Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Madam Chairman, and for his contribution and that of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). One of the challenges associated with recruiting the high quality military force that we possess today are the demands the force places on personnel programs within the uniformed services. Military men and women today are bright, confident, and they are honorable young people. If these superb young people were anything less than the best, they would not measure up to the extreme challenges that we call on them to overcome each and every day as they serve the Nation around the world. This high quality force includes members that are more independent and savvy than we have seen in the past. They understand the importance of saving for retirement and they want to control their future. We have observed a revolution in investment that has changed the retirement planning in the private sector, and those in the military services want to participate in a strong economy that has benefited some others in America. For example, they want the same 30 percent rate of return that 1.8 million Federal civilian employees enjoyed today from their Thrift Savings program. They want some retirement portability that they do not have today within the military retirement system. In short, they want to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. While this, again, is no silver bullet that guarantees good recruiting and retention, we must not allow this powerful, cost- effective recruiting and retention tool to go unused. The readiness of the force depends on our action today. I urge that the administration would include this in the 2001 budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment. I urge my colleagues to provide the uniformed services access to the Thrift Savings Plan.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel has been striving to find the right combination of incentives to address the negative recruiting and retention trends that threaten the readiness of our military forces. That is the purpose of the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment, to offer a military thrift savings plan. On the retention front, all services have incurred unsustainable losses among pockets of highly qualified experienced personnel, including aviators and many high tech skills. The most severe retention problems are in the Navy and the Air Force where officers, noncommissioned officers and enlisted members across the force are leaving at rates that threaten the future viability of those services. On the recruiting front, three of the services, beginning with the Army, then the Navy and finally the Air Force, have been struggling to meet production goals for new recruits. In addition, some sources of officer commissions, specifically Army and Air Force senior reserve officer training programs, are failing to produce the required number of new officers. As a result of the continuing recruiting shortfalls and reduced retention, senior military leaders find themselves compelled to deploy forces to crises and contingencies at manning levels well below the 100 percent or better standard that heretofore has been their goal. With reduced manning levels among the deployed forces, senior leaders are reluctantly accepting higher operational risks, reduced readiness and increased stress on both deployed and nondeployed forces. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a number of hearings on recruiting and retention this spring. Although we learned that recruiting and retention are complex problems for which there are no simple solutions, a consistent theme among the military was a strong interest in participating in a tax deferred savings plan like the Federal Government's thrift savings plan. Today's military members like many in our society want to have control over their own retirement. They understand the value of saving and they want the benefits of tax deferred savings enjoyed by 45 million Americans participating in over 600,000 defined contribution retirement plans like the Federal Government's own TSP. While H.R. 1401 contains many compensation and policy initiatives to combat recruiting and retention problems, the one key piece that is not included at this point is the thrift savings plan. There is no doubt that the ability to participate in a thrift savings program will be a powerful tool in our fight to stabilize recruiting and retention programs. The amendment being offered jointly by myself and the gentleman from Hawaii, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, is a bare bones thrift savings program modeled after the savings program the Congress granted 965,000 Federal employees who qualify for a pension under the Civil Service Retirement System. The plan includes a maximum payroll contribution of 5 percent of basic pay with no government matching or automatic payments. We would add the ability to make contributions from special and incentive pays. But the participants would not be authorized to exceed contribution limits established by the tax code. There is lost revenue associated with the deferral of taxes on the contributions and earnings. We did not include the TSP in the bill because we were still working on alternatives for addressing the direct spending question. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the direct spending incurred with this provision to be $11 million in fiscal year 2000 and $993 million through fiscal year 2009. This amendment addresses this pay-go requirement by making the provision contingent upon the President submitting and the Congress enacting qualified offsetting legislation during the consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget request. I would like to compliment publicly the working relationship I have had with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). It has been a true pleasure in working to address our recruiting, our retention and the retirement concerns affecting the Nation's military. Madam Chairman, a vote for this amendment is a vote for the people who serve this Nation in uniform. A vote for this amendment is a vote for military readiness. It is a vote for military retention. I urge my colleagues to support a military thrift savings plan. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that your passion is real. It is misdirected. It should not be the troops on the border, it should be increasing Customs, INS and DEA. Madam Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. In Bosnia-Herzegovina it is better today than it was 3 years ago.

Mr. BUYER. I understand that, I understand that. I am just saying that what I most fear about is, in Kosovo shots can be taken and that has not happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The gentleman's point is well taken. Let me also compliment the gentleman who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) understands this. What we are trying to achieve here is for the President, if he wants to use moneys for the peacekeeping operation, then come with the supplemental appropriation, do not take it out of hide. A lot of the things for which we are doing here is to fund the national military strategy; that is our goal, and I also would want to work with the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I wanted to respond to one allegation we heard here on the floor today, that what is in the bill under the chairman's language would cut the funds and pull back peacekeepers, once they are in place. I believe such comments are disingenuous and the allegation is false. The emergency supplemental that we passed here on the floor is not only for 1999, but also for the 2000 cycle. So as we move through the 1999 cycle and we finish, and now we begin the October 1, the funds are not cut off. Yes, there were funds there through the emergency supplemental, but those funds were really used to pay the accounts and pay for the weapons and ammo and other things for the operations. Can they reprogram? Yes. But what we would like and prefer is for regular order. That would be for the President to offer the amendment, a budgetary amendment in 2000, and to do that with offsets that are nondefense offsets and do not spend the social security surplus. That is the obligation the Republican Congress has taken up: for every dollar of surplus, we will not spend it. That is what we request of the President.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me respond to the last speaker that talked about the House acting irresponsibly. Irresponsible action by this House would be to not properly fund the Nation's national military strategy to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. That is exactly what would be irresponsible. To come onto this floor and then to try to claim that if we are not funding some peacekeeping operation that does not even test the gut- wrenching test of vital national security interest, that we can somehow then go to sleep with our responsibilities in other areas of the world, baffles my mind. I mean, let me share with my colleagues what I mean by the gut- wrenching test. Does the United States have vital interests? None that could be debated. Why? Because we see the President and the American people were unwilling to put troops on the ground. That is the gut- wrenching test. America understands the test for ``vital'' is if, in fact, we would sacrifice or send our own son or daughter into combat. But if people in America are unwilling to do that, then there is a strong sense in their gut that it must not be vital to our particular interest. Now, we are in NATO. Because of our interest in NATO, the United States is a leader in NATO, we are in it. That is what is very, very clear. Now I am going to be a constructive critic, and that is what I have tried to do in this process. But there is a clear difference in foreign policy between Republicans and Democrats, and that is very clear in the enjoinment of this debate. Presently, there is a foreign policy of engagement where we have 265,000 troops in 135 countries all around the world; we have reduced the force in half, we have placed great stresses on the force, increased the operational tempo. We cannot retain the force, and we cannot even recruit to meet the goals of the force structure to meet our national military strategy. Now let me shift gears. This allegation boggles my mind: Somehow achieved a victory? Why are we so anxious to say a victory has been achieved? Do my colleagues realize that Milosevic was able to achieve his objectives on the ground and that because refugees have now been sent to all areas of the world, try to get these refugees back into Kosovo at a time when are they going to feel the security to even go back? Now let me pose another question. Peacekeepers? Do my colleagues know what protects a peacekeeper? It is neutrality. I feel much more comfortable having an international force on the ground, not NATO. NATO, that is not neutral. We have been bombing for 2 months, 3 weeks. We are seen as the enemy by the Serbs. That makes us a target. In their eyes it makes us the occupiers, and if there is anything we ever learn about the Balkans in the thousands of pages I have read it is that a bad situation always gets worse in the Balkans when there is an outside intervening source, especially one that is seen as the enemy. So, yes, there is some apprehension.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I compliment the chairman and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. I rise in strong support and ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. In all candor, Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill for the troops, one of the strongest I have seen in the 7 years I have served on the Committee on Armed Services. As a matter of fact, I think we would have to put in big bold print neon lights that this bill says that ``people count.'' It has been an emphasis for a long time for the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services. A lot of times, the Pentagon liked to focus on buying ships and planes and all types of other things, and they do not always take care of those who actually are placed at risk. In fact, this is what this bill is going to do. It reflects on what we have heard from the field itself. People have told us what they needed, what needs to be done to help fix the problems they face. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and I, together with other members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel worked hard at listening to the troops and their families throughout the country. As a result, this bill contains first a set of core pay and retirement reforms that were recommended by the chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense; and, second, additional corrective measures like the $440 million that we added beyond the request of the present in an effort to reduce housing costs that service members and their families are paying. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1401 is as strong as it is in part because the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs spoke out forcefully in public to advocate for a core set of reforms and initiatives. I commend them for their effort. I am convinced that without the unanimous leadership of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary, the core set of recruiting and retention initiatives would neither have been included in the budget request, nor be politically supported in Congress as strong as it presently is. That the DOD's senior leadership spoke out so forcefully only underscores how serious are DOD's recruiting and retention problems. While we believe that H.R. 1401 will help to address these challenges, we also know that the services' retention and recruiting problems will not be solved in 1 year. Rather, several years of efforts at least will be needed to restore the manpower readiness of the armed services and to win the two-front war of retention and recruiting. I believe that the committee will continue its strong, long-term commitment to national defense, and I urge my colleagues to not only join in that commitment, but also vote in favor of H.R. 1401. It is a good bill for America. It is a good bill for the men and women in uniform who serve this Nation. I also want to compliment the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). It was a pleasure to work with him on this bill as we move forward a host of bipartisan initiatives to address the serious recruiting, retention, and retirement pay compensation, and other things to help shore up the readiness of our military. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1401.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Mr. Chairman, it is quite disappointing for the gentlewoman who just spoke to talk about a Republican Congress denying. Let me just state this: The purpose of the military is to fight and win the Nation's wars. The gentlewoman's comments also impugn the dignity of Democrats who are pro-life advocates, those whose passion is about saving life, not taking the life of the innocent unborn child, as she is walking off the floor and does not want to hear this debate. I am speaking directly to you. There are Members of both sides of this aisle that speak passionately about saving the life of the unborn. For you to try to rein in politics is completely unnecessary.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and interpretations. In January 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the access to abortion services. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of the host nations regarding abortions. Secondly, the military has had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform the procedures. Third, the real purpose of military medical treatment facilities is for military medical readiness and the training of lifesaving instead of the taking of life. Current law allows military women and dependents to receive abortions in military facilities in the cases of rape, incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother. The House voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. A similar amendment offered by Representative Jane Harman in the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Act was rejected 196-224. In 1998, the House National Security Committee rejected another attempt to allow privately funded abortions at these facilities. When considering the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization and appropriations bills, the House voted eight times in favor of the present ban. In overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available, beneficiaries have the option of using space available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. I assure the gentleman that the United States Supreme Court permits the Congress to discriminate and for us to make decisions with regard to the military. If you are too tall, if you are too short, if you are too heavy, if you are colorblind, if you are diabetic. We are permitted to decide how we can shape the force and we can also decide on rules and procedures for the military. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) to close in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am just not sure I remember the last time a man received an abortion. I do not think it has ever happened. I do not think it is humanly possible. I am not sure how gender even became injected in this debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 174, I was present and voted ``no'', but was not recorded, this is my third new voting card. I will now seal a 4th voting card.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to the Kankakee- Iroquois Regional Planning Commission, which for the past 25 years has improved the economics, health, and well-being of the residents in North Central Indiana. The Kankakee-Iroquois Regional Planning Commission (KIRPC) has been an integral part in generating community and economic development opportunities for the citizens and local communities of Indiana since July 2, 1973. The KIRPC continues to be a positive influence upon the regional economic well-being by helping communities and residents in North Central Indiana maintain their economic viability. The Commission has been instrumental in providing a means of communication between local, state, and federal government organizations and the citizens of North Central Indiana. The KIRPC monitors an Overall Economic Development Plan that helps to identify the needs of people and businesses within the community, while reducing government waste. In addition, it has been a valuable partner in helping the region's development through such programs and services as grants-in-aid; grants administration; comprehensive planning; and forums to address local issues. The KIRPC has also helped the people in the region with transportation needs by providing the Arrowhead County Public Transit Service which provides more than 150,000 routes annually. The KIRPC was key in helping bring Head Start to the area in 1997. The Head Start program now provides services for 122 children and supplies necessary developmental services for the children; all within an education setting. I commend the Kankakee-Iroquois Regional Planning Commission for its unwavering support to the region by providing a wide range of services and programs. I wish the Commission continued success in its endeavor to make a difference in the lives of the citizens of Indiana.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think I probably just wasted 20 seconds of my time. I was not prepared for this. Let me be very brief now that my time has been stressed. Mr. Chairman, I would ask Members to permit the eyes of their minds to see a greater vision here and to not be so narrow to think of this as Kosovo and Kosovo only. What concerns me most is that this is about funding a national military strategy. Sure, there are discussions of politics. Frankly, I do not mind that, because it is policy that drives all of this. The President's singular responsibility is to lay out the vital national security interests, then we come up with a military strategy as the means to enforce those. The President has one that is different, and I would not go along with it, but it is for us to transition out of a posture of global engagement in over 135 countries around the world and then fight and win nearly two simultaneous major regional conflicts. The open secret is we do not have the force structure today to do that. Let me share some facts with my colleagues about the size of the military today. In the Gulf War, we had 18 Army divisions, we had 24 Air Force tactical wings, and in the Navy ships and submarines we had 546 in 1990. Today, we are down to 10 divisions in the Army, 13 tactical wings in the Air Force, and a 315 ship Navy. That is a reduction in the Army by 250,000, in the Air Force 150,000, and in the Navy 200,000. So what have we done by taking a foreign policy of global engagement? We have taken our military and we have stretched this great military of ours very thin all over the world. Now we find ourselves with depleted munitions. Depleted munitions. And not only in our ammo. When I hear individuals say, well, we are going to have to cut back or we are only going to have to replace bullet for bullet, do my colleagues realize the risks we are being placed in in other scenarios around the world? Do not take it from me. Take it from General Shelton. General Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``Suffice it to say that what we have going on right now in Kosovo is a major theater of war with air assets. The fighting in Yugoslavia now means a much higher risk of a second regional conflict, protracted, with significant casualties.'' My colleagues, vote for this.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) this question: I have the sense that the military planners in the Pentagon, in order to maintain readiness levels to their comfort, they have taken money that should have gone to ammunition and they are using it to maintain present operations and they are assuming a risk, are they not?

Mr. BUYER. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman's concern is as great as mine that we are unwilling to assume a risk that will increase casualties in a war scenario around the world, the funding shortfall if we do not do even a piece of that in the emergency supplemental, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), would we not have to wait then until the 2000 budget cycle, which means that the ammunition and the missiles which we are requesting may not even get to the force until about 18 months from now?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield?, he will be happy to have yielded to me because I am going to extend a great compliment to the gentleman. I have been impressed with the gentleman's chairmanship over the years. With his focus on operational requirements, getting to the services what they need to fight and win the Nation's wars. I want to compliment the gentleman as one of the strongest advocates to make sure that our ammunition bins are filled. Because I can say that, yes, we all share the responsibility on procurement, but it is singular with the gentleman from San Diego in this body because we have to turn to him as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement to tell us what those needs and requirements are. And, actually, we yield to the gentleman's integrity that he will make those proper decisions. That is not just us; America yields to him. America out there whose sons and daughters may be in Korea right now, part of the 37,000 that are right now on the line in Korea or in a ship or in Okinawa or maybe they are in Iraq right now or wherever they are in the world to face a threat they have to be able to sleep in comfort that the gentleman from California has made sure that their son or daughter can access just in time to get that ammunition. And that is why I compliment the gentleman.