Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Traficant amendment. I know this body passed the amendment in the last Congress. I believe that the President, as the chief executive officer of the land, has the inherent ability if in fact there is an emergency or a threat to the borders of our Nation, I believe it is inherent to, not only as the chief security officer but also as the Commander-in-Chief, that if in fact our law enforcement agencies are inadequate to protect the ports of entry or the borders of our Nation, the military in fact should be there to do that. I believe that is inherent as the President, and we would expect the President to do that.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what makes me uncomfortable is the fact that we are going to set forth a process that when the Attorney General notifies the Department of Defense, then they have to provide, and it becomes very bothersome to me.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion. The motion before us is a motion to strike the enacting clause. This is a preferential motion that is debatable only by 5 minutes on each side. If it is withdrawn before the vote, the motion may be repeated as soon as there is any intervening business, like further debate. If the motion is agreed to, the Committee will rise and there is a vote on the motion before the House. If that motion is agreed to, the defense bill is dead. So I want everybody to completely understand what is before the House. Secondly, let me address the comments on Bosnia. What I said of the President is, I would become not his critic but his constructive critic. And what I mean by that is that I want to work with the administration on an end state in Bosnia. What we hope to do, and what I have been working on with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Committee on International Relations, along with the administration, is that when the President said he would set benchmarks of success in Bosnia on the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords, that in fact these are benchmarks that are realistic and achievable; ones that are pragmatic and ones that I believe are realistic. We are in the course of drafting that resolution so it can be brought to this House floor so we can have the type of vote that the two Members that just previously spoke can actually have. Hopefully, we can do that in the next month. I urge Members, if in fact a vote is called, to vote against the motion.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman brings up a very good point that the Members should understand about the Posse Comitatus Act. When we have many different agencies out there, whether it is the Customs agency on the Border or any agencies, then if it is such a threat, then we should be beefing up those agencies, not our military getting involved in civil affairs.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we all have to recognize is that, in 1993, as we had a larger military force than we have today, that there were people that were looking for other jobs for the military to do in civil military affairs and other things. This idea also came about around that same time period.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what we have to recognize right now with the United States Army is we are left with 10 divisions and of those 10 divisions, we have the five follow-on divisions that are being hollowed out; and we have to be very careful if we are going to be taking our troops and assigning them into collateral duties. Let us be very careful. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, one of my former Democrat colleagues came to the floor and said he recognizes that there a general level of frustration in the House, and I think he is accurate and correct. The level of frustration is there because I believe that the correct body to conduct such a vast investigation should be an independent counsel. We have asked for an independent counsel for a very long time from the Justice Department, and that is who I think the proper body is. Even the Speaker of the House has an idea to have a select committee, and different people are trying to grope with it. My preference is to have the Attorney General appoint the Independent Counsel, and the momentum of the evidence is building. I can recall how disturbed I was when I learned that the Attorney General in the fall of 1995 had been warned by our security sources that China was attempting to influence our elections, and then that she thought enough about that concern to pick up the phone and call the National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, but he was not in and she never bothered to call back personally again. That really bothered me. I asked her if she ever had a peculiar feeling about not having exercised her due diligence, and she said no, it did not bother her at all. See, that kind of bothers me. It bothers me because if I had a friend whom I knew was about to be shot or killed, I would want to warn them. When the Attorney General finds themselves in that position of having such information, they should have in fact warned the President that there are individuals who were going to seek to have monies come into this country to influence the process. We find out now it was influenced from so many different angles, there are different allegations. Whether the debates are in this House with Loral and whether or not they have transferred, whether it is satellite, to dual use technologies in the ballistic missile category, it is very, very concerning. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come to the House just to share this. I am very bothered that over 90 witnesses would come forward and take the Fifth Amendment. That is their Constitution right. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is absolutely correct, and so is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). That is their constitutional right. But how do you get around that Fifth Amendment? You have the Independent Counsel, or Justice, you take them before the grand jury. Then they give them that immunity, and if they do not testify, then they end up going to jail. But there is a proper mechanism for us to get here. I understand the general level of frustration by the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like everyone to recognize, this has been one of the consequences of base closures. Many of the retirees, they located next to these military treatment facilities and now that the bases have closed, they are unwilling to move, and they do not want to move. They are stationed where they are. So we are dealing with some cleanup work to do from base closures, and that is what this is about. I want to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel whose letter we received, we made it a part of the Record; not only the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), so we are well aware of their objections. We recognize that the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means were not committees of jurisdiction on this, but what I want to say to the gentleman is that invitations were sent out, there were meetings with CBO and the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the Committee on National Security on this. The gentleman has raised some very interesting points here today, and what I would like to do between now and conference is for us to work together on this as we move toward a demonstration. I also want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). I appreciate them accepting that one of these sites should also be one of the Medicare subvention sites so we completely understand what we are doing, and I am glad we are not moving to the total phase-in, but only a limited pilot.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, over the past three decades, the availability of abortion services at military medical facilities has been the subject of numerous changes and interpretations over the years. In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions be performed in military treatment facilities. The changes ordered by the President, however, did not have the effect of greatly increasing access to abortion services. Few abortions were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for two principle reasons: First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of foreign countries regarding abortions and, secondly, the military had a difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to perform the abortions. The current law is consistent with the Hyde language. It allows military women and dependents to receive abortions in military treatment facilities in cases of rape, incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother. This is the same policy that has been in effect from June 1988, until President Clinton signed the executive order. The House has voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. Last year this amendment was offered and defeated at full committee markup and during floor consideration. In 1996, between the defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill, this House voted 8 times in favor of the ban on abortions at military treatment facilities. In those overseas areas, where female beneficiaries do not have access to safe, legal abortions, beneficiaries have the option of using space-available travel for returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What was very concerning to me was to learn that in 1996 Loral and Hughes had exported commercial satellites to China to launch the Chinese missile and then, in fact, it had exploded. A Loral subsidiary provided technicians and a report on improving the reliability of the Long March Rocket without first consulting U.S. officials. And then to learn that the Chinese military officer, in fact, had funneled $100,000 to the Clinton campaign, allegedly through Johnny Chung. We also have Mr. Schwartz, the chairman of Loral Space Communications, who was the leading soft money donor for the Democrat Party in 1996 in the amount of $366,000. Subsequently, there was a Justice Department investigation. And then in February of 1998 the Justice Department criminal inquiry was dealt a very serious blow when President Clinton quietly approved the export to China of similar guidance technology by Loral. Basically, what that did was then defunct the Justice Department investigation. There are so many allegations that are happening in this town with regard to the administration and what is going on, I cannot even keep up with them. But what I can say when it comes to matters of national security, the proliferation issues, the transfers of technology, to think that the United States would transfer these technologies by redefining what a satellite is, is no longer under the munitions definition, somehow being slick in getting around definitions, believe me, other countries out there react to it. So people in America, when they were surprised to learn about India's detonation and learning about their nuclear capacities, should not be surprised, because if the administration is doing such things like this, it will cause reactions.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time to say I respect human life, yes, on my set of values, on the set of values that is the proponent of life as opposed to killing a human being.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond. I believe the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) are probably very insulting to conservative Democrats.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is not solely about rockets that may reach U.S. cities. We also have allies in the Pacific Rim for which we have responsibilities within that security of the world. And to think that China, when they had threatened Taiwan and the more we sophisticate their weaponry to inflict harm upon our own allies, how can we in fact count on them if we cannot stand with them in moments like this?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to claim the opposition's time.

Mr. BUYER. Thirty seconds? Well, in 30 seconds, let me just say, let us do the right thing. I am a Member that is very disturbed about the transfers of technology. Just pause for a moment in this body. We serve a greater cause than corporations. Corporations serve the bottom line, called profit, and their responsibility is to their stockholders. Our responsibility is, in fact, to the taxpayers and the citizens of this country under the umbrella of national security. So for the White House to sell out for other reasons, to corporations for profit, by pressure, we serve a greater cause here and there better be a deep appreciation of this.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).