90 percent over 20 years, according to the American Council on Science and Health. For smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit smoking, we must provide them with the information they can use to decrease their health risks. Additionally, this substitute protects the core missions of FDA by creating a new harm-reduction agency within Health and Human Services to ensure we have a safe, secure food supply, pharmaceuticals, biologicals and medical device supply. Given the numerous news reports over the years of counterfeit and adulterated drugs and our tainted food supply, the last thing we should be doing is forcing the FDA to regulate an inherently dangerous product in carrying out a mission that is counter to its culture. This substitute also goes further than the Waxman bill in protecting children because we require States to spend a larger percentage of their master settlement agreement for tobacco education, prevention and cessation efforts. In the last 10 years, States have spent just 3.2 percent of their total tobacco-generated revenue on prevention and cessation programs, and in the current fiscal year, no State is funding tobacco prevention programs at the level recommended by CDC. Additionally, we require States to make it illegal for minors to purchase and possess tobacco products, aligning our Nation's tobacco policies with our Nation's alcohol policies. Not only will it be illegal for retailers to sell tobacco to minors, but now minors will be strongly discouraged from purchasing or possessing tobacco. We also ensure that the Feds stay off our Nation's farms. We ensure that our farmers are not hit with additional Federal regulations that affect their traditional farming practices, and we make sure that these regulations stay within the purview of the agriculture department. Mr. Waxman's legislation will directly and indirectly affect farming practices, and I was quite surprised that the Parliamentarian ruled that the Agriculture Committee did not have jurisdiction on this bill. My amendment expressly prohibits the tobacco legislation from finding its way into today's farming practices. Finally, this substitute calls for a blue ribbon study of tobacco advertising in our Nation. I am very concerned about the first amendment potential violations in the Waxman bill. It was discussed during the last two markups we have had before the Energy and Commerce Committee. You see, in 1996, 46 States, plus the District of Columbia, reached an agreement with the tobacco companies known as the Master Settlement Agreement. This agreement has proved extremely effective in regulating tobacco advertisements in our Nation.