Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the fine work in this bill. I rise in strong opposition to section 3002 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iraq unless the President gains congressional approval for the use of the military force regarding the compliance with U.N. resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction. I have opposed President Clinton on the use of military force on many occasions in this House. On this issue, though, I look at this, and as a matter of fact, my opposition has been really on two grounds, one on philosophy and the other with regard to poor consultation with this administration and Congress. When I think of the President's use of military force, he likes to use our military force in every corner of the world based on some form of moral authority, humanitarian missions, and peacekeeping missions. When I think of the Skaggs amendment, I believe the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) highlights the very poor consultation that the administration has with this Congress. It is tempting to support the Skaggs amendment. I cannot, because I happen to believe that this is much bigger than Bill Clinton. This, in fact, is about the presidency and its relationship to the Congress. It is a constitutional question, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) just mentioned. When I think of this question, or any Commander in Chief as such, I believe that the Commander in Chief requires the flexibility to respond to the international crises as they arise. Congress has only actually declared war five times. There have been many occasions where troops have found themselves in harm's way in response to crises around the world. As a matter of fact, the crises sometimes are immediate and emergent, and the presidency needs that type of flexibility. Iraq is one area where history shows that a crisis arises unpredictably and on short notice. I do not want to tie a President's hands in a critical area of the world. I believe that could be irresponsible and potentially dangerous. When I think of about a month ago, when an offensive action was imminent in the Persian Gulf, I was one of the few voices here on Capitol Hill that was asking for a go slow-caution approach, because use of force is a last resort, not a first resort. When we are operating in the arena of diplomacy, I do not believe we ever want to remove one of the tools from the toolbox. When in fact we are going to say to the world, or in particular to Saddam Hussein, that this President can take no actions unless Congress first responds, just permit the mind to flow and create every imaginable consequence that could arise from a mind like Saddam Hussein's. As we depart from here for 2\1/2\ weeks, anything could happen while we are away. Saddam Hussein, by example, could use weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds or the Shi'ites, permit some type of spraying operation with regard to the spores of anthrax in that part of the world. As the winds swirl, they could find their way into Kuwait, and this President might want some form of an immediate response. I know the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) could possibly, and I am not going to argue for him, he is very capable of doing that, but I think he put it in some kind of Dear Colleague that the President could call the Congress back into session. How realistic is it that he would do that? How often does that happen? I really do like the flexibility on the part of the Commander in Chief to respond, especially to stand up against someone like Saddam Hussein. For us to somehow tie his hands to respond would be very poor. I do not want to do that. What I want to share with my colleagues is, and I know I am fighting with my own temptation to support the gentleman from Colorado, but this issue is much bigger than this President. It is about the relationship between this Congress and the presidency. Now the United States, as we find ourselves the sole remaining superpower in the world, many nations of the world look to us for their immediate consultation. Whether it is a consultation, counsel, support, the President needs the ability to respond. When there is a problem anywhere in the world and that commander goes to the President of the United States for any type of support, he needs that ability to respond. The Congress, all of us, and there have been many debates over the past years about the use of force and Congress' prerogative. We control the pursestrings. We have those debates. I think every Member of the Congress, if it came down to a sustained offensive military operation in Iraq, would require a vote here on the House floor. But when it would be responding, whether in self-defense or in response to Saddam Hussein's bizarre behavior, this President needs the flexibility to respond.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule here to be structured, there will be 60 minutes debate on the present bill and then the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be debating for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be debated on the underlying measure, the middle 30 minutes to be shared equally, 15 minutes by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), 15 minutes by myself leading in opposition, with the remaining 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I asked for this is to make sure that the debate is structured. If we are going to take the 90 minutes and have it commingled with the measure of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), it would be lost in the debate. Not only for the Members, but also for the American people to understand this important measure with regard to tying the hands of the Presidency, we should be able to debate for clarity.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, this is not easy for me. This is not easy for me because I have covered the waterfront like the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on this issue. We had a good discussion at a hearing this morning with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Wes Clark. I thought it was a very productive hearing the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) held with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) of the Committee on National Security. It was some time ago the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale), we brought some resolutions to the floor, three of them. As a matter of fact, the first one that we brought with regard to Bosnia was we do not like where the Dayton Accord is going. We heard a lot of the discussions coming out of Dayton, and what was happening was that the President got the parties to the table, and there was some sort of anxiety to get something on the paper and to use U.S. ground forces to separate the warring factions. So they were anxious to do that. But the House stepped forward with a vote of 315 Members that said, wait a minute, do not use U.S. ground forces to separate the parties. Focus, force the parties to focus on the real reasons they are killing each other. That is how we will move to cure. That is what was the vote of this House. But there really was not the close coordination and cooperation between the House and the administration because they went and did as they pleased. And they used U.S. ground troops to separate the warring factions. When you do that without permitting the parties to focus on why they are killing each other, it will require generations to cure. And there is where we have ourselves today. The military, I have heard the speakers, they are right, the troops are wonderful. The morale is high. They meet their deadlines. They are doing real missions, and they are proud of their efforts. We should be proud of them. But the civil implementation of Dayton lagged very far behind. The special Ambassador that we have today in that position over the last 9 months has made leaps and bounds in progress. He needs our support. Now, it is awkward for me to be standing here saying this, but when you go to Bosnia and you see this effort, all of us must endorse an enduring peace in Bosnia. The ultimate question is by whom? I believe the United States as a sole remaining superpower has a responsibility to quiet and ensure regional stability. But when you have then civil wars within a region that pose no threat to destabilize a region, then we need to rely upon our regional allies. Aha, there is the debate. I do not believe, as the last Speaker or the Vice President or the President says, we had to be in Bosnia because Bosnia had the potential of destabilizing Europe. That is false. We do not have the same dynamic of the Hungarian Empire. The emotion of saying, well, that is where two wars started does not move me. I think it is important for us to place great stressors on our European allies to play a greater role, but where we are today is when the President has stepped forward and he has said that with regard to the civil implementation process in Bosnia, we will set real benchmarks for success, I will share with the House that I am working with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and we will bring a resolution to the floor that these will be benchmarks with specificity. They will neither be vague nor ambiguous. And we will also give some dates certain to move that process along, because we do not want to be in Bosnia for the next 15 to 20 years. I think that is the intent of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). I agree with him. I also voted with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) a few years back to repeal the War Powers Act. You say, well, how can you then vote against the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) today? Well, because I do not like using the backdrop for what he has done here. I do not like the backdrop on Bosnia. I gave the commitment to the President that, yes, I am your critic, but I am your constructive critic. I want to help you get out of the box from which we are presently in. You see because when I was in Bosnia, I did not see evidence of where a true self-sustaining peace was at hand. That is hard for me to say. The United States is presently caught. We are in a box. If the United States, if we leave, the parties will likely, with likely probability, return to bloodshed. Therefore, the U.S. forces remaining, we provide the reassurance to the people, and at the same time we provide cover to the elected leaders who move slowly and call for patience. Changing the dynamic in Bosnia is extraordinarily important because the leaders in Bosnia of the Croats, the Muslims and the Serbs were also the present war leaders. These individuals focus on their differences, what separates them, rather than that which could bring them together in commonality. The elections this fall will be very important. So what we hope to do not only is in changing this dynamic, but when we set these, when we set real benchmarks to measure success, it is also matched with troop reductions that we then move to an over-the-horizon position. That is where we want to take this. So, reluctantly, I have to come to the floor and oppose the gentleman from California's measure. It is not easy for me to do that, given how I feel on the War Powers Act, and I wanted to share that with you.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2181, which is to address the very real problem of intimidation of witnesses. The instances of intimidation across State lines is especially pronounced in gang and drug cases, frustrating the ability of State and local authorities to successfully prosecute these cases to include the Federal Government. The intimidation of witnesses is specifically intended to undermine and subvert our system of justice. I believe that it is an insult to the integrity of the judicial system. Let me give an example. The last case that I was involved with in the United States Attorney's Office involved two Colombians charged with the distribution of cocaine. Three of our witnesses were also witnesses in a State collateral case, one of which was an informant who we had spoken to. The following morning they were found in the kitchen of an apartment, their hands tied behind their backs, washcloths stuffed in their mouths, and the back of their heads were blown off with shotguns. Mr. Chairman, I can share that in all other cases that these individuals had been involved, not only in Federal cases, but also in State cases, no one would step forward to testify. The intimidation was very real and it was very effective. We never found out who actually pulled the trigger and killed these people, but I would have enjoyed having the opportunity to have prosecuted them. Such a strategy of violence intended to intimidate does have a chilling impact on the system and I saw it firsthand. Opponents to this bill believe that in such instances the death penalty should not be used as the ultimate punishment. I disagree. The death penalty is appropriate to those who would kill to undermine our judicial system for their own personal gain. Mr. Chairman, this intimidation does undermine and have a chilling impact upon the judicial system. It is not healthy and I support this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to be respectful to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). I do not know if the example of a hunter with crack cocaine is the right example to use. Hunters in Indiana with crack cocaine are not out hunting game, they are out hunting to sell their product. So I do not know if that is appropriate. I have been listening to the gentlewoman about the mandatory minimums. We just met with our Federal judges. Even in Indiana they wish they had some discretion in certain areas. But as my colleagues know, society, we are moving this and being tough on these judges because of some lenient sentences, and we have to make these decisions on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 424, which will increase the penalties when thugs have firearms while committing federal crimes of violence or drug trafficking offenses. This debate is about sincere and fundamental differences in addressing violent crime. The other side believes with all their heart that if we get the guns off the streets, there will not be crime in our society. Then, there is the alternative, in which camp I place myself, that believes gun control is not crime control and that law-abiding, free citizens have the right to own and bear arms. Under this bill, the thug who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime receives a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years above the sentence for the crime itself. If this same thug brandishes a weapon to incite fear in victims, it increases the sentence to 10 years. If a thug discharges the firearm, then the mandatory minimum is 20 years. The opponents of this measure believe these sentences are harsh. Yes, they are harsh, but many of us also believe that if a firearm is used in the commission of violent crime, the penalty should be harsh. This bill is about achieving a proper balance in punishment that upholds the needs of victims in society, and I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to honor a decorated fighter pilot, a former POW, a distinguished Congressman and a good friend, Sam Johnson. The Hallmark of Sam's life has been service--service to the Air Force, to this House, to the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Texas, and to the country. His record of sacrifice and dedication to duty is unmatched in this House. I know he would be uncomfortable with the term ``hero''--but in a time when American youth are looking for true heroes, they would do well to look to Sam Johnson for their inspiration. I join with my colleagues today in honoring Sam Johnson. I want to add my personal thanks for selfless devotion to duty, his hard work, his sacrifice, and his friendship.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentlemen from California (Mr. Lewis) and (Mr. Brown) for bringing this. This is not easy. I think it is easier for me today than it was for some of us when we went to Sonny's funeral. Sonny had a unique way about him to make every person he met feel as though they were his friend, and that they were his only friend and that they were his best friend. He had a unique ability to do that. He did not care who an individual was. And I think that is why so many people in America feel as though when Sonny passed that we all feel a loss because he had an impact on so many people. Yes, my heart goes out to Mary and the children, but to everyone who feels as though somehow their life has been diminished because of the loss of Sonny Bono. We have also been enriched. I wanted to say here that when I think of my good friend Sonny, his office was right next to mine, we sat next to each other for three years on two different committees, and when I think of Sonny, I think of an individual who is good natured. He had a winning smile and charm. He had the power of the twinkle in his eye. When he got the twinkle in his eye, everyone better look out because he was going to suck us into his excitement. He brings out that youthful excitement. He was a charming, simple person. He had a quiet unassuming way about him. I think it was because even though he recognized his fame, he was humble and gracious because he had lived the peaks and valleys of celebrity status. So he said basically do not take yourself too seriously. Remember why you are here. Sonny was amused by the political fakery that he would see in this institution. So he kept himself very simple and he would remind us all the time by doing different things. I have to take a moment, if I may, and share with America that Sonny served on the Committee on the Judiciary, and he was not a lawyer and he did not care for lawyers. I know he once said the Committee on the Judiciary would be a great committee if it did not have so many lawyers on it. He was the only nonlawyer on the Committee on the Judiciary. One day the gentleman from Florida (Bill McCollum) had introduced the Youth Predator Act. Some on the committee were upset about the word ``predator,'' and we debated the word all day. Now, Sonny was exhausted by lawyers playing their word games and debating one word all day, and we were going into the night and all of a sudden the rear doors of the Committee on the Judiciary burst wide open, and here comes a gentleman in carrying in these stacks of pizzas. Sonny grabs the microphone and he asks for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to yield to him and he asks for a recess because he has bought pizzas for everyone. Basically what he was doing was saying just calm down, relax, let us think about who we are and how we serve. And that was one of the great attributes of our dear friend. He taught us all by his words and his actions not to take ourselves too seriously and to remember we are here as the public servants. I think of my dear friend. He had a heart alive to all of the beauties of nature. And as soon as he found out that I was a Frenchman, because he could not understand how ``Buyer'' could be pronounced Buyer, and I explained to him, he would tickle me sometimes and called me Monsieur de Buyer. So to my good friend I refer to you as a la mode, which is French, according to your style, Sonny. General Leave

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the discussion from the gentlewoman from Houston, because I remember back in the 1994 crime bill discussion and the whole issue about midnight basketball and crime prevention programs. And what the dispute was about at the time was the Federal Government having a one-size-fits-all program, saying, here is the criteria and you force it down, and force all communities in America to comply with this standard that is set out here in Washington. The Republican philosophy is that in fact we support prevention programs. What we do not appreciate is the arrogance of the Federal Government in Washington dictating to our communities what they should and should not do. So that is why I compliment the leadership of the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bill McCollum, basically sending that message out. I remember his debates while he was in the minority during the crime bill, and he felt as though he was a voice with no one listening, but I was listening, and I think many in America in fact were. When we look out there, there are only so many different things that we have. We have the education, prevention, rehabilitation, retribution, restitution, deterrence, and there was this overfocus, overfocus on the rehabilitative side and prevention and education, to the point where they began to be coddling the criminal. Then we took a step back and said, wait a minute, let us bring better balance to the judicial system. So when Republicans took over the Congress, we then tried to bring back some stability to the justice system. When we looked at the juvenile crime issue, and compliments to the Subcommittee on Crime going out in 1996 and conducting their regional forums around the country, we learned that there is a growing escalation on juvenile crime, and that is a concern. So how do we address that? Well, we can address it on many different fronts. But, in particular, let us not forget the issue on prevention. Republicans support prevention programs. That is the message here. So I have gone through those debates, and I have heard from this side of the aisle that like to bash Republicans in saying, ``They do not support prevention,'' ``They do not care.'' That is false. When we are in our communities and we see the growing need, that is why I am so pleased that there is a bipartisan legislation here on the floor today to escalate the number of Boys and Girls Clubs in America. The FBI states that the trend, if it continues as we have over the past 10 years, juvenile arrests for violent crime will more than double by the year 2010. The FBI predicts that juvenile arrests for murder will increase 125 percent, forcible rape arrests will increase 66 percent, and aggravated assault arrests will increase 129 percent. Those are pretty startling numbers. This dramatic increase in youth crime has occurred in the midst of a declining youth population, a trend soon to change. In the final years of this decade and throughout the next, America will experience a population surge made up of the children of today's aging baby-boomers. Today's enormous cohort of the 5-year-olds, in fact, become tomorrow's teenagers. So this legislation is extremely important. It is much needed to authorize the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. This organization is providing a place for social interaction and recreation of our young people. I know that in my district, which is a predominantly rural district, in some communities many young people simply have no place to go to make constructive use of their time. And what is a proven statistic is that more than half of all crimes against teenagers occur on or near schools. Boys and Girls Clubs provide a place for positive influences to permeate a young person's life. In other words, we want a child to have a role model for whom they can identify with, hands on, not some role model that plays basketball or football or they only idolize. An actual role model that they can see within their community is what is extremely important here. This bill also includes an amendment that I offered in the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that rural areas are capable of qualifying to have Boys and Girls Clubs. We understand that the growing problems that we have in our urban areas to include the inner city and public housing, but we also want to make sure that in rural America we do not have a growing escalation of juvenile crime. I have visited those juvenile detention centers in my congressional district, and it is very painful to stand there and peer through the little window and we see these 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds in jumpsuits, and we look at those big brown eyes, but what we really see behind them, though, is some anger. And they really need someone to reach out to. I sit there, and as I look through there and I see them, I think if only this community would, in fact, have had a Boys and Girls Club, how many of these children could we have changed their life and had a positive influence. So let me compliment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and in particular the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hatch] in the Senate for bringing this legislation, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. This is truly needed, and it is a compliment to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for bringing this today.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for bringing this legislation and my good friend and colleague, lieutenant colonel in the Reserves, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale]. I also have been a very good listener of my friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and I agree with him, it is always moments to take a deep breath and not act on emotion, and I always follow that advice of my colleague. But this is also a comment that was made in official capacity with a tongue-in-cheek apology. These comments were not taken out of context. As a matter of fact, I would respect Sara Lister even more if she had stood her ground and said, I said it, I mean it, that is how I have always felt. That is not what she is saying. Now let me share something else. Over the past year, in dealing with the issues on gender and race in the United States military, my colleagues, see, I do not separate slanderous comments from one versus the other. If someone makes a slanderous comment on race, sure enough, whether it is their opinion, they will be called before immediately. Well, if someone makes a slanderous remark in gender or in reference to some other institutions, this is pretty insulting. I strongly support this resolution and call for the immediate resignation of the Army Assistant Secretary Sara Lister. I believe it is imperative for our military leaders to fully respect and earn the respect of the men and women who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend our country. How sad that, as the rest of the Department of Defense is working so diligently to advance the notion of joint operations, the Army's Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs would spew such a divisive statement in a public forum with regard to her demeaning comments of the Marine Corps. These comments show a total lack of understanding for the unique mission and tremendous value system of the Marine Corps as well as that of the United States Army of which she leads. I fail to understand how the values of honor, courage, commitment can be considered extremist and a little dangerous. Our Nation should be proud of the commitment each of our military services makes in instilling a strong sense of values into men and women who serve, something that, unfortunately, is missing in society today. How sad, when the uniformed leadership in the Army is leading initiatives to establish joint exercise forces to optimize the synergistic abilities of the Nation's forces, that the chief personnel official of the United States Army would make such a blatant, albeit sophomoric, attack on the Army's partner in land battle. How sad, when the rest of the Pentagon struggles in concert to address the future challenges of a largely undefined world stage, that such a key figure in the Army's hierarchy would devote her time on a stage provided by Harvard's Olin Institute of Strategic Studies to make such an unjustified, demeaning statement against the honored component of the Nation's defense. How sad that as a panel member in the forum dedicated to civil/ military relations, Ms. Lister so completely justified in growing the perception of a widening schism between the military and the liberal element of the social elite. The saddest of all is how sad anyone is reading the Washington Times headline, quote, ``Top Army Woman: Marines extremist,'' might think even for a moment that this was the top woman in the Army. That brings disservice upon many of the men and particularly the women who serve in the military today. I strongly urge the President and the Secretary of Defense to fully review her comments to determine whether they are consistent with the administration's views of the contributions to the military services. More importantly, before they consider Ms. Lister as a candidate for the Secretary of the Army, the President and the Secretary of Defense must decide whether her comments reflect the proper level of respect for our military members necessary to be an effective civilian leader and to achieve the credibility of the military leadership for our country to continue to field the best fighting force. It is critical for the service secretaries and the service chiefs to be able to work together effectively. It is also critical that the civilian leaders in the military understand and respect the unique missions and contributions of each of the military services. I urge my colleague to support the Solomon-McHale resolution and to send a strong signal that this country's Marine Corps as well as each of the other services, that Congress does appreciate and respect their dedicated service despite Sarah Lister's demeaning remarks.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation to correct these errors with regard to our troops. This is really basically, my colleagues, support-the-troops legislation. This legislation corrects a problem created earlier this year when, due to an administrative change in Army policy, reservists deployed to Bosnia were forced to pay out of their own pocket to ship their personal goods home at the completion of their tour. Most of the reservists called for the second rotation to Bosnia were affected by this change. This matter came to the attention of the authorizing Committee on National Security really too late to deal with this issue effectively in the defense bill this year. I compliment the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for bringing this to everyone's attention. I am disappointed that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve affairs, Ms. Sara Lister, would not have brought this immediately to the Committee on National Security's attention. I know she brought this in response to your inquiry, but I wish she had brought it right to the authorizing committee. Perhaps, if she is listening, she is going to get that warning order. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. The troops can be reimbursed in a timely fashion for their selfless service to their country. I agree with the ranking member that hopefully the Senate will take this up immediately.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me congratulate the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] for their work on this bill. I would like to discuss section 103 of this bill. I am disappointed that coming out of the conference with the House and the Senate, the language that the House adopted has in fact been changed. We were seeking to have an independent commission to review what I find to be the very poor culture that is in the Nation's second largest agency, that of the VA. There is not any Member of this House that has taken on the issue of race and gender that I have over the past year with what occurred at Aberdeen in sexual misconduct in the military. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and I have traveled the world to our military bases and looked at those issues on gender and race relations. We have taken on the systems and subsystems in the military, and we have been very aggressive. When we turned our eyes upon the VA itself, we began to see a culture problem within the VA, a system whereby the victims were being revictimized through the Office of General Counsel. We saw individuals in their leadership kind of give a wink and a nod to a hostile workplace. Let me congratulate the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for taking these issues right on and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] on the oversight. Why I was seeking to have an independent commission is I wanted it stripped completely out of the hands of the VA because of my lack of trust in those who are doing the oversight in the VA itself. I recognize in the language in here, they have been very careful to make sure that there is some insurance here. We are asking the Secretary to have an agreement to make sure that the entity carries out its responsibilities and exercises judgments concerning the assessments in a manner free of any influence. That means I do not want to hear anything over the next year that the VA somehow is scrubbing the contractor or getting some kind of review or pressures. If that is going to happen, I am going to be pretty upset. Because I know what happens when we do independent contracting with the Pentagon. The Pentagon today will ask us an issue and it is politically sensitive and they begin to control and manipulate the contractor. I want to make sure that we have a work environment in the VA that is free of these hostilities. I want to make sure that we have a system there that stops the revictimizing of the victim because it is very difficult for us to actually measure how does that impact upon the care to the veteran itself. Let me congratulate the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], because the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and others, want to make sure that we have a good system. I hope and I pray that what has been worked out here is, in fact, going to meet the ends for which the gentleman from Arizona and I both want. My message for coming here to the well today is that I will be watching and I know the gentleman from Arizona will, too, over the contract. I will be watching the VA just like the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett] has done on the oversight to make sure that there are no manipulations whatsoever with the contractor and that the assessment that is done is completely independent, because if they do not, we are coming down on them hard.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman for bringing up this bill. These are great bipartisan projects. In particular, I want to thank the chairman. The gentleman was just down in Mayport Naval Air Station in Florida with me, and we actually went and saw one of the items that the President line item vetoed. I wanted to share with Members, we have two Aegis cruisers down there. They had to shut them off, shut off the electronics, and they took tugboats and shoved these multimillion-dollar ships into the mud itself. These are the types of projects the President line item vetoed, but he said if it is for social spending in the military, that is OK.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, for its recommitment to the fate of American POW's and MIA's. H.R. 1119 includes most of the House provision which sought to strengthen the process by which our past, present and future POW-MIA's are accounted for. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1997 repealed several provisions of law that provided due process for the families of missing service members seeking information about their loved ones' fates, and that encouraged prompt investigations into missing personnel. The conference report restores many of the provisions stricken by the 1997 authorization bill, and makes additional changes to the law to improve the process for accounting for missing persons. These new provisions apply not only to our military, but to different civilian support personnel who may be serving alongside our armed forces far from home. In reaching an agreement in the conference report, I had very constructive negotiations with Senator John McCain, whose history with this issue is well known. Senator McCain was a good-listener, and fair-minded in his approach, allowing us to reach an agreeable compromise between the two Houses' positions. As a result, the conference report on H.R. 1119 contains a reasonable outcome that substantially advances the interests of those who seek to ensure the fullest possible accounting of our POW-MIA's. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for H.R. 1119 keeps the faith, not only with our people in uniform, but with other equally dedicated citizens who voluntarily venture into harm's way in support the nation's vital interest. It reiterates the theme that should constantly play on the hearts of the American people--that our POW-MIA's are, indeed, not forgotten. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Defense Authorization Act.

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

Mr. BUYER. Just on the point on Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, part of the purpose I brought that legislation to the House floor is that I did not make up that day, that was the President's day. We sought to extend the time for him to fulfill that commitment.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask everyone to support this rule. My concerns have been addressed not only in this bill, but I also appreciate the leadership of Chairman Solomon. Mr. Speaker, many in this body know that I took on the issue of sexual misconduct in the U.S. military. This bill addresses a lot of those issues. In this bill it addresses a range of these issues that emerged during the Subcommittee on Personnel's examination of sexual misconduct in the military. The conference report provides for a review of the ability of the military criminal investigative services to investigate crimes of sexual misconduct and mandates a series of reforms to drill sergeant selection and training. The bill also addresses my concerns with the loss of rigor and warrior spirit that is occurring in our basic training. This bill requires an independent congressional panel to assess reforms to military basic training, including a determination of the merits of gender-integrated and gender-segregated basic training as well as the method to attain the training objectives established by each of the services. Mr. Speaker, we also have taken on the issues of military pay, increased housing allowances in high cost areas, retained the statutory floors on end strength and many other areas. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill and I encourage all Members to support it.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, we face a crisis in American education today. Forty percent of all 10 year olds can't meet basic literacy standards. United States eighth-graders recently placed 28th in the world in math and science skills. Two thousand acts of violence take place in schools each day, and almost a third of today's college freshmen require some remedial instructions. The education initiatives Republicans are bringing to the House floor in the next few days are an excellent start toward solutions of these problems. Education savings accounts [ESA's] give middle- and low-income parents new education choices--public and private--to educate their children in safe and nurturing environments. Families or individuals earning less than $95,000 a year would be eligible to contribute up to $2,500 annually into an account for a child's educational needs while at public, private, religious or home schools--from kindergarten through college. The buildup of the interest within that account is tax free and the savings from that account can be used for tuition, tutoring, transportation, equipment, services for kids with special needs, home computers, uniforms, books and supplies, and SAT preparation or enrollment expenses related to sending a child to a public school in a neighborhood district. It has been estimated that around 14.3 million families--about 10.8 million of which are families whose children attend public school-- would benefit from these accounts by 2002. Seventy percent of the tax savings from these accounts would go to families whose income is less than $75,000 a year. Families can make no more important investment than the investment in their child's education. Some people would argue that ESA's would siphon off funds needed for public school education. In fact, public education would benefit from Americans' being encouraged to invest in their neighborhood schools. Faced with rising costs, many public schools are forced to operate in unsafe buildings or with too few textbooks. The funds these ESA's provide would help improve the quality of public school education by freeing tax dollars for basic instruction, supplies, and repairs. Just investing $2,500 a year from a child's birth until he or she enters the first grade would yield nearly $17,883 for that child's elementary education. Research has shown that engaging parents in their children's education improves the academic performance of those children, and also gives parents a stake in the success of their local schools. The Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act just passed the House this week. This bill allows Department of Education direct loans to be consolidated with Federal family education loans [FFEL] until September 30, 1998; allows students to consolidate loans with private-sector loans; and requires consolidated FFEL and direct loans to carry the same interest rate of a consolidated direct loan. In addition, the bill stipulates that HOPE scholarships--the recently created $1,500 tax credits for families for the first 2 years of college established by the Taxpayer Relief Act--will not reduce the financial aid award a student receives. The Department of Education has been unable to effectively operate their direct student loan program since it was created in 1993 and America's students should not have to pay for this administration's shortcomings. If we truly want to help parents, teachers, and local officials strengthen and reform our Nation's education system, we must make sure Federal education dollars reach the classroom. This may sound simple enough, but currently $5.4 billion of the $15.4 billion spent by the U.S. Department of Education on elementary and secondary education programs never reaches the all-important classroom and, instead, is lost to a frightening sea of bureaucracy. Roughly 65 percent of Department of Education elementary and secondary dollars actually reach the classrooms. I urge all of my colleagues to take the important first step of making sure that taxpayer education dollars get where they are supposed to be going--to the children and teachers in the classroom. We cannot continue to allow our education system to entrap young students and permit them to fall further behind. We must act now and take these key first steps to bringing about a brighter future for our children.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on the House National Security Committee, are in the process of completing the congressional review of sexual misconduct in the military. As difficult and shocking as that review has been, it pales in comparison to the problems that are coming to light in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, this Nation's second largest agency, is a department that possesses a climate and culture that can only be described as openly hostile to women. This culture not only allows the harassment of women, it aggressively moves to cover-up any allegations made by employees and often rewards those who have been convicted of wrong-doing. There is a bunker mentality prevalent at the VA. It appears that the VA, when faced with accusations of sexual harassment, hunkers down and waits out the controversy while speaking aggressively. In reality, the attitude is that the VA winks at the claims of sexual harassment, protects the accused and victimizes the accusers. As Kathy Lyons, a nurse with the VA described the VA process as, ``The way they handle the thing is to punish the victims.'' In 1993, this committee considered enacting legislation to re- organize the VA equal opportunity reporting system in light of abuses at the Atlanta VA hospital by the director, associate director, and chief of staff. At that time, Secretary Brown convinced the committee that he had a ``Zero tolerance'' for sexual harassment and the committee did not pass the legislation. My good friend and colleague, Congressman James Clyburn stated at that time that, ``I don't care what you try to do, how many procedures you put in, how many training sessions you have, if your employees do not perceive the process or whatever you've done to be an adequate response to their past problems, there is going to be absolutely no trust in the process at all.'' The problem has persisted. The pattern of reward and coverup, had it been undertaken in the military, would result in a major scandal. In the VA, it merely constitutes business as usual. In April, the VA Committee held hearings that revealed, as described by Subcommittee of VA Oversight Terry Everett, a pattern of ``Club MED'' treatment for senior VA employees that had been accused of sexually harassing their employees. Following that hearing, Chairman Everett also stated that, ``I have a concern there is a Good-Ole-Boy network out there and that there is a culture within the VA that protects the managers.'' Specifically, the committee found that: A hospital director in North Carolina who groped and abused female employees who was transferred to Florida to a job specifically created for him that preserved his six-figure salary; A VA Director in Virginia who was reassigned to Atlanta after he was accused of seven accounts of sexual harassment. A VA personnel director in California has been reprimanded but not severely punished after an investigation into his rape and sodomy of employees in his hospital. Reports that since 1993, the VA has punished nine VA managers for various sexual harassment complaints. Reports that the VA Headquarters in Washington alone has 73 equal opportunity complaints pending by employees at that facility. Overall, the VA work force is 8.52 percent of the total Federal work force, but files 14.1 percent of all harassment cases filed within the Government. These cases illustrate that the VA's culture is one of paying off the accusers and covering for the perpetrators. The overall culture starts with the leadership at the highest levels of the VA. The fact that Acting VA Secretary and Secretary designate Hershel Gober is married to VA counsel Mary Lou Keener and that Mr. Gober's nomination has been placed on hold for irregularities in his background investigation is evidence of problems and conflict of interest at the top. I am deeply concerned this situation has been allowed to exist at the VA. During consideration of this bill in committee, I offered an amendment that would establish an independent panel to assess the culture of the VA with regards to sexual harassment, equal opportunity, and hostility in the workplace. I am pleased and honored that my colleagues accepted my amendment on a bipartisan basis. This is a sign that Members on both sides of the aisle recognized the problems within the VA and the need to look at those problems. Four years after this committee's initial hearings, egregious problems still exist. I have doubts in the VA's ability to police themselves. They simply have no grasp on the scope of these problems. H.R. 1703 is designed to establish a new VA employment discrimination complaint resolution system. This legislation addresses the problem with the system within the VA. My amendment tasks a panel to look at the people, their attitudes and practices within the VA. We need a baseline look at the culture within the VA, and recommendations on how to change that culture. Some of the cases that the VA Committee has probed could have been handled even with the old EEO system in place. Within the VA, there was merely a failure to aggressively pursue. We need to know why those within the VA have this attitude, and what can be done to correct the situation.