Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Well, I will close this tonight and reclaim my time that on May 13 we will mark up the Subcommittee on Military Personnel's Chairman's mark and we are going to address the increase in military pay. We are going to change the pay tables to increase retention. We are concerned about the retention not only at the mid-level officer and NCO, but also the retention of general officer strength. They are leaving for other jobs and that is not healthy. We are going to reform the retirement system. We are looking at creating a Thrift Savings Plan for the military. Part of this emergency supplemental, about $1.8 billion, is for the funding of the pay package, subject to the authorization that we come up with. So we are going to address the pay differential and we are going to take a very serious look at a lot of other things. I did not totally concur with the Senate's package, S. 4. It became a huge Christmas tree and everybody wanted to throw their arms around the soldier. But the problems are much greater. It is the quality of life issues. It is the housing issues. It is the readiness. It is the lack of spare parts. It is a large issue. So we are going to make sure that we try to address it by the breadth and we are going to be smart about our business. Let me close with this one story that has always moved me, and I think it will go to the heart of the spirit of why the gentleman from California and others work so very, very hard on these issues. I think of the World War II veteran. It is the World War II veteran I believe is a generation that changed the world and left freedom in their footsteps. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that they understand the total sacrifice and they have taught a generation what freedom means. The gentleman's example on Korea here tells us let us do not relive history. Let us accept the responsibility. This is not an emergency supplemental for Kosovo; this is funding our national military strategy and it must be done.

Mr. BUYER. One of the examples the Chief of the Army Reserve put on the list, he requested fire trucks. It would be very easy for someone who does not know anything about the military to look at the list of equipment necessities under the emergency supplemental and say why are we funding fire trucks? The answer is very simple. The Army Reserve has the ground support mission for the Apaches that were sent over to Albania and the present fire trucks from the Army reserves are utilized in Bosnia and they need to have the fire trucks.

Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield? The large request that I put in was in excess of $800 million. My district: Agricultural. A lot of corn, soybeans, wheat, a lot of pork, cattle, chickens, duck production, automobiles. I do not have the big defense contractors. So those who want to say that it is pork laden, I do not sell any of my hogs, none of my hogs out of Indiana for this bill.

Mr. BUYER. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, I would like for the gentleman to comment on some other questions that Members are asking and some of their comments that increasing this billions of dollars over and above the President's number, that we are putting in things that the Pentagon did not ask for and that it is pork laden. So I ask the gentleman to comment on that, because I know the numbers that I put together for the Guard and Reserve, I spoke to each of the chiefs of each of services for their go-to-war requirements. Period. Operational. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I have heard some comment by Members that some of the emergency supplemental funding will actually be coming out of the social security trust fund. In other words, if Congress had made the pledge that every dollar of the surplus is to go to the social security trust fund, are we not really spending that social security dollar on defense? We have also recognized that there will be funding in the surplus for payments on the national debt and a tax cut for any dollar that is over and above that allotment towards social security. I will concur with the gentleman's comment that one of the first requirements of a government is to protect its people. I think what makes me very uncomfortable, the gentleman and I and those that serve in this body, it is easy to be the critic of the President or those in the Pentagon, but we have to become very constructive, because we are responsible. The Constitution, does it not, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), places us with the singular responsibility to build the force and make sure that it has what it needs to meet the legitimate needs of this Nation. So when the gentleman laid out the scenario of what happened in Korea after World War II, the gentleman almost laid out the scenario that history is about to repeat itself; that those of us, myself and the comrades who served in the Gulf War, America and the world was impressed with our high-tech military force, so much so that no one would dare take on the United States military, especially in an air-land war, and that we could move anywhere in the world we want. So in the face of such a deterrent, we drew down the force so rapidly and so quickly that now in force structure it is there, we have people. They are not as well-equipped as we would like. They are not as well- trained. And, oh, by the way, if we have to use them, I guess we will try to use what ammo we can, and we will never be in a two-war scenario, anyway. We hear that rhetoric around the town. But I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), if we do this plus-up in this emergency supplemental, would the gentleman agree that we can immediately open up these lines for the missiles and begin replacing a lot of the needs?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like for the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to discuss that assumption of risk, how serious is it, how is it measured and what we are going to do about it in the supplemental.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I serve here in Congress as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military, a subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. Before I move into remarks regarding the supplemental appropriation that will deal not only with the funding shortfalls in Kosovo and the funding shortfalls to fund our national military strategy, along with disaster assistance and humanitarian aid, I would like to comment on some remarks made by one of my own Republican colleagues here tonight during the 5 minutes. He put up a chart and on the chart he had lists that in World War II, with a 13 million force, we had 31 four-star generals and with our force of today, we have 33 generals, and that even though we have reduced our force, we still have all of these general officers. Being responsible for the force structure decisions of the United States military, I would like to advise America that I have held the line on the increase, the demand for the increase out of the Pentagon on general officer strength. The force that fought World War II, that military force, is completely different from the military force of today. We also have encouraged jointness, greater cooperation and interoperability between all the services. When you do that, yes, you end up creating some bureaucracies and an increase in need for general officer strength. But more importantly we are going to maintain the sort of rank-heavy military for a very important reason. Kosovo really is that third scenario, ``third scenario'' meaning we have a national military strategy to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. So you take a circumstance in Korea, you can take a circumstance in Iraq, and now we have the third circumstance with regard to Kosovo. If, in fact, the United States found itself on a three-front war and we had the necessity to have to build a force rapidly, we could do that when we maintain officer strength in the general officer corps along with senior noncommissioned officers. That is the reason we are going to hold the line on those strengths. So the chart that was used tonight is somewhat misleading, and I wanted to correct the record. Over the next 1 hour, the gentleman from the 52nd District of California (Mr. Hunter) chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement and myself will discuss why all of the Members, and to inform America why we should support the emergency supplemental appropriation that we will be voting on here later this week. Let me be very clear that there are some Members that point to this bill as though it were some form of a referendum on the President's actions in Kosovo, or that if we add additional funding to this supplemental appropriation that somehow we are forward funding the Clinton-Gore war. There is a lot of rhetoric, political rhetoric that is being used around here. So what the gentleman from California and I would like to clarify for everyone is what is the purpose of this emergency supplemental funding and why we have an increase in military funding in this bill that is over and above the President's request. I believe that this bill is mislabeled. It should not be emergency funding with regard to Kosovo. This bill is necessary to fund the national security strategy of this country. The President has the singular responsibility to lay out the national security interest of this Nation. He then turns to the military planners and said, ``What is the national military strategy to carry that out?'' That is what makes us uncomfortable today. Let me pose to you this question. Can anyone name this country, a country whereby 709,000 active service personnel, eight standing Army divisions, 20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft, 232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic missile submarines, with 232 missiles, 500 ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missile systems, with 1,950 warheads, four aircraft carriers, 121 surface combat ships and submarines. Can anyone name this country with that type of force structure? Is that country the former Soviet Union? No. Is that country Russia? No. Is that country China? No. Is the country the United Kingdom? No. You give up? That country, the global superpower, no longer exists. You see, the force structure that I just listed is how much the American military forces have been cut since 1990. So why does our force structure matter so much? First, let us look at the success. In 1990 and 1991, the 45-day Gulf War was highly successful. Why? Well, in our active forces in 1990 we had 18 divisions. In the Air Force tactical wings we had 24. Navy ships and submarines, we had 546 as we were coming out of the Cold War era. Part of the success was not only the force structure, but it was also because we had a highly-trained, well-equipped combat-ready force. The question that is painful for those of us that serve on the Committee on Armed Services and those who appropriate funds on its behalf, was challenging for the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and myself and others, is that we have to ask that question: Could we fight and win a Gulf War today? You see, that makes us very uncomfortable if you were to ask us that question, because we have forces in Korea on the peninsula, we have our forces in Iraq today, and now the President has us in a third scenario in former Yugoslavia. So when we look at that force structure in 1990 and we see where President Clinton and Vice President Gore have taken us down to today with those budgets, we today have: Army divisions, we have 10. Air Force tactical wings, we only have 13. And Navy ships and submarines, we only have 315. The number that is used so often here in Washington is, if we do not hold the line on the Navy, we could dip below a 300-ship Navy, and that is fearful, my colleagues. What is really concerning about these 10 active divisions: If you were to say, ``All right, Congressman. Of those 10 divisions, how many are ready to go right now?'' Five, only five because the other five divisions are called the follow-on divisions, and they have been hollowed out. They are short over 300 noncommissioned officers per brigade, over 300. So we have got some anxiety building up between myself, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and others about our present force structure today. Let me put this into real numbers for my colleagues, divisions, wings, submarines, ships. Let me put it into numbers so my colleagues can relate, for those who are not familiar with the military. The Army has been reduced. When we say taking down the size of these divisions and those who support them, we have reduced the Army strength by 250,000 personnel. The Navy has been reduced by 200,000 personnel, the Air Force has been reduced by 150,000 personnel, and the selected reserve has been reduced 250,000 personnel. And what is also very difficult today is we are not retaining the qualified personnel, nor are we recruiting the sufficient numbers to meet current service requirements. That is very challenging to many of us. So why is force structure so important? Why are we talking about that? Force structure is important because earlier when I mentioned the purpose of the military, it is the means to the political objectives laid out by the President with regard to our national security interests. I am going to read from the annual report to the President and Congress signed by the Secretary of Defense William Cohen here in 1999. He lays out our military strategy. The military strategy is in sum, and says on page 17: In sum, for the foreseeable future U.S. forces must be sufficient in size, versatility and responsiveness in order to transition from a posture of global engagement to fight and win in concert with our allies two major theater of wars that occur roughly at the same time. In this context they must also be able to defeat the initial enemy advance in two distant theaters in close succession and to fight and win in situations where chemical and biological weapons and other asymmetric approaches are employed. That is the present national military strategy. So earlier I used this example of if we are involved in a Gulf War scenario, and North Korea decides to do something foolish, do we have the force structure to fight and win a two-front war? The open secret and the pain that we have to deal with is we do not have the force structure to do that today. I do not get into the strategy decisions, but I am not going to be just the critic. I want to be the constructive critic. Do my colleagues know what would be different from a Republican administration and the Democrat administration with regard to this military strategy? I would take out where it says in order to transition from a posture of global engagement. I would strike those words from the military strategy. You see, that foreign policy of the President, this engagement around the world is what strains the military force. So the President has our military force stretched so thin in so many different places around the world, that is what makes it challenging, and I am going to speak to that a little bit more here later. Let me also refer to the difference in the dollars that are used on the defense along with the utilization of the force. You see, the world is not as stable, and this is a paradox. The world is not as stable today as it was during the stand-off of the Cold War. So often we hear in this town that the Russian bear has been replaced by a thousand vipers. The enemy today is difficult to define. The force structure that we have, we have to be more mobile and more fluid as we think of how to fight and win the next war. If you plan the next war how you won the last one, you have positioned yourself for failure, so we have to be very smart about our business. But what is clear here by this chart is there is a mismatch between funding and the use of military force. Now you can look at this force here during the Bush administration, and the dollars, and the procurement, and the funding and the readiness to utilization. Some would be quick to say: Well, look, you have got too much money and you are not using the force. I heard our own Secretary of Defense say: ``Well, what's the purpose of the military if you do not use them?'' I am not sure I can follow her logic. The purpose of the military is to fight and win the Nation's wars and to protect our interests, not to utilize the war in every corner of the world as though we are the world's policemen. You see, that is what gets us in trouble. When I think of the paradox, it is almost those who say the B-2 bomber, and this is before the Kosovo incident, never dropped a bomb. That is a good thing, my colleagues. If the military never has to fire a shot, that is a good thing. When we are the finest, the best, the most well equipped military in the world, who wants to take us on? Our enemies are not cooperative. They take us on when we are vulnerable, and we are getting vulnerable. Look at this one right here. From 1993 to 1999, we have reduced the budgets, and we have increased the utilization. So during the Bush administration the War Powers Act reporting to Congress, there were six. President Clinton's term, and Al Gore, 46 reports have been sent to Congress. That is the utilization. So not only has he taken our military force and stretched them to those 135 countries around the world, he has actually placed our military into harm's way in over 46 places around the world. Over utilization. So what is happening to the force? The wear and tear on our forces, it is showing. It is showing, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is going to talk about that coming up. Let me go to this chart for just a second. When I talked about the utilization all around the country, Mr. Speaker, the President has a foreign policy of engagement. Engagement. And he uses our military as though they are diplomats, and military-to-military contacts and everything all around the world. But let us talk about some of the larger ones. North Korea, we have 40,000 troops. Bosnia, we have the 10,000. In Iraq we have 20,200 aircraft, 1 carrier battle group. Kosovo, 30,000 troops, 800 aircraft, one carrier battle group. But we have got troops all over the place from Haiti, Honduras, Cuba, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Argentina, Egypt, India, Israel, Kenya, Tanzania, Diego Garcia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Japan, Australia, China, Singapore, Thailand. The list goes on, and on, and on. So, we have taken our military force, we have cut down the structure, and we have spread them all around the world, but you see the President in their force structure says we can transition from spreading our forces all around the world, and then all of a sudden we can bring them together and we can fight and win in two near simultaneous major regional conflicts, and, oh, by the way, if we happen to get bogged down in Kosovo, do not worry, we can win. No, this is very uncomfortable, Mr. Speaker, very, very uncomfortable. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I have conducted numerous hearings on the growing problems facing our service men and women. Although pay and benefits is important, there are other equally important issues stressing the force, quality of life issues, health care, lack of spare parts, lack of adequate training time, the aging of equipment, the high depreciation rates on our equipment, increased operational tempo, longer working hours and the family separation, reusing and reusing the same people. Asking them to do more with less is not a strategy for success. Do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Let me read some excerpts from a letter I received from a young Navy lieutenant: Honor, courage and commitment are words that are often used in jest. What they should say is honor the sailor, respect the job and the sacrifices that he endures. Have the courage to give those who risk their life every day in the defense of our country and democracy the proper equipment to do their job. Make the commitment to the basic human needs that every human being, even sailors, need for themselves and their families. We need to provide the fleet with all the tools to maintain our assets. Just-in-time manning and ramping up for deployment is ludicrous. People and assets need to be in position and on board to benefit the rigors of the training cycle. Sailors need to be properly trained. They need to have the proper support, equipment to test the systems, be it on a ship or on an aircraft. They need publications that are up to date. They need various hand and automated tools to adequately perform the maintenance and maintain the equipment. I do not know what the fix is, and I do not know all the answers, but I will tell you I have never seen the Navy in such a sad state of affairs. I love this business and have always believed that there is honor in my chosen profession. Every cut back has a cost. In this case I think we cut too deep. This Navy lieutenant said it in words for which I could not replace. So what have we done? We increased those missions dramatically, we have stressed the force, and this sailor is sending a basic message to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and myself, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who chair subcommittees in the Committee on Armed Services that we need to take care of the force as much as we can, and that is the purpose of our supplemental. We have asked for some billions of dollars over and above the President's mark, spending mark, and what we are trying to do is to fund this national military strategy. This is no attempt by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and myself or others to front load some Kosovo war or anything else. We recognize that there are stresses in the force. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) tells a story about some F-16s in the Pennsylvania National Guard that did not have GPS, the global positioning system in the F-16s when they were deployed to Iraq in operation Provide Comfort. So what did the pilots do? They went to Radio Shack, bought it, strapped it onto their legs. When one is flying an aircraft at high altitude over the desert, there is not much to navigate off of, and one has to have that GPS system. I feel awful, America, that we are not even doing the modernization of our force and pilots are actually going to Radio Shack to modernize their own fighter aircraft. That is sad. Let me move now to a quote from Admiral Jay Johnson. He said, we have approximately 18,000 gap billets in the fleet. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means in the Navy today we are 18,000 sailors short. Navy ships are being deployed at 10 to 20 percent under their strength. What does that mean? That means that when an aircraft carrier or a cruiser, when they leave harbor, they are leaving about 80 percent strength. So when they are deployed at sea and they end up with injuries, a workplace injury, a back or sick call, there are no replacements. They do not send replacements out to sea. Everybody has to then carry the load. So instead of now working in the boiler room where maybe 10 people are assigned they now have seven. Two people get hurt, five now have to pick up the load. Instead of working 10 hours, they are now working 14 hours. That is what is happening to our force, and it is very, very difficult. Let me mention Kosovo for a second. Here is something that is also very, very concerning to us. The current Kosovo mission has forced the United States to divert planes from their patrols over Iraq in order to support the ongoing campaign. This quote here, in the New York Times, in early April, the Navy shifted its only aircraft carrier in the western Pacific and its 75 combat jets out of the region indefinitely to help wage war in the Yugoslavia campaign. If we have taken our only carrier now out of that region of the world to support this so-called humanitarian war, how can we satisfy the national military strategy? We cannot. We cannot. The second quote is, the Pentagon briefly suspended enforcement of the no-fly zone over northern Iraq when fighter bombers and radar- jamming planes were dispatched to the air war in Serbia. Mr. Speaker, if we are having difficulty here at the moment maintaining the front against the forces in North Korea on the peninsula, maintaining the no-fly zone requirements in Iraq, and we have this war now in Kosovo and we cannot even mix and match, that is a very strong signal to us that we have to take corrective action, and it is immediate. If all we do is fund what the President's request is, all we do is fund the bullet for bullet which they are firing, shame on us. We have to step forward, bite the bullet, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is going to talk about, and do much more than that and go beyond. I yield to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and well respected in this House, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement.

Mr. BUYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this question, but I am going to lay out a statement first. If we do not have access to some of our high tech munitions such as laser-guided munitions, where an aircraft can stay miles up and drop a laser-guided munition through the front door of a target, I have heard comments, the hall comments, that we have all types of dumb bomb munitions that we could access. But if we are to play into this, that we have so much dumb bomb munitions, are we not asking our pilots, who could stay miles above, to assume a risk? Because in order to drop that dumb bomb, they are going to have to come down into radar coverage, pick up the sight of their target, and immediately pull out. So those who are advocating, well, let us just drop dumb bombs, we will assume risks. It is stunning for me how some people in this body are willing to let soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines, pilots assume risks and not adequately equip them. Does the gentleman have a comment?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his comment. I compliment him on his words here in the well. If the gentleman swings by my office, he will see hanging in my office as he leaves, and I look at it almost every day, the father who lost his son who bled to death in Somalia cut the Ranger patch off his son's uniform and sent it to me. It is on the wall in my office. It is a constant reminder about the pain. If America is going to send our sons and daughters into a theater war, then they need to thoroughly understand what they are fighting for, what are the vital national security interests, what is at stake. I compliment the gentleman's words. We are hearing some rhetoric on the floor about genocide, ethnic cleansing. Mr. Speaker, since when has that been a cause for U.S. intervention throughout the world? I will not stand for the United States to have a racist foreign policy. Since when do we have a preference of ethnicity? Are we Europhiles, that we somehow want to go on the ground in Europe, but will not do so in Africa or Asia or Indonesia or in other countries? Let us be very wise, prudent, and cautious about the words we use here today and about our foreign policies. Let us be the advisers and counsel to the President to make proper judgments. The reason American is confused is that the political rhetoric does not match NATO's political objectives, which does not match the military use of force. If we say that Milosevic is a Hitler and Stalin and he has no right to lead that country, it appears as though that is our political objective, and therefore the use of military force is to overthrow Milosevic. That is not true. NATO's political objective is Kosovo and Kosovo only. So we should restrict our rhetoric, be careful for our words. Then the ultimate question is, through the use of air power, does that accomplish the political objectives? That is why, when I returned, I said we have to return for the ground function. That does not mean I support troops on the ground. Mr. Speaker, what I advise my counsel, I will vote this way today. I do not agree with the War Powers Act. I will vote no on House Joint Resolution 44, I will vote no on H. Con. Res. 82, I will vote yes for the Fowler amendment, because I want the President to define the end state, what does he want it to look like, how does he define success, before we go on the ground. With regard to Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, let us be up front, this is a political vote. This is a cover vote for some Democrats here who do not have the stomach. We have had over 10,500 sorties that have already been flown. Now we are going to come in and have a vote to authorize? The question is moot.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this legislation up, and also thank the President for following the chairman's lead on the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1376, the bill to extend tax benefits to our brave American military personnel serving in support operations in Yugoslavia. Historically this benefit has been applied to designated combat zones. Let me be very clear. I recently accompanied Secretary of Defense Cohen to his recent trip to headquarters Aviano and Ramstein air bases in Italy and in Germany. I came away from that trip with a couple of very stark realities. One, Europe is at war, and the American service personnel are in it. American brave men and women are engaged in combat. They do not need the burdens of the administrative and bureaucratic Tax Code while serving on the battlefield, even though that battlefield is through the air power only at this time. Currently these benefits are applicable to members of the military serving in Bosnia. However, the geocoordinates that have been applied for operations in Bosnia do not apply to Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and the Adriatic Ocean and Indian Ocean. Although this legislation is included in a tax relief package, in reality it is a quality of life issue. As chairman of the committee concerned with personnel, I view it with that sense. Congress must pass the provision to provide the necessary peace of mind that servicemembers serving in the Yugoslavia area operations and their families need in order to concentrate on their assigned combat mission. The passage of the quality of life and tax relief package on tax day will send a critically important message to our brave military men and women that members of the military and the American people do care and appreciate their sacrifice and service under obvious risk. I have one question for the chairman. Mr. Speaker, since this is an allied air power operation in which there are many bases from which these planes come, if an individual is on a strategic bomber or providing tactical or strategic air fueling missions and finds themselves within the combat zone of the theater of operations, would they be covered under this legislation?

Mr. BUYER. So if we have a B-1 bomber, a B-2, a B-52, an air fueling mission from the United States that goes over and they come back, if they find themselves in the combat zone, they are covered by the gentleman's legislation?

Mr. BUYER. That is very appropriate.

Mr. BUYER. I thank the chairman for his legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 73, my voting card was not operable and is now being replaced. Had the voting card worked, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Spratt amendment. I rise in opposition to the Spratt amendment and in support of the Republican resolution which secures Social Security and Medicare, and increases education. The Republican resolution is the only budget that takes the first steps necessary toward improving benefits for veterans and restoring the health of national defense. As I stand here today, our dedicated service men and women who are deployed throughout the world, are unselfishly putting their lives at risk in support of our national security interests--in Kosovo, Iraq and North Korea to name a few. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel, which I chair, has had very good hearings concerning pay, retirement, retention and health care. The concerns that are affecting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are real! During these investigations I received a letter, which I would like submitted for the Record, from a young officer in the Navy. He, like the rest of the outstanding military personnel loves what he does and takes great pride in supporting and protecting our country. He only asks that we provide him with qualified people, tools and training to complete their mission and to pay them an honest day's wage for an honest day's work. These men and women and their families deserve better than this--there is no excuse that they do not have the proper tools and equipment, work and live in substandard facilities and are paid so poorly they have to work two jobs to support their families. Our force is undermanned and overworked. The operation tempo is so high that many of these men and women have spent the last two Thanksgivings and Christmases away from their families. This is insulting to them and to this country which they so unselfishly support. I heard one of my colleagues from across the aisle say ``We have a moral obligation to support defense and that he would support the proposal that provides the most for defense.'' We do have a moral obligation to support defense and the Republican budget resolution with the manager's amendment takes the first steps necessary toward providing for defense. It will provide more dollars in fiscal year 2000, (3 billion more than the Spratt amendment or the President's) than any other proposal. In addition, the Republican budget provides over $1 billion for the veterans who have also sacrificed so much for this country. Unlike the Spratt amendment the Republican budget resolution will fulfill our promise to veterans and work toward maintaining a strong national defense. I strongly oppose the Spratt amendment and support the Republican budget and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: To whom it may concern: For the last 17 years I have served my country as a sailor in the United States Navy. I have seen what I believe to be the decline in discipline reach an all time low in the last 2 years. I believe that boot camp has become too lax and fails to produce sailors that could go immediately into combat and survive. We also take those same sailors and send them to Pensacola for follow on training where they live better than most senior fleet sailors. They are cuddled the whole time they are in school. They arrive in the fleet with little or no concept of discipline. After they complete training they show up at various stations around the world in live in what is little more than a slum. We always say, ``if you take care of your sailors, then they will take care of you.'' Taking care of them may be in the form of a good ass chewing to get them back on track. If we cuddle them as airman then what is there to look forward to? It takes a special breed of person to stay in the Navy. Sailors that stay in the Navy are, for the most part, not in it for fame or fortune. They stay in the Navy because they love what they do, pride in the hardest job in the world, well done. There is no greater satisfaction then watching the fruits of your labor launch off the pointy end of an aircraft carrier loaded with all the ordnance it can possibly carry and go take a piece of American policy to those who need it most. They stay because of camaraderie. They stay because of honor, courage and commitment. Honor, courage and commitment are words that are often used in just. What they should say is honor the sailor and respect the job and sacrifice that he endures. Have the courage to give those who risk their life everyday in the defense of our country and democracy the proper equipment to do their job. Make the commitment to the basic human needs that every human being, even sailors; need for themselves and their families. Most sailors are held to an even higher standard then the people who send them to their deaths in battle. Many have a hard time living with the double standard that they are held to. If our Commander-in-Chief can admittedly lie to congress about his improprieties, then why must an active duty military person have their lives ruined and be forced from the service of his country, because he went to a convention that honors all of those who have ever landed an aircraft on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier. We need to provide the fleet with all the tools to maintain all our assets. Just in time manning and ramping up for deployment is ludicrous, people and assets need to be in position and onboard to benefit from the rigors of the training cycle. Sailors need to be properly trained. They need to have the proper support equipment to test the systems, be it on a ship or aircraft. They need publications that are up-to-date. They need the various hand and automated tools to actually perform the maintenance and maintain the equipment. They need adequate space to perform their maintenance and stow their gear. Recently it took us 2 days to complete what should have been a 2-hour procedure for all of these reasons: We could not get a hydraulic test stand that worked correctly. The support equipment people could not fix the hydraulic test stand because they did not have the correct publications. The publications had not been updated to reflect the new tool requirements. Nobody knew how to operate the new test equipment. If we do not have the people or tools to fix the aircraft then the aircraft can not fly. Aircrews need to fly to stay proficient. Aircrews love to fly and that is their job. We must fulfill the basic human needs of every sailor in order for them to continue to be happy at their job. Pay them an honest days wage for an honest days work. A sailor that works on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, the most dangerous work place in the world, gets $3 a day (before taxes), provided the ship or squadron has enough billets to pay him. Pay them for the sacrifices that they make by providing adequate housing (when ashore), quality health care for them and their families. We need to provide affordable (pay grade based) 24 hour a day 7 days a week daycare. Manning is probably one thing that gets pinged on the most, but just throwing a body at a problem will not fix it, if it is not the right body. It does not matter if I have 10 mechanics if I have an electrical problem. Of the 200 people assigned to the maintenance department, 25 are temporarily assigned duties out side the command. 140 people are actually assigned to production work centers. The 140 people include 7 in corrosion, 17 ordies, 5 tarpies, 3 PR's, and 28 line rats. This leaves 80 people to perform 97% of the scheduled and unscheduled, documented, direct maintenance on the aircraft. However, on any given day we lose approximately 15 of the 75 people from these work centers due to leave, school, watch, SIQ, LIMDU, appointments, etc. This all means that on an average day we have 65 maintainers performing maintenance on our aircraft. Currently the average direct maintenance man- hour per flight hour, for the F-14 is 60.5. Based on an eight-hour day, five days a week we would perform 11,960 hour of on aircraft maintenance per month. This would equate to 198 flight hours per month or 99 sorties, which would break down to approximately 16 flight hours, or 8 sorties per month for each pilot. This is not enough to stay proficient. This also does not account for any of the other ``collateral'' duties, administrative requirements or additional tasking these sailors have. What do you think is not gonna be done? I don't know what the fix is and I don't know all the answers but I will tell you I have never seen the Navy in such a sad state of affairs. I love this business and have always believed that there was honor in my chosen profession. Where else in the world can a high school drop out become an Officer and a key person in a maintenance department with $500 million of assets. We have created most of the problems ourselves through inflated decrees of readiness and continually providing more with less, but at what cost? Sailors are ingenious and will find ways to put ``hot steel on target'' no matter what it takes, because that is our job. When we have to work harder to get the job done then some other program is not getting the attention it needs. In many cases those are the paper programs that the bureaucracy has created in order for someone to ``cover their ass'' or have a ``claim to fame.'' So every cut back has a cost. In this case I think we cut too deep. Unfortunately we elected those bureaucrats that created those paper programs. We are WARRIORS and our job is to be prepared to fight wars. Rocky A. Riley, LTJG, USN.

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, for bringing this measure. I would like to inform the Members about this issue with the ski lift in Italy. When the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) made a comment about the monies have been paid for the damage to the ski lift, we put monies aside, there was $20 million, but those monies have not been accessed. The ski lift has been replaced, the owner-operator has gone through the claims process in Italy, and it has not yet been adjudicated, so the $20 million has not been accessed. I wanted to clarify that point. We have a Status of Forces agreement in Italy, and for the claims process, the Navy has jurisdiction. Right now when there is a claim, they are to go through the Italian government. Through the Status of Forces agreement, we, the United States, pay 75 percent and Italy pays 25 percent, but they are to go through the adjudicative procedures through the Italian government. Right now, because we have that agreement in place, I will give advice to my colleagues, let us permit the adjudication to go through the Status of Forces agreement. I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), I applaud him and recognize his efforts, and the image that it shows around the world, but I would ask the gentleman to let us go through the adjudicative procedures that we have under our Status of Forces agreement in Italy.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on February 25 I testified before the Subcommittee on Trade panel of the Committee on Ways and Means regarding the crisis of the United States steel industry caused by the flood of illegal imports. At the hearing I stated that imposing quotas legislatively was a measure of last resort utilized when it is clear that other options will not suffice to enforce our trade laws. Unfortunately it has become all too clear that the Clinton administration has no intention of aggressively enforcing our trade laws. I would far prefer that the administration use the tools that Congress has given to enforce our laws. The administration could take unilateral action to address the illegally dumped steel coming into the United States, but they have not done so. Although I have misgivings about the potential for retaliation that the legislation may engender, Congress simply cannot tolerate the dithering by the administration while the United States steel industry continues to bleed. American steelworkers are the most productive in the world. Investments in new technology in the 1980s and the training to reduced the hours of labor to make one ton of steel from 9.3 hours in 1980 to just 2 hours in 1999. The industry and its workers are the most efficient and productive in the world, and I ask my colleagues to support the Visclosky-Regula bill. Ispat Inland, Inc, East Chicago IN, March 12, 1999. Hon. Stephen Buyer, Members of Congress, Washington DC. Dear Representative Buyer, I wish to thank you again for inviting us and other steel manufacturing companies to meet with you last Friday, March 5, 1999. It was a welcome opportunity to be able to personally share with you our views on the current steel import crisis and its impact on steel industry jobs and markets in the United States. Thank you also for inviting me to again share those views with you in this letter. There is an important historical perspective to the current issue. In the early and mid-1980's, the domestic steel industry was similarly faced with the spectre of massive imports of dumped and unfairly subsidized foreign steel products. At that time the industry was generally ill prepared to effectively respond to that challenge. As a result, the Congress and the Administration granted temporary relief in the form of stringent quotas placed on imported steel products. In effect, the domestic steel industry was granted sufficient time to re-make itself into a competitive player in the world market. Years of painful, but necessary, restructuring ensued and today the steel industry has emerged as a highly competitive producer of world class products. For example, labor productivity has increased 5.5% annually since 1980, energy consumption has decreased by 45% in roughly the same time period, and environmental and safety performance far exceeds that of the steel industry elsewhere in the world. We can compete with anyone so long as the playing field is level. However, the dynamics of world economics are such that the playing field has been rendered unlevel today. There has been a massive new wave of unfairly traded imports and a quick and decisive governmental response has not been forthcoming. In recent months, the industry has asked the Administration to help us prosecute a Section 201 case and to assure us that the President will impose a global remedy if we are successful. The Administration has refused this request. In fact, in the case of the proposed Russian Suspension Agreement, the Administration has taken steps, over our objections, to limit our rights under existing trade laws. While we were successful in obtaining effective dumping margins against Russian steel imports, the Administration proposes suspension of that case while permitting Russia significant access to our markets. The resultant product flow into this country will be illegal under current trade law. I recognize that foreign policy issues are at stake, but the damage to our industry will be egregious. The domestic industry's position is that we will continue to litigate against dumped and subsidized foreign steel, that we are in immediate need of a global solution, and that we would prefer a solution consistent with our international obligations with the World Trade Organization. We fully support free trade. If, however, the Administration continues to refuse to offer adequate solutions and to deny us the ability to enforce existing trade laws, we will have to reconsider our position and seek the most viable alternative solution to remedy this crisis. Than you again for your continued interest on this issue. Sincerely Dale E. Wiersbe, President and Chief Operating Officer. The steel industry is crucial for our national security. Our planes, our tanks, our ships, our weapons, utilize steel. We have a responsibility to the protection of our citizens to ensure a viable steel manufacturing industry in the United States. It is impossible for the United States to retain its status as the world's sole superpower without steel. I urge the House to adopt H.R. 975.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise here in support of the base bill, I rise in opposition to the Fowler amendment, and I rise in opposition to the Gejdenson amendment. Now I need to explain myself to my colleagues, and let me do it in this manner. First, I am going to compliment the Speaker, because I think debate on this issue is timely and is appropriate. I think some of the arguments I have heard today are out of place. And the reason I say out of place is because I recall the good debate we had in this House where over 315 Members voted for a Buyer-McHale resolution about the Dayton Accords prior to the signing of the Dayton Accords, which said do not send in ground troops to Bosnia as the predicate to peace. We had a very good debate here on the floor prior to the Dayton Accords. So we are having a second debate prior to a signing of a peace accord, and if there is something good that comes out of this discussion that can help frame that peace accord, all the better. So I think it is a hollow argument to be talking about timing. The second point I would like to make is a matter of policy. I think there is a policy disagreement in this House on both sides of the aisle, from some, with the present administration's policies. There are two things that are rather curious to me. It is rather curious to hear Members come to the well in support of using U.S. ground troops for a humanitarian mission when they were the same Members who voted against the use of force when I was in the Gulf War. Now, I will keep record of that, and I am remembering that I asked others to be just as curious about their motives as I am. The second point I would like to make is on the matter of foreign policy. Here is the disagreement. I believe the United States, as the world's superpower, should have a policy of restraint in international conflict management. Regional powers should take greater stability to police and manage the regional stability, economic cohesion and military balance of power. U.S. troops should only intervene on the ground to ensure regional stability, not intervene in civil wars which have no real threat of destabilizing a region. If the United States intervenes in every intercontinental conflict, in every corner of the world, then the United States becomes the world's guarantor of global security and such action enables the regional powers to escape their regional responsibilities. This leads to the second point of curiosity. Since when did genocide become the standard for us to commit ground troops around the world? That is not the standard. It needs to be tied to vital national security interests. Now, here is my difficulty. My difficulty is, having authored three bills, for which my colleagues have supported on this floor with regard to Bosnia, I have told the President of the United States I will not be the barking dog. I will be his constructive critic. And let me talk to my Republican colleagues. I believe we are going to have a Republican president and we are going to inherit this in 2001. So we need to ask these questions: How do we get America out of the box? How do we turn this over to the European allies? How do we ensure that our regional allies lead on the ground? We do that by ensuring that the time lines of success for the simple implementation of the Dayton Accords are met appropriately. We make sure the leaders of the peace, who are leaders of the war, begin to focus on what brings them together instead of their differences. We also have to recognize Milosevic and what he is. There are some of us who have been there and have spoken to Milosevic. I have sat on the couch and looked him in the eye, and I could not help but sense that I was talking to a Hitler-type himself. Now, that leads me to something that we had better think long and hard about, and that is when the President of the United States sends the Supreme Allied Commander in to see Milosevic, we better think long and hard before we undercut a United States general on the ground. Now, that is where I come down painfully on this. Painfully, because I disagree with the administration's foreign policy. I disagree how they utilize the force to these open-ended commitments around the world, as if we can only justify the use of the military for humanitarian missions. That is why I am torn inside, because I disagree with the policies. But I am not going to undercut General Wesley Clark when he meets with Milosevic on the ground. So I have to rise in support of the base bill and in opposition to the Gejdenson amendment and in opposition to the Fowler amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for scheduling this very important special order. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, I am deeply concerned about maintaining the quality of our force that has been the hallmark of our military. We have entered an era where the ability of our military to attract and retain quality young Americans is no longer assured. On the issue of recruiting, Mr. Speaker, military recruiting can no longer be described as an unfavorable trend. Notwithstanding the significant increases in funding by the Services and by Congress for recruiting operations, advertising and incentives, the booming job market, erosion of the military pay and benefits package over the years have made military service increasingly unattractive for America's youth and made it questionable for those who are presently in the military to say it is worth it to spend their 20 years in the military, which causes retention also as an issue. Let me stick with recruiting here for a moment and take it one service at a time. With regard to the Army, traditionally it is the first service to feel the pressure from downturns in recruiting. It began with the process of what I have noticed, what the military has done here to address the issue is they began a process of cutting recruit quality standards. Now, they did that in March of 1997 by reducing the goal for diploma high school graduates. Even with the reduced recruit quality and additional funding, the Army failed to meet its recruiting objective for fiscal year 1998 and fell below the Congressionally set minimum troop strength. Currently, during the first quarter of the fiscal year 1999, Army recruiting again is failing, and that is quite disturbing to me. If recruiting is not improved this year, the Army end strength would fall approximately 6,000 below the Congressionally authorized troop strength by year's end. So let this be a warning signal to the Army. With regard to the Navy, during the fiscal year 1998, when recruiters missed their recruiting goal by approximately 7,000, approximately 13 percent, the Navy failed to meet the Congressionally set minimum end strength. During the past year, the Navy calculated that there were approximately 22,000 vacant positions, of which 18,000 were sea going billets. Now, with regard to the 327 ships out there, when there are many billets open on the ships, these ships are now setting for sea at levels of readiness strength at C2, and we ought to question is it C2 plus 1? So before the ship even leaves harbor they may now be at a C3 level, which would be very concerning because what this does is then place great stress on the sailors who are actually running the ship. We are asking them to do more with less. On January 15th of 1999, the Navy announced that they will follow the Army's lead by reducing its recruiting goal for diploma high school graduates. Even with this change, the Navy could miss both its recruiting goal and Congressionally set end strength for fiscal year 1999, and I have expressed my disappointment to the Navy for reducing its quality and its standards. With regard to the Air Force, the Air Force has long been considered immune to recruiting problems but, again, the Air Force missed its recruiting objective during the first four months of fiscal year 1999. The Air Force now projects that recruiting and retention problems will result in the service coming to 4,800 under the end strength floor set by Congress for fiscal year 1999. I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but these Services are not meeting their goals, nor the end strength as mandated by law and set forth here by Congress. The Marine Corps continues to meet its recruiting goals, but only after adding funding to recruiting advertising, incentives and operations. In addition, the Marine Corps continues to lead all services in stress on recruiters with 75 percent of recruiters reporting that they work over 60 hours a week. I will extend compliments to the commandant of the Marine Corps. With regard to retention, today with the drawdown, and I want to be cautious, Mr. Speaker, to say with the drawdown at near an end, because the drawdown seems to always continue but there are clear signals that the potential retention problems that first captured the attention of the committee several years ago are now becoming the leading edge of the retention crisis, and the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), warned many of us several years ago that the edge is near and the crisis is approaching, and we are now feeling those signs from the military. Like any of life's decisions, the current retention problem stems from a complex series of issues. Throwing money, more money at this problem, is not going to be the sole answer. The current high operations tempo, the time away from home, long working hours, eroding value of pay and allowances, reduction in retirement benefits, lack of resources and the facilities to do the job, erosion of health care benefits, and the perception of others, the loss of confidence in the military and civilian leadership are all factors, both perceived and real, that contribute to the environment that is driving people from the military. When you add that to the economy that continues to provide a significant pull on the high quality of men and women, you create a retention environment that could degrade the military readiness that this Nation so vitally relies. In the Navy, Navy retention problems extend across the force, both officer and enlisted. The aviator, the quote, take rates, end quote, for aviation continuation pay are running well behind the force sustaining levels. Even retention of junior officers in the surface warfare and special operations communities are running well behind their required levels. Enlisted retention for all career groups in the Navy is also running at a minimum of 10 percent behind the force sustaining rates. Retention of mid-career personnel is in the area of great concern with a current rate of 45 percent against the goal of 62 percent. This has prompted the Chief of Naval Operations to declare retention of quality personnel the Navy's highest short-term readiness priority. In the Air Force, retention concerns in recent years have been focused on pilots, where the current shortage of 850 is expected to increase over 1,300, and that is 10 percent, by year 2000. Air Force enlisted retention has now eroded to the point where it rivals the pilot retention problem. The mid career reenlistment rate has dropped from 81 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in fiscal year 1998. The reenlistment rate for the most junior personnel also continued to slide from a high of 63 percent in 1995 to 54 percent in 1998, below the 55 percent objective for the first time in 8 years for the Air Force. That should be a wakeup call to everyone because the Air Force generally does not have this concern. The Army for the first time is experiencing a pilot retention problem with a shortage of 140 Apache attack helicopter pilots. The Army Chief of Staff has also noted a negative trend in the retention of junior officers over the last 3 years. Although the Army has been achieving overall enlisted retention objectives, the rate of first-term attrition has risen sharply to 41 percent, a contributing factor to the Army's failure to meet the congressional end strength floors of the Department of Defense bill. With regard to the Marine Corps in retention, the Marine Corps is not immune from the pilot retention problems that plague all the services. Pilot retention rates within the individual weapons systems are running 8 to 21 percent below the rates required to sustain the force. The Marine Corps continues to meet its enlisted retention objectives although the retention objectives for the Marine Corps are lower than the other services and are becoming increasingly more difficult to maintain. With regard to the President's plan, Mr. Speaker, the recruiting and retention problems confronting the military are real and are deserving of the urgent attention of Congress. That is why I compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for holding this special order. I am sure that there are some Members of Congress that are going to be aghast that we would be increasing defense funding. Well, it is about time we are increasing defense funding. I will extend a compliment to the chiefs because we have been beating up the chiefs at each of the services asking for their candor. Now they have come forward and they have talked about the shortfalls and they have given us their requirements. But now that they have set forth their requirements, the President has not even funded their requirements. We here in the Congress have a responsibility, and that is to fund the requirements the military need to satisfy the national military strategy as set forth to meet the President's national security objectives. We play a vital, important role in that function. I compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for holding this special order. We will do our part in the personnel committee. We will begin by focusing not only on the recruiting and retention, the pay and the pensions issues, and we will start by a personnel hearing at Norfolk to focus on the Navy, and the other services will also be there.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if many of my colleagues are sitting here somewhat confused and scratching their heads and trying to follow this debate and they think this is a bunch of lawyers speaking lawyerly language, I kind of agree with them. They are right. I am confused. Now, I sat on the Judiciary Committee and I watched this debate. Let me share with my colleagues why. Here is why I am confused. When the censure resolution was offered in the Judiciary Committee, I asked questions of the author about what is its clear intent. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) was very clear to me. He said the intent of the censure resolution is not to have findings of guilt and it is not to punish. Then I questioned that, looking at the four corners of the document and got into the exact words, because it did have findings of guilt, that the President had egregiously failed, that he had violated his trust, that he lessened the esteem of his office, that he brought dishonor to his office and then as a form of punishment it sought that the President's actions were entitled to condemnation. The reason that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) would assert that his intent was not to have findings of guilt and not to punish is because it would have brought it within the clear prohibition of the Constitution of bills of attainder. Now, even up to yesterday on this House floor we were still discussing bills of attainder. But now there is a problem. The problem is that how do they make a censure resolution germane as an alternative to impeachment? So they have gotten clever. The cleverness is to change the title but leave the words the same. It is no longer called a censure resolution, it is now called a sense of the House. So being clever, they have now tried to distance themselves from the clear, express constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder and now say that because this is a sense of the Congress resolution, it comes under the speech and debate clause. That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. So now that the same Members who yesterday in debate said that our intent by this was not to have findings of guilt and not to punish, if you are confused that now the same Members are saying that we are having findings of guilt and our intent is to punish, the same Members are saying that now because they have changed the title and it is merely now under the speech and debate clause. As one of the legal scholars testified before the Judiciary Committee, they said that if it is a sense of the Congress, it is the equivalency of Congress shouting down Pennsylvania Avenue at the President and saying, ``We think what you have done was a bad thing,'' and it has no other clear legal effect. Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order on the motion to recommit because censure is not germane as an alternative to the impeachment resolution. I have great respect for every Member of this body. I have had opportunities to speak with many of them. I had a good conversation with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) yesterday and he and I disagree on this issue. I understand the motives and the intentions of the Members of this House who would like to censure the President for his lack of integrity, responsibility and violations of the rule of law. I understand their convictions and that is why they offer this sense of the House resolution. Americans all across the country every day, we all try very hard to live by the rules, principles and proverbs and we teach them to our children. What are they? It is called honesty: You tell the truth, be sincere, do not deceive, mislead or be devious or use trickery. Do not withhold information in relationships of trust. Do not cheat or lie to the detriment of others nor tolerate such practice. You honor your oath. Be loyal. Support and protect your family, your friends, your community and your country. Do not violate the law and ethical principles to win personal gain. Do not ask a friend to do something wrong. Judge all people on their merits. Do not abuse or demean people. Do not use, manipulate, exploit or take advantage of others for personal gain. Be responsible and accountable, think before you act, consider the consequences on all people by your actions.

Mr. BUYER. You do not blame others for your mistakes. Unfortunately, the President did not follow these principles. His criminal misconduct and dereliction of his executive duties do meet the constitutional threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. The founders in their infinite wisdom made three coordinate branches of government in a system of checks and balances. When the President and the Vice President, Federal judges and other executive officials are accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution gave this body the express authority as the accusatory body to bring the charges. That is why many of my colleagues have referred to the House as the grand jury function. That is accurate. That is why the House is the accusatory body. There is not a grand jury in this country that can investigate, prosecute and have findings, guilt and sentence. That is why in the Constitution they said we accuse and the Senate tries. It is not expressly authorized for anyone to use censure as an alternative to impeachment. Impeachment is our only course of action.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) brought up the issue of censure to this House, and I would like to address it at this time. While I appreciate the intentions of the supporters of censure, I, nonetheless, urge Members to oppose it, because it is a fraud and assault upon the Constitution. Censure is not an authorized alternative to impeachment. Congress has the express constitutional authority to censure its own Members for misconduct, but there is no expressed authority in the Constitution for Congress to censure the President. Impeachment is the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress to address presidential misconduct and dereliction in his executive duties. The Founding Fathers set high standards for impeachment, and by also providing that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove the President from office, the ensured impeachment would not become a method for Congress to harass executive or judicial officials. A censure resolution would fly in the face of the separation of powers doctrine. Congress cannot make it up as we go along. Constitutional scholar Gary McDowell stated, ``Impeachment is the only power granted by the Constitution to Congress to deal with errant executives. Had the founders intended some other means of punishment to be available to your branch they would have said so, as Chief Justice Marshall once said, `in plain and intelligible language.' That they did not do so should be your only guide in this grave and sensitive matter.'' The temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising the awful constitutional power of impeachment is obvious and is understandably great. But such a temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a power not granted should be shunned by this House. And should President Clinton, as a result of bad advice or political pressure, agree to such unconstitutional punishment as censure by this House, that would be a breach of his constitutional obligations and his oath of office, as great as anything else for which he has been accused of by the Committee on the Judiciary. The great office he is privileged to hold deserves his protection against any ill-considered censorious assault from Congress. President Andrew Jackson, one of our distinguished Presidents who is known as the Father of the Democrat Party, was censured by the Senate and after the election the Senate then expunged the censure. President Jackson's words shed great light on our challenge today even though they were penned over 150 years ago. President Jackson wrote that the very idea of censure is a ``subversion'' of the powers of government and ``destructive of the checks and safeguards'' of governmental power. President Jackson rightfully claimed that censure was ``wholly unauthorized by the Constitution'' and is a ``derogation of the entire spirit.'' The framers of the Constitution purposely avoided granting the legislature power to impose nonjudicial punishments. Such bills are condemned in the Constitution because they represent a legislative encroachment on the powers of the judiciary. It is called a bill of attainder. It pronounces the guilt upon a party without any forms or the safeguards of a trial. An integral part of the censure debate in the Committee on the Judiciary was whether the purpose of the censure that was offered was to punish the President. In answer to my questions on the intent, one of the authors, Mr. Boucher of Virginia, stated that it is not our purpose to have findings of guilt, it is not our purpose to punish the President. However, a close examination of the wording of the censure resolution appears that the explicit and the implicit purpose would be to shame the President, to voice disdain for his actions, which undermine the integrity of the Office of the President, to reprove his dubious, if not criminal acts, i.e., to punish. The censure resolution offered in the Committee on the Judiciary uses such words and phrases as, ``The President egregiously failed,'' he ``violated the trust of the American people,'' he ``lessened their esteem,'' he ``dishonored his office,'' he ``made false statements, reprehensible conduct, wrongfully took steps to delay the discovery of the truth,'' and then therefore cites that he ``fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, these words and phrases are not remedial. On the contrary, the intent is to shame and condemn the President's misconduct and impugn his reputation and is, therefore, a prohibited bill of attainder. It is unconstitutional in its form, and the idea is clearly in violation of a bill of attainder. Now, some Members of Congress are arguing that censuring the President is a better idea because it is ``what the American people want.'' I believe the American people want their elected officials to honor their oath, defend the Constitution in accordance with the laws of this Nation. Further, the American people want their elected representatives to take a stand on matters of national importance, such as the integrity of our judicial system and for Members of the House and the Senate to exercise their judgment in matters of statecraft based upon their intellect, not their emotions of the moment. The facts and evidence in this case are overwhelming; the allegations are grave. Censure is not an alternative to impeachment. While I appreciate the intentions of the supporters of censure, I nonetheless must oppose it because it is a fraud and an assault upon the Constitution. Censure is not an authorized alternative to impeachment. Congress has the expressed Constitutional authority to censure its own members for misconduct. But, there is no expressed authority in the Constitution for the Congress to censure the President. Impeachment is the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress to address presidential misconduct and dereliction of his executive duties. The Founding Fathers set high standards for impeachment by providing that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, to remove the President from office. They insured impeachment would not become a method for Congress to harass executive or judicial officials. A censure resolution would fly in the face of the separation of powers doctrine. Congress cannot make it up as we go. Constitutional scholar Gary McDowell testified: Impeachment is the only power granted by the Constitution to the Congress to deal with errant executives. Had the Founders intended some other means of punishment to be available to your branch they would have said so, as Chief Justice Marshall once said, ``in plain and intelligible language.'' That they did not do so should be your only guide in this grave and sensitive matter. The temptation to do anything possible to avoid exercising the awful constitutional power of impeachment is obviously and understandably great. But such a temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a power not granted should be shunned. And should President Clinton, as a result of bad advice or political pressure, agree to such an unconstitutional punishment as a censure (by the House), that would be a breach of his constitutional obligations as great as anything else of which he has been accused. The great office he is privileged to hold deserves his protection against any ill-considered censorious assault from Congress. President Andrew Jackson, one of our distinguished presidents who is known as a father to the Democrat Party, was censured by the Senate and after the next election, the Senate then expunged the censure. President Jackson's words shed great light on our challenge today even though they were penned over 150 years ago. President Jackson wrote that the very idea of censure is a ``subversion'' of the powers of government and ``destructive of the checks and safeguards'' of governmental power. President Jackson rightly claimed that censure was ``wholly unauthorized by the Constitution'' and is a ``derogation of its entire spirit.'' The Framers of the Constitution purposely avoided granting the legislature the power to impose nonjudicial punishment. Such bills are condemned in the Constitution because they represent ``legislative encroachment on the powers of the judiciary.'' A bill of attainder ``pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguards of trial.'' An integral part of the censure debate in Committee was whether the purpose of censure is to punish the President. In answers to my questions regarding the intent one of the authors, Mr. Boucher of Virginia, stated: ``It is not our purpose to have findings of guilt. It is not our intent to punish the President.'' However, a close examination of the wording of the censure resolution appears that the explicit and implicit purpose would be to shame the President, to voice disdain for his actions which undermine the integrity of the office of the President, to reprove his dubious if not criminal acts . . . to punish. The censure resolution offered in the Judiciary Committee used such words and phrases as ``egregiously failed,'' ``violated the trust of the American people,'' ``lessened their esteem,'' ``dishonored the office,'' ``made false statements,'' ``reprehensible conduct,'' ``wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth,'' and ``fully deserves the censure and condemnation.'' The use of these words and phrases is not remedial, on the contrary, the intent is to shame and condemn the President's misconduct and impugn his reputation. It is a prohibited bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional. Some Members of Congress argue that censoring the President is a better idea than impeachment because that ``is what the American people want.'' But I believe the American people want their elected officials to honor their oath, defend the Constitution, and act under and in accordance with the laws of their Nation. Further, the American people want their elected representatives to take a stand on matters of national importance, such as the integrity of our justice system, and for Members of Congress and the Senate to exercise judgment in matters of statecraft based on their intellect, not the emotions of the moment. The facts and evidence in this case are overwhelming; the allegations are grave. Impeachment is the only power granted to the House to deal with the President's alleged criminal misconduct.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and I would only respond by saying impeachment is the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress to address presidential criminal misconduct in the derelict exercise of his duties. The censure resolution that was offered the Committee on the Judiciary in fact has findings of guilt with a punishment. It is prohibitive then of a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. A temptation to take the easy way out by assuming a power not specifically granted in the Constitution should be shunned.