Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to make a couple of observations. One is that, in fact, the amendment before us is striking language. So with regard to the last speaker, when he said we only want to provide constitutionally protected abortion access, then what we do is we set forth the scenario of having also late-term abortions. Partial- birth abortions could also then be performed at military treatment facilities. I do not think that is what we want at military treatment facilities. We also have the scenario where it was argued this would not have anything to do with taxpayer funds. Well, if in fact our problem is we cannot find a military doctor willing to perform an abortion, then are we going to have to contract out to have that abortion performed? And if it is contracted out, who pays for that? So I think we are talking about some taxpayer funding. Also, I am paying attention to the language here, and I think everyone should. I guess what we are calling abortions here on the House floor, the proponents of this amendment do not want to call it abortion. They call it women's health and comprehensive reproductive health services. But let us call it what it is. This is taking the life of another.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to remind the Members, with regard to national security issues, the Supreme Court permits the Congress of the United States to establish the laws. And in particular, we do set out rules and policies that end up discriminating against people and we have rules and procedures that are unequal when we compare sometimes what we do compared to what happens in the civilian sector. We get to discriminate whether someone is too tall, overweight, whether they are diabetic. Those discriminations are permitted as we make many different decisions on building unit cohesions. So we get to make these decisions within this body, so I wanted to share that with everyone. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a member of the committee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has the right to close?

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 guess I would share with some of the speakers, the proponents of this amendment, they should bring the amendment to be the proponents for those who are diabetic and fight for the diabetes or fight for someone that is overweight or that is too tall or too short. There are many rules and regulations that are out there that I want to share with the body. On this issue, we also have the issue of military medical readiness. We train all of our nurses and doctors how to do proper triage for saving of life from the battlefield. One of the things that is not on there is the performing of an abortion service to take life. Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to oppose the amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. I just wanted to do a reminder to my colleagues. If you recall, it was several years ago we had a debate in the Committee on National Security, and that was who should make these decisions on the transfers of these type of technologies. At the time, the administration wanted the Committee on Commerce to do that and to take the Pentagon out of that question. We made the decision in a very bipartisan manner in the Committee on National Security, that we felt matters such as this are so important to our Nation that the Pentagon needs to be in the loop. When we force the Pentagon into the loop and when the Pentagon raises objections, they then get squashed, that is not a good thing. I support the Hefley amendment to remove the waiver authority by the President.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the author of the amendment. Earlier I rose and discussed that this question came up several years ago in the Committee on National Security with regard to the jurisdiction question on commodity. As I understand, on commodity jurisdiction, the transfer from the State Department with regard to satellites that used to be classified under the munitions has now been transferred to the Commerce Department, who would look at the satellite and say this is really dual-use technology. Am I understanding that correctly?

Mr. BUYER. But the sensitivity about the duality of the purposes, saying that this is a rocket system that could only launch a satellite, in essence is the same rocket system that it would take to send a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world.

Mr. BUYER. So earlier when the House adopted an amendment that said no to the President on waivers of munitions, this amendment is saying no to the waivers on the commodities?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond. This is not a question of those in the military versus women who serve in the military, and I think that is an insulting argument for anybody to use and it is a red herring in this argument. If my colleague wants to talk about respect, I have respect for the sanctity of human life. That is what this is about. My colleague is a little uncomfortable about that, is she not? That is what this is about. It is about human life. Think about our military. The purpose we have in the military is to protect our freedoms and our liberties, and when that is laid out in the Constitution, we believe, we, those of us who believe in the sanctity of life, believe, and I am just as happy that the gentlewoman's parents decided to have her, just as I am glad my parents decided to have me, and I am appalled that someone would come to the floor and say this is something about women's rights.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no difference in treatment between the officer corps and the NCO corps, the enlisted corps on this measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond and say that space-available travel is at no cost to the service member so there is no discrimination between rank of officers and enlisted.

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor because I want to ensure that the Members that come to vote on this rule understand what happened in the Committee on National Security with regard to the Kassebaum-Baker panel's recommendations. There are no distortions that are out there. Nancy Kassebaum's panel were 10 individuals of highly diverse background who made a unanimous decision that was overwhelmingly received favorably across the country. Why? Because it gave common sense solutions. It said, separate by gender in the barracks and at the small unit level, that is flights in the Air Force, divisions in the Navy and by platoon in the Army, but then when they go train, it is integrated training. There are those that are trying to distort this by calling it segregated training. That is completely false. I want Members to understand this is only separating by barracks. Basically we are saying we do not necessarily think that young men and women ought to be sleeping together and we recognize that we have some collateral problems when that occurs. So when Members come to the floor, I want them to be very clear in understanding what exactly this is. It is the Nancy Kassebaum language on those two issues. And to make sure that the services across the river do not spin this with regard to the Air Force, this takes the Air Force back to the way they were doing it for over 20 years. They used to separate by flight, by gender, until July of last year. So do not let anybody distort this. I want to be very clear with Members. If they have any questions, contact me and I will be very pleased to explain it to them.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I only want to make these few comments. I serve on the Committee on National Security and also serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, the Subcommittee on Crime, so I have the unique perspective to share a comment on this measure before the House today. I applaud the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for bringing the measure. From a national security standpoint, we all know and understand the almost $250 billion we spend as a Nation to ensure that our peace and security is there as we live in the world. But we should also remember our domestic security; and that is those of whom have placed themselves by their own choosing in an environment that involves great hardship, a tremendous amount of risk, and even places themselves in peril. When I said they do that by their own choosing, they understand that they are serving something that is greater than themselves, and that is that they want to ensure that the children and those who live within the community do so in peace. They have to make judgments. At times, it would be very easy for them not to place themselves in a high-risk environment, but they step forward and place themselves in a high-risk environment knowing that they placed themselves at risk of even possible death and serious bodily injury. They do that to serve, I think, a higher cause, which makes their service to our communities, our State, and their country that of high honor and something that we should admire. So when I think about all of those that have given their life in the line of duty, I think that their risk and what they have done should be recognized by our country. So often we think about the soldiers that die on a distant battlefield, and we give them high honor and respect, but we should also give equal high honor and respect to those who serve in the battlefields within our communities. That is what we are doing here today, coming together in a bipartisan fashion here in the House to pause and say thank you, not only to those servicemen and servicewomen who are in our communities, but also to the families out there, the widows and their orphans.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for seeing the need of our law enforcement communities and addressing it. I also am a cosponsor of this measure and I appreciate the gentleman's work. We also share Lake County, Indiana, so I thoroughly understand the need in the northern part of the county. This bill will provide local communities with the means to provide its law enforcement officers with bulletproof vests. It also addresses those who are on the lines everyday. The bulletproof vests, as was stated by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), and I agree with him, the vests should be as much a part of the equipment when officers are issued their badge, when they get their night stick, when they get their sidearm, when they are issued an automobile and they get a shotgun. Why they also do not get a bulletproof vest is beyond me. I think it is completely unfortunate. Let me share one other thing. Even though I am a cosponsor of this bill, what I do not want to do is to build a constituency for that which communities should be doing in the first place. I agree with the 50-50 match, and I kind of look at this in my own mind as an opportunity to send a really good message out across the country, and that is to ensure that the county councils, the city councils are doing the job, providing the funding and the standard operating equipment, and we believe here in Congress that a vest is part of that standard operating equipment. So I am interested, I want to move forward; and I want Congress to pass this bill and provide the money. But in the long run, I am not interested in growing the Federal Government, in growing a constituency. I want to ensure that jurisdictions across the country do their job. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise here as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and I also witnessed a lot of strain on military readiness. Last year, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) released a report on military readiness, which I believe sounded an alarm on the strain of the Armed Forces today. Following his lead, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a field hearing at Ft. Riley, Kansas in March to look at the readiness of our late deploying Army divisions. In addition, we asked the GAO to look into these divisions, and here is what we found. The 10th division, only 138 of 162 infantry squads were fully or minimally manned. At the 2nd and 3rd brigades, the 25th division, 52 out of 162 infantry squads were minimally filled. At the 1st brigade of the 1st division, only 56 percent of the authorized infantry soldiers for its Bradley fighting vehicles were assigned. At the 4th infantry division, 13 of 54 squads in the engineer brigade had no personnel assigned or had fewer personnel assigned than required. At the hearing, we heard concerns from a variety of army officers and staff NCOs. The company of the 3rd brigade of the 4th infantry division said, ``We are in danger of becoming an Army of privates,'' as senior NCOs were taken from the line units to fill critical billets in recruiting and drill instructor duty. And peacekeeping missions, we are left with NCOs who do not have senior status leading these squads. Also, the sergeant major of the 1st brigade, 1st infantry division, stated that ``Our shortfall in assigned noncommissioned officers does negatively impact readiness.'' We found approximately 330 NCOs are missing out of the brigades of the follow-on divisions. That is very, very serious if we are called upon to use them in a wartime scenario. Mr. Speaker, I have a GAO report from which I took information, and I would ask unanimous consent to place that into the Record. The report referred to is as follows: Testimony Before the Subcommittees on Readiness and Military Personnel, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives MILITARY READINESS--Observations on Personnel Readiness in Later Deploying Army Divisions (Statement of Mark E. Gebicke, Director, Military Operations and Capabilities Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division) Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees: I am pleased to be here to discuss our preliminary finding from our ongoing evaluation of personnel readiness in the Army's five later-deploying divisions. These divisions constitute almost half of the Army's active combat forces and, according to Army officials, are critical to the success of specific war plans and the national military strategy. This morning, I would first like to summarize our preliminary observations regarding personnel readiness in the later-deploying divisions. Then, I would like to describe in more detail the (1) extent of personnel shortages in the divisions and the extent to which these shortages are reflected in readiness reports, (2) key factors contributing to personnel shortages and the impact such shortages have on readiness, (3) Army's plans for correcting such shortages should these divisions be called upon to deploy, and (4) issues to be considered in dealing with personnel shortages. Unless otherwise indicated, the information provided reflects what we found at the time of our visits to the later- deploying divisions during the period August 1997 through January 1998. summary In the aggregate, the Army's five later-deploying divisions had an average of 93 percent of their personnel on board at the time of our visits. However, aggregate data does not fully reflect the extent of shortages of combat troops, technical specialists, experienced officers, and noncommissioned officers (NCO) that exist in those divisions. The readiness reporting system that contains the aggregate data on these divisions does not fully disclose the impact of personnel shortages on the ability of the divisions' units to accomplish critical wartime tasks. As a result, there is a disconnect between the reported readiness of these forces in formal readiness reports and the actual readiness that we observed on our visits. These disconnects exist because the unit readiness reporting system does not consider some information that has a significant impact on a unit's readiness, such as operating tempo, personnel shortfalls in key positions, and crew and squad staffing. The Army's priority in assigning personnel to these divisions, Army-wide shortages of personnel, frequent deployments to peacekeeping missions, and the assignment of soldiers to other tasks outside of their specialty are the primary reasons for personnel shortfalls. The impact of personnel shortages on training and readiness is exacerbated by the extent to which personnel are being used for work outside their specialties or units. According to commanders in all the divisions, the collective impact of understaffing squads and crews, transferring to other jobs the NCOs from the crews and squads they are responsible for training, and assigning personnel to other units as fillers for exercises and operations have degraded their capability and readiness. If the Army had to deploy these divisions for a high- intensity conflict, these divisions would fill their units with Individual Ready Reserve Soldiers, \1\ retired servicemembers, and newly recruited soldiers. However, the Army's plan for providing these personnel includes assumptions that have not been validated, and there may not be enough trained personnel to fully staff or fill later- deploying divisions within their scheduled deployment times. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solutions, if any, to these problems will depend upon how the Army plans to use these divisions in the future. Before I continue, I want to provide you with additional background about the Army's divisions. Background Today's Army faces an enormous challenge to balance risks and resources in order to meet its many missions. Since 1990, active Army ranks have been reduced from 770,000 to 495,000 personnel, a reduction of about 36 percent. Simultaneously, world events have dictated that forces be trained and ready to respond to potential high-intensity missions in areas such as Korea and the Persian Gulf while conducting peace enhancement operations around the world. The Army currently has 10 active combat divisions compared to the 18 it had at the start of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Four of the 10 divisions are considered contingency divisions and would be the first to deploy in the event of a major theater war. These units are the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, 3rd Infantry, and 1st Cavalry divisions. The 2nd Infantry Division, while not a contingency force division, is already deployed in Korea. The remaining five divisions, which are the focus of my testimony, are expected to deploy in the event of a second simultaneous or nearly simultaneous major theater contingency or as reinforcements for a larger-than-expected first contingency. These units are the 1st Armor, 1st Infantry, 4th Infantry, 10th Infantry, and 25th Infantry divisions. Also, these divisions have been assigned the bulk of the recent peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Haiti, and the 4th Infantry division over the last 2 years has been conducting the Army's advanced war-fighting experiment. Appendix I provides a list of the Army's current active divisions and the locations of each division's associated brigades. personnel shortages are significant in later-deploying divisions In the aggregate, the Army's later-deploying divisions were assigned 66,053, or 93 percent, of their 70,665 authorized personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 1998. However, aggregate numbers do not adequately reflect the condition that exists within individual battalions, companies, and platoons of these divisions. This is because excess personnel exist in some grades, ranks, and skills, while shortages exist in others. For example, while the 1st Armor Division was staffed at 94 percent in the aggregate, its combat support and service support specialties were filled at below 85 percent, and captains and majors were filled at 73 percent. In addition, a portion of each later-deploying division exists only on paper because all authorized personnel have not been assigned. All these divisions contain some squads, crews, and platoons in which no personnel or a minimum number of personnel are assigned. Assigning a minimum number of personnel to a crew means having fewer personnel than needed to fully accomplish wartime missions; for example, having five soldiers per infantry squad rather than nine, tank crews with three soldiers instead of four, or artillery crews with six soldiers rather than nine. We found significant personnel shortfalls in all the later-deploying divisions. For example: At the 10th Infantry Division, only 138 of 162 infantry squads were fully or minimally filled, and 36 of the filled squads were unqualified. At the 2nd and 3rd brigades of the 25th Infantry Division, 52 of 162 infantry squads were minimally filled or had no personnel assigned. At the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, only 56 percent of the authorized infantry soldiers for its Bradley Fighting Vehicles were assigned, and in the 2nd Brigade, 21 of 48 infantry squads had no personnel assigned. At the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Armor Division, only 16 of 116 M1A1 tanks had full crews and were qualified, and in one of the Brigade's two armor battalions, 14 of 58 tanks had no crewmembers assigned because the personnel were deployed to Bosnia. In addition, at the Division's engineer brigade in Germany, 11 of 24 bridge teams had no personnel assigned. At the 4th Infantry Division, 13 of 54 squads in the engineer brigade had no personnel assigned or had fewer personnel assigned than required. The significance of personnel shortfalls in later-deploying divisions cannot be adequately captured solely in terms of overall numbers. The rank, grade, and experience of the personnel assigned must also be considered. For example, captains and majors are in short supply Army-wide due to drawdown initiatives undertaken in recent years. The five later-deploying divisions had only 91 percent and 78 percent of the captains and majors authorized, respectively, but 138 percent of the lieutenants authorized. The result is that unit commanders must fill leadership positions in many units with less-experienced officers than Army doctrine requires. For example, in the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, 65 percent of the key staff positions designated to be filled by captains were actually filled by lieutenants or captains that were not graduates of the Advanced Course. We found that three of the five battalion maintenance officers, four of the six battalion supply officers, and three of the four battalion signal officers were lieutenants rather than captains. While this situation represents an excellent opportunity for the junior officers, it also represents a situation in which critical support functions are being guided by officers without the required training or experience. There is also a significant shortage of NCOs in the later- deploying divisions. Again, within the 1st Brigade, 226, or 17 percent of the 1,450, total NCO authorizations, were not filled at the time of our visit. As was the case in all the divisions, a significant shortage was at the first-line supervisor, sergeant E-5, level. At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the five later-deploying divisions were short nearly 1,900 of the total 25,357 NCOs authorized, and as of February 15, 1998, this shortage had grown to almost 2,200.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, before I give remarks, I think the American people can see that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is perhaps one of the most partisan Democrats here in this body. I think he takes pride in that, and I applaud that because there really is not anything wrong with partisan politics; this is a political body, so that is what this is about. Madam Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel here in the people's House on behalf of the American people and the 1.2 million active military personnel worldwide and those in the Reserves. I am here to send a message to this administration, and in particular to the President, on his conduct as Commander in Chief. The message is that military personnel look to the Commander in Chief to set the high standard of ethical behavior and morality. Military personnel are required to set a high example of conduct in order to set an example to those they lead. Adherence to high moral standards is the fabric of good order and discipline in the military. When military leaders fall short of this ideal, then there is confusion and disruption. Today, many see a double standard in the military. There is a double standard because the Commander in Chief has allegedly conducted himself in a manner that would be a court-martial offense for military personnel for sexual assault and sexual harassment regarding the allegations by the Democrat staffer in the White House, Kathleen Willey. What about the double standard in the White House of those claiming that the Air Force general did not qualify as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he had a relationship with a woman pending a divorce, and then we look at the President's own admitted adultery. What about the Secretary of Defense? William Cohen stated in an interview recently that the President's alleged conduct is having no effect on troop morale. I respectfully disagree. This is not just my concern. Let me share with my colleagues a letter I received recently from a retired Army officer with 30 years of service, Colonel John Hay. What he stated was, ``From the earliest days of service, our new enlisted men and women and officers are taught the necessity of military ethic, chain of command, standards of conduct and principles of leadership; all enforced by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These standards and values instilled early and continued throughout a career in the military are necessary to maintain the essential trust between the military and the Nation's civilian command authority. These military ethics, values and standards of conduct are generated by the fact that the activities conducted by the Armed Forces are official acts of the Nation. Since ours is a Nation that conducts itself within a set of stated high values, the manner in which our forces perform their duties must be carried out with the same set of high values. Thus, the consistent support of the Nation can only be maintained by expecting and enforcing the highest ethical standards upon every echelon of the military chain of command from the President, as our Commander in Chief, down to and including every individual soldier, sailor, marine and airman.'' The Founding Fathers were concerned about the ethical standards of the military leaders. Madam Speaker, it was John Adams that included the first naval regulations, language that called for naval officers to have high moral and ethical standards. This language was codified for naval officers by Congress in 1956 and for the Army and the Air Force in 1997 in last year's bill. This language calls for officers to ``show themselves a good example of virtue, honor and patriotism and to subordinate themselves to those ideals, and to guard against and to put an end to all dissolute and immoral practices and to correct all persons who are guilty of them.'' Madam Speaker, there is frustration and confusion in the military. Over the last 18 months, I have traveled to a number of military installations and training centers, not only here in the United States, but all over the world, as I have conducted extensive review in sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the United States military. I have heard the questions from military personnel about the behavior of the President as the Commander in Chief. As a Member of Congress and as an officer in the Army Reserves, I myself find these questions disturbing. Each of the services is recruiting young people all across the Nation. At boot camp they are infusing these young men and women with moral values of honor, courage and commitment. They are teaching self- restraint, discipline and self-sacrifice. Therein lies the understanding of deserving honor. Military leaders are required to provide a good example to these young recruits, yet when they look up the chain of command, they see a double standard at the very top. That is why I have decided to include in my chairman's mark on Thursday for the military personnel section to the National Defense Authorization Act language that will apply John Adam's original guidance on ethical conduct for military officers to our national command authority, in particular the Secretary of Defense and the President, while acting as Commander in Chief. I hope this language sends a loud and clear message to the administration. They are being watched. From the 18-year-old recruit to the admiral, they all look to the Commander in Chief to set the tone and serve as an example of high moral and ethical behavior. Madam Speaker, I believe that it is worthier to deserve honor and hold it with humility than to have it, shamelessly flaunt it, and not deserve it.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Chairman for his hard work. It is truly good work, a good product. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their dedication to bringing H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act, to the House Floor. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has taken positive steps to significantly improve donor states' rate-of-return. Indiana is and has been a donor state. For years now, Indiana has received only 77 cents for every $1 generated in federal gas tax revenues in Indiana. Now that the National Highway System has been completed, the time has arrived for Congress to bring fairness and equity back into transportation funding and spending. BESTEA includes a 90% rate-of-return. The Senate-passed version contains a 91% rate-of-return. As the process continues, donor states continue to seek a 95% rate-of-return. Both versions have made great strides to bringing fairness and equity to the funding. It would not only be unfair, but also an injustice for the Conference Committee to not support the great strides that both Chambers have made. I encourage Mr. Shuster and Mr. Oberstar to continue the fine work they have begun with this bill as it moves to conference.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is our opportunity to structure a debate so that there will be clarity and understanding.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have pending a reservation on my unanimous consent request. My parliamentary inquiry is, is it within the prerogative of the Chair to designate time if there is 60 minutes debate on the underlying measure, and in the rule it states 30 minutes on the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), whether the first 60 minutes would in fact be on Mr. Livingston's bill, and the remainder on the Skaggs provision, would it be within the Chair's prerogative to designate the time?