Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on National Security be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 294) recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the integration of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to mark an important historical event for the Armed Forces, and indeed, for our Nation. On July 26, 1948, just over 50 years ago, President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 ordering the racial integration of the Armed Forces. When we think about that in the context of the way things are done today, unlike this election year of 1948, it was a presidential election year, and President Truman was running for his first full term of office. Undeterred by those who today would have counseled him to wait until after the election to make such a controversial decision at that time for the integration of the Armed Forces, he acted in what I believe to be a responsible manner, and he did the right thing. Some may think that his choice was easy, but I believe that the choice at the time was not easy, and it was a courageous decision. It is not easy to make a decision that may profoundly affect the military readiness over the objections of the military leaders of that day. Yet, Harry Truman did just that. Today we acknowledge the overwhelming correctness of that decision. While President Truman took the first step, our military executed its orders with discipline and purpose. Sure there have been missteps, and yes, there are still areas that could be improved. Most important, however, is that many of America's fine young men and women were finally able to take their rightful place in the Armed Forces, and it helped transform our society. As we all know, thousands of young African Americans, both men and women, have joined the Armed Forces. They have not only joined but have succeeded in staying in the military, and in higher numbers than their majority counterparts, and are rising to the highest ranks in the military. In fact, today African Americans alone make up 20 percent of the Armed Forces. The many extraordinary examples of success obviously are far too numerous to cover adequately in these short remarks, but they include General Colin Powell; the Army four-star General Johnny Wilson; the Navy's first of many black admirals, Rear Admiral Samuel Gravely, Junior; and yes, here recently we honored, tragically, the deceased hero, the Capitol police officer, J.J. Chestnut, who served 20 years in the Air Force and was a Vietnam veteran. I believe that Officer Chestnut and many others are individuals who have served with honor and went on and, in turn, left the service and made great contributions to their communities and this country.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes minor modifications to the resolution that addresses concerns over language that may have been interpreted as conflicting with the House rule against commemoratives. These changes have been worked out in advance with the minority and the sponsor of the resolution, and I understand this to be noncontroversial. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker. I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the title.

Mr. BUYER

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

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

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend special compliments to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) not only for this bill, but I appreciate their willingness to work this out. Right now in northwest Indiana and northeast Illinois, there are two existing projects with regard to the Kankakee River Basin. One is a Corps of Engineers study, and the second is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife project referred to as the Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The location and size with regard to this, the Kankakee Watershed drains a total of 5,167 square miles. That is 2,990 square miles in Indiana, 2,177 square miles in Illinois, and 7 square miles in Michigan. The watershed extends to the high waters of the Kankakee River near the City of Southbend, Indiana, to its confluence with the Des Plaines River near Kankakee and the Des Plaines River southwest of Joliet, Illinois. The Kankakee River Basin area of northwest Indiana and northeast Illinois has been suffering from extreme flooding and siltation for many years. The river back at the turn of the century would meander and then there would be low-level lakes and then it would meander again. Indiana dredged and straightened the river in Indiana, which has caused the siltation to build up in Illinois, and the river to flood. This brought on years of lawsuits between Illinois and Indiana. I was pleased to work with Senator Lugar and Senator Simon, Tom Ewing of Illinois, and others, to help put an end to the court cases, and instead look for a long-term solution. We were able to secure authorization and funding for an Army Corps of Engineers study to address the flooding and environmental concerns. The Corps is currently in the feasibility study stage. Through the bipartisan cooperation of Congressmen Conyers, Visclosky, Roemer, Tom Ewing, Jerry Weller, and myself, the House this year appropriated $940,000 for the second phase of the feasibility study. wildlife refuge In 1996 the Fish and Wildlife Service contacted my office to inform us of their plans to look into designating a wildlife refuge in the Kankakee river basin area. Since then, I, along with Congressmen Weller, Ewing, Visclosky, and Roemer, have been active in (1) ensuring that the local residents are well informed of the Service's plans and intentions, and (2) that the Service address their concerns. We asked the Service to hold two hearings, one in each State, to listen to the locals' concerns and to take them into consideration as they examine whether to establish a wildlife refuge in the area. In Indiana alone, over 600 people showed up to learn more about the project and to express their views. The local residents are rightly concerned about the impacts upon their properties and lives, and have not received answers to their questions and concerns. It is not appropriate for the Service to push for the establishment of the refuge and for federal funding before the outstanding issues have been resolved. solution I believe that a solution can be found which will integrate the Corps findings and construction with the Service's refuge. By meshing them together, solutions can be found to address the (1) flooding, (2) siltation, and (3) environmental restoration problems. I have been working with the Corps and the Service to get these two agencies to work together in a compatible manner. In response to my efforts, Director Clark sent a letter to me, stating that the Service, ``will not finalize the draft Environmental Assessment for the refuge proposal until we have ensured, in a mutually satisfactory manner, that effective coordination has occurred between the Service and the Corps on these two projects.'' Until that occurs, it would be irresponsible and premature to designate federal funds for land acquisition for the proposed refuge. Therefore, I am offering this amendment which will limit funds under this bill to be used for the designation or land acquisition of proposed refuge in the Kankakee River Basin. I have no intention by this amendment to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife from expending funds in the planning function of its proposal to protect biodiversity in the Kankakee River Basin. I urge the adoption of this amendment which will help ensure a common-sense solution.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is an existing proposal by Fish and Wildlife. I have two projects at once. I have a Corps of Engineers study, and then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has a study. Let me do say this, though, that would be important for me to say. I have no intention by this amendment to prevent the Fish and Wildlife from extending funds in the planning function of its proposed project to protect the biodiversity.

Mr. BUYER. They can go ahead and do the planning. They cannot go in and designate and purchase lands.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. The Salton Sea has only 12 years of life left until it will cease providing a haven for over 375 species of birds and fish, including numerous endangered and threatened species. The 30,000 acre lake salt level continues to rise to levels which are already causing great amounts of disease in the species which rely upon the sea's resources. In just a short period of time the species will no longer be able to survive. To remedy the situation this bill provides for five things: reducing and stabilizing the salinity level, stabilizing the sea's surface elevation, restoring fish and wildlife resources, enhancing recreational use and environmental development, and ensuring the continued use of the sea as a reservoir for irrigation and drainage. The policy is to manage all the resources in order to balance the needs of wildlife, natural resources, and humans. They are all intertwined and all part of the same equation. Those who oppose this commonsense measure instead advocate a slower and more cautious approach. I have listened to some of the words. They say, let us be more thoughtful, or let us have a better road map. What this really means they are choosing the course that will eventually cause the demise of this valuable natural resource. It is indeed necessary for Congress to be responsible for the funds that it authorizes and appropriates. However, it is necessary for Congress to act responsibly in a timely manner in order to avoid a disaster. Losing the Salton Sea would be a disaster for all the species which utilize the area, the local economies of the communities near the sea, and anyone who is concerned about our Nation's resources. Those in opposition to this bill complain that the measure authorizes both a feasibility study and construction. In fact, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to report back to the authorizing committees after the feasibility study in order to approve the construction plans. In basic point, what we have here is a conflict. Radical environmentalists, who are also preservationists, find themselves in conflict with also their advocacy of protection of the endangered species. So what they really have here is they are endorsing the radical preservationists' view on the environment, and they want the Salton Sea to die, just let it go, let it go, let it go. We say no to that position. In memory of Sonny Bono, we will step forward and manage our Nation's resources, protect the environment, ensure that the species on the endangered species list are protected. It is management of our natural resources, which this bill is about. I ask for the passage of the rule.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. This bill appropriates $450 million above the President's request for military construction. However, it represents a total decrease of approximately $974 million from last year's bill. As a member of the installations and facilities authorizing subcommittee, I continue to be concerned about the backlog of unfunded military construction projects in our Armed Forces. Those concerns are evident throughout this bill. I would like to highlight two areas. The bill provides $125 million or chemical weapons demilitarization, including $29.5 million for the Newport Army Ammunition Plant in Indiana. Timely destruction of our chemical weapons is a time-sensitive problem. This bill, along with National Security Committee's authorization bill, outlines the long- term plan to destroy the stockpile. The bill also appropriates $309 million for Guard and Reserve construction. Maintaining our Guard and Reserve facilities is a key to readiness. While the bill provides nearly $130 million more than the Presidents request, the total is $155 million less than last year's amount. In this 14th year of real decline in the Defense budget, I intend to vote for this bill, but with the warning that we need to pay more attention to Defense spending if we intend to remain the sole remaining superpower in this world.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record my statement in support of the fiscal year 1999 energy and water appropriations, and thank both of the gentlemen for their contributions to this bill and their service to our country. I would like to thank Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their bi-partisan and expedient work in bringing this measure to the House Floor. Included in this Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999, is a continuation of funds for the Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study for the Kankakee River Basin in Indiana and Illinois. The support for this project spans both political parties in Indiana and Illinois. I appreciate the cooperation of the numerous Members who have offered their support and assistance for this vitally important project. For years, Indiana and Illinois were caught up in the court system because of flooding disputes. With a joint Congressional effort, the suits were stopped and efforts were instead focused upon finding a resolution through a basin wide Army Corps of Engineers study. The reconnaissance study has been completed and the feasibility study is beginning. The $940,000 funding that is provided in this bill for the continuation of the feasibility study will provide for a long-term solution to this problem which the residents of Northwest Indiana and Northeast Illinois deserve. Indiana is interested in participating as a local sponsor for the Indiana portion of the Kankakee River Basin feasibility study as indicated in the follow-on letter from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, IN, May 15, 1998. Mr. Paul Mohrbardt, Acting Chief of Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, Chicago, IL. Dear Mr. Mohrbardt: The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is interested in participating as a local sponsor for the Indiana portion of the Kankakee River Basin feasibility study. As a state agency, we are willing and able to participate in this study. We have reviewed the expedited reconnaissance analysis, preliminary project study plan, and model feasibility cost share agreement and understand our role and responsibilities as a local sponsor for this project. While the DNR will be the source of the required funds for this study, the DNR will be joint sponsors with the Kankakee River Basin Commission (KRBC) for the State of Indiana. The DNR is aware of the non-federal cost sharing requirements for this project. It is our understanding that the initial estimates for the feasibility study require a cash and in-kind contribution of just under $800,000 from the Indiana joint sponsors (DNR and KRBC). It is our understanding that up to 50 percent of the contribution can be appropriate in-kind services and that the remaining balance must be cash. It is our further understanding that our contribution is not required in full during the first year, but will be spread over the study term as mutually agreed upon. The DNR understands that this letter is an expression of intent. Execution of a feasibility cost share agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers will be dependent on the availability of funds. However, at this time the DNR looks forward to jointly developing the feasibility study scope of work and a cost sharing agreement with the Corps. Sincerely, Lori F. Kaplan, Deputy Director.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to two outstanding Hoosiers, Mr. Glenn Tanner and Mr. Jack Porter, whose exemplary foresight and perseverance have proven invaluable to Indiana. During the early 1980s, Glenn Tanner and Jack Porter realized the value of a divided, four-lane highway running east-west through North Central Indiana. They created a committee for the Wabash Area Chamber of Commerce to study the economic impact of improved transportation in the area. As a result of this effort, communities along the proposed corridor joined together to promote the importance of an improved highway system. Today, the Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor Inc. is comprised of concerned citizens, businesses, and governmental officials promoting a four-lane highway from Fort Wayne to Lafayette along the routes of US 24 and Indiana State Road 25. Many towns, including several industrial communities, will greatly benefit from an easily accessible connection to our nation's interstate system. In fact, it has been determined that for every $1 spent on the construction of the corridor $3.50 will be created in the communities along the corridor. It is reassuring to know how two individuals can have the foresight to see a need greater than themselves, act upon it, and lead it to a reality. Their efforts on behalf of the corridor are an example of what America is at heart. As President Lincoln said during his Gettysburg Address, ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' The Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor has been designated as a part of the National Highway System and a High Priority Corridor by Congress. The naming of the two bridges in Lewisburg along the Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor is most appropriate for these two gentlemen. Mr. Tanner and Mr. Porter have brought honor and distinction to their efforts for their continued interest and dedication to ensure that the Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor becomes a reality. They truly are an inspiration to the American dream.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished and dedicated military officer who has served this nation with great honor and distinction. Major General Max Baratz, the Chief, Army Reserve, will retire on May 24, 1998 after more than four decades of dedicated and exemplary service in the United States Army and the Army Reserve. Today, I'm proud to take a few minutes to highlight the extraordinary career of Major General Baratz. His career began in 1956 as an infantry officer. After serving as a platoon leader in the 1st Infantry Division, he carried his love of country and commitment to duty to the United States Army Reserve. As a drilling reservist, he became an engineer officer and served in a variety of staff and leadership positions to include the command of company in an Engineer Training Group and service as an Engineering Battalion Commander. In November 1976, as a full colonel, Major General Baratz was selected to be the 416th Engineer Command's Chief of Staff. Mr. Speaker, I need not remind you or my distinguished colleagues that only a handful of Army Reservists ever attain or surpass this prestigious rank, and even fewer achieve the rank of major general. But Major General Baratz was no ordinary Army Reservist, and he is no ordinary citizen--soldier. In 1979 Major General Baratz was selected as a Brigadier General in the Army Reserve. In November 1983, after 11 years of service in the 416th Engineer Command, the Army selected him as commander. President Reagan was well aware of the asset he had in Max Baratz, and nominated him for his second star--a nomination, I might add, that the other body prudently and expeditiously confirmed. During his tenure of more than three years as the commander of the 416th, also found the time to serve on the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee, firs as an alternate member in the 5th Army Area, and then as the principal member from the 4th Army Area. In the closing days of his command, he was selected to be co-chairman of the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee, a position he held until December 1990. In 1991, during Operation Desert Shield, Major General Baratz was called to active duty to serve as the Deputy Commanding General for Reserve Affairs for the same United States Forces Command. He personally oversaw the mobilization of almost 85,000 Army Reservists in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Major General Baratz was personally responsible for one-third of the entire Defense Department's reserve component mobilization to support the Gulf War, and was a major factor in the success of our national efforts in the region. I am thoroughly convinced that, without Major General Baratz personally in charge, our efforts would have been far more difficult and problematic. Those soldiers were the lifeline for the ground forces, and the successful completion of their mission is a testament to the great abilities of this military leader. Shortly after the Gulf War, Major General Baratz was again called to active duty to be Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Reserve Command. In this capacity, he was personally responsible for the training and readiness of almost all Army Reserve units in the continental United States. In 1994 he was selected to be the Chief, Army Reserve. Mr. Speaker, I believe that most people do not know the full scope and awesome responsibilities that come with this position. As the Chief, he oversees Army Reserve policy development and interaction with the Department of the Army and Department of Defense staffs. He is also the Commanding General of the United States Army Reserve Command, as well as the Deputy Commanding General for Reserve Affairs for the United States Forces Command. In short, he is the focal point for virtually all Army reserve component issues. It should come as no surprise that Major General Baratz was as dedicated and professional in this assignment as he was in all his others. he oversaw a dramatic, and at times, painful reorganization of the Army Reserve that was accomplished, first and foremost, with the needs of the Army and the nation in the forefront of his mind. While its size was being reduced by over one-third, its utility was increasing dramatically. Under his direction, Army Reserve units were the first into and the last out of Haiti. Also, over 70 percent of the Army's reserve component mobilization in support of Operation Restore Democracy came from the Army Reserve. Furthermore, Major General Baratz' efforts were eccentuated during the successfull deployment of over 15,000 Army Reservists to Bosnia, a figure representing 74 percent of the Army's reserve component mobilization. In fact, more Army Reservists have been mobilized in support of peace keeping efforts in Bosnia than were mobilized during the Vietnam conflict. Under Major General Baratz, the United States Army Reserve is better trained and more relevant to the nation than, perhaps, at any time in its distinguished history. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we all should say a prayer of thanks for Max Baratz and his desire to serve his country for over four decades and under nine different presidents. The United States Army is an institution that prides itself on leadership by example. The example Max Baratz has set ensures that we will always have dedicated men and women ready to take up the cause of our great nation wherever and whenever required. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to present the distinguished credentials of Major General Max Baratz before the Congress today. However, something tells me that we, as a nation, have not heard the last from him. This tireless patriot may be retiring, but rather than a ``farewell,'' he leaves saying, ``until we meet again.''

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio for his passion and years of work on this measure. I just want to say to the gentleman that we have in place the DEA, Customs and Border Patrol. This is an issue of who are the proper agencies out there and whether they have the sufficient funds. I respectfully disagree with the gentleman. I would urge the Members to vote for the Reyes amendment and against the gentleman's measure, respectfully.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let us stop and pause for a moment in where we are. This is a motion to recommit saying we are going to tell the President of the United States that he has to bring the troops home and we have to do it now. I have been before this body and I have stood here and I have offered amendments in the past with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). I did not like how we went into the Dayton Accords, but let us stop and think about where we are right now. Has the mission been successful? It has. Have we completely and always agreed? No, we have not. I gave a commitment to the President, I said I would no longer be your critic, I will be your constructive critic, and this is not about politics, because it could be in the year 2000 we could have a Republican President and we are going to inherit Bosnia and there are going to be troops that are going to be in Bosnia, because I firmly believe those troops are still going to be in Bosnia. The key is, how do we slowly bring those troops home so we then have a commitment to an enduring peace in Bosnia? That is what this is about, an enduring peace in Bosnia. Do not get consumed by this by saying, oh, this has got to be about the troops, bringing the troops home. If we believe in the commitment toward peace, if we really believe in that, this is also about NATO and our relationship with our NATO allies. Oh, I also want NATO to carry; actually, I want our European allies to carry a greater burden in the peace and the stability of the continent of Europe. But right now, where are we right now? This is not a wise thing to do. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Committee on International Relations and myself are working on a resolution, along with the administration. When the President of the United States said that what we are going to do is we are going to set very real benchmarks for success in the civil implementation of Bosnia, what is key is that we make sure that the benchmarks of success are realistic, they are viable, and that they are pragmatic. What we are going to do is, and we put this into resolution form, we want to come here to this body so that everyone has a comfort level with regard to the benchmarks of success, because I do not want, nor do my colleagues want troops in Bosnia for a very long time, and what is unfortunate is they may be there because of the parameters that were set out in the predicate of the Dayton Accords that may require generation secure.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the sponsor of the first amendment in order, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes of general debate time be divided three ways between myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) each controlling 10 minutes.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the sponsor of the amendment please proceed, and I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I so request. Actually, I ask it by my parliamentary inquiry, when he makes such allegation that a Member is actually falsifying evidence, whether those such words would be insulting to the House?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of order. When someone is on the floor and makes a statement against another Member by saying ``falsifying evidence,'' whether those words would really be in order on the House floor when, in fact, they are not even proven?