Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a step back here. One, I want to compliment the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. I am not really speaking in opposition. What I want to talk about is a little bit about history and our foreign policy dollars and where we are going from here. When I think about the United States and our emergence upon the world scene, not only from World War I, and in particular World War II, and then how the United States, not only in the Marshall Plan and what we did in Europe, but also in particular what we did in the Pacific Rim and MacArthur and his assistance in helping draft a constitution in Japan, and setting forth different agreements in burden-sharing in Japan, much different than what we find on the Korean Peninsula. So now over the last 50 years, the United States, while in the cold war, have been providing security and that blanket was a pretty good size in the Pacific, and it was a pretty good size in Europe. We provided their security. We grew the economies of Europe. We grew the economies in the Pacific to the point where they were highly competitive with the United States, to the point where today a lot of the electronic components, highly competitive coming at us from the Pacific Rim. A lot of the Airbus and other things happening in our competition from the European sector. The United States now finds itself the sole remaining superpower in the world. Now, let us talk about our foreign policy for a second, talk about how it ties into burden sharing. The United States is the sole remaining superpower. I believe, as a vision of foreign policy, the United States, what we should have is, the United States should not engage itself in every little corner of the world and every little hot spot. We in the United States should engage and encourage our regional allies to quiet, to enter regional conflicts that have no tendency to destabilize a region of the world. That is in difference with the administration. I understand that. But what this issue and what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] are talking about is asking for our allies to have an increased share of the burden. Increased share of the burden of what? For security. Not the United States carrying the big stick always swooping in. So Bosnia comes to the attention. We are going to debate that here in a few days. We are asking our European allies for a greater share. My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], is sitting over here. I would love to ask him, Mr. Chairman, if George Foreman was his bodyguard, would he lift weights? He would not have to. The United States, we are the George Foreman. These other countries do not want to have to lift weights so long as we are there providing their security. They do not want to increase the share of the burden. Let me extend some compliments. I was with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] a few years ago when we were in Norway. We signed new burden sharing agreements that were negotiated by the ambassador of burden sharing of the Clinton administration. We were there. They signed them. It did not make the European allies very happy. But that is a good thing. That is a good thing, because we want them to increase their share and their burdens. I am a little uncomfortable here about the measures and the points out of this bill about, if they do not, it is going to affect our agreements. It will affect our memorandums, our letters of understanding, pretty stressful measures in there. Diplomacy is not that easy, I would say to my colleagues. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] brought up some points about Korea. What I would like to share about Korea is that next year the new special measures agreement with regard to Korea will be renegotiated. I see my good friend sitting right over here knows exactly what I am talking about. We went ahead and approved some measures for military construction based upon great needs in Korea. Korea, we find ourselves very juxtaposed. We are on the brink of war at the same time we are on the brink of peace. And we have military facilities that meet their tier one responsibilities under a master plan. Now we have to ask, if we want to sign off onto a master plan with Korea, do we want to spend a billion dollars on the Korean Peninsula? That is a pretty tough question. So what I would ask my colleagues here who are so strongly concerned about the issue of burden sharing, let us take a pretty stern look here at this new master plan about military construction in Korea, over a billion dollars. Let me jump to the issue about residual value. Think what happened, what we did in Europe upon the reunification of Germany. When it happened, do my colleagues know what the State Department did? The State Department went ahead and negotiated away all of these facilities. We spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on appropriated and nonappropriated facilities. And what did the State Department do? We did not have a residual value. They negotiated it right away. Let us not start the very same thing, move into a multibillion dollar construction program on the Korean Peninsula without addressing the residual values issues.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to close this debate to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], former United States Army doctor.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, it does.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, this is the Hyde language, which is the exception for rape. I just wanted to let the gentleman know.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that I believe it is shameful and a disgraceful as a policy of the United States, since none of the military doctors would perform an abortion, for us to use taxpayer funds to hire an abortionist. That would be a shameful policy if this Harman amendment would pass. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt]. (Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], a member of the committee. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], a member of the committee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], a member of the committee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] again for their fine work on this bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. My support stems in no small part to the fact that the bill addresses major personnel issues like manpower, pay, compensation, and health care that confront the military today. Moreover, H.R. 1119's military personnel titles represent a bipartisan consensus and commitment to ensuring that the needs of the military members are addressed directly and effectively. As the committee began looking at the needs of the people and quality of life in the fiscal year 1998 defense bill, several major challenges dominated our focus. Among those challenges were, insufficient military manpower for the required range of missions and a Quadrennial Defense Review that prescribed a cut of another 155,000 uniformed personnel; an enduring picture of distressing financial need being experienced by military men and women; also increasing difficulties by DOD in recruiting sufficient manpower of the requisite quality; the termination of military leave for more than 120,000 Federal employees who also have volunteered to serve as members of the Reserve components; and, for a second year in a row, a budget request that significantly underfunded defense health care programs. To address these and other issues in this bill, we are working on the growing gap between military and civilian pay by mandating that military pay raises be based on a full employment cost index [ECI], and not the ECI minus a half percent. We also are requiring the Secretary of Defense to implement a system of pay and allowance that would prevent the loss of income for military personnel when they are deployed and authorize $50 million to facilitate the initiative. We also are increasing the housing allowance in high cost areas to ensure that military personnel experience the same amount of out-of- pocket costs regardless of location. We also want to continue reducing the out-of-pocket housing costs toward the goal of having military personnel absorb no more than 15 percent of the cost of adequate housing. We are retaining the statutory floors on end strength for each of the services and are also temporarily taking away the 15-year retirement for one year. We are increasing the funding for military recruiting and direct a series of reforms to improve recruiter performance and reduce recruit attrition. We retain military leave for Federal civilians in the Selected Reserve and restore the $85 million cut by the President's budget from the Reserve component budgets. We restore $274 million to the Defense Health Program, and I appreciate the cooperation of the Comptroller of Defense on that issue. We also direct the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the feasibility of extending a mail-order pharmacy program to all Medicare eligible beneficiaries who do not live near a military medical treatment facility. In addition, we restore the POW-MIA provisions to the Missing Persons Act. We also address a range of issues that have emerged during the subcommittee's and full committee's examination of sexual misconduct in the military by providing a review of the ability of the military criminal investigative services to investigate crimes of sexual misconduct and mandate a series of reforms to drill sergeant selection and training. H.R. 1119 would also require an independent panel to assess reforms to military basic training, including a determination of the merits of gender-integrated or gender-segregated basic training as a method to attain the training objectives established by each service. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1119 does many good things for the people who serve our Nation in uniform. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 1057 to designate the Main Post Office in Indianapolis, Indiana in honor of Congressman Andy Jacobs. Following in his father's footsteps, Andy Jacobs, Jr. began his congressional career in 1964, after serving 5 years in the Indiana House. For 30 years Indianapolis was well represented by a real gentleman and a formidable legislator. As I was waiting here to make these remarks, I happened to listen to the opening segments here of 1-minutes on the House floor. I think Andy was always bothered by what I would refer to coming from his own party as rhetorical political terrorism. Those are inflammatory words that are meant to incite class warfare and paint others as uncaring or callous. That was not Andy Jacobs at all. Andy Jacobs was someone who exemplified the essence of the nobility of life; that is, someone, as a former marine and as a deputy sheriff, who was in touch with the inner sensibilities of life and those tender sensibilities. Andy Jacobs voted his conscience. He did not go along party lines. There are some Members that will go along party lines, and then some will break from party lines for a particular political purpose. Andy was a gentleman who voted his conscience. For example in 1989, it was Andy Jacobs that cast the deciding vote on the Committee on Ways and Means in favor of a capital gains tax cut, despite the Democrat majority at the time in opposition of cutting taxes. His tenure on the Committee on Ways and Means provided Indiana with a very powerful presence. It was truly an honor for me to serve here for 4 years with Andy Jacobs. I wish Andy and his wife Kim and their children all the best as they move into the new phase of their lives. I applaud the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for having brought this initiative to name the Main Post Office in the honor of my friend, Andy Jacobs.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud again to cosponsor H.R. 1058, the bill designating John T. Myers Post Office Building in Terre Haute, IN. It is so fitting that not only the Indiana delegation, but other Members here honoring two Members from Indiana. These are two gentlemen that many have described them, whether it is from their bipartisanship, their comity, these are two gentlemen that always in the midst of a storm had their hands firmly upon the helm. Congressman Myers dedicated 30 years of his life to serving the Seventh District in Indiana. During his 15 terms, he was respected for his mild-mannered, firm but fair attitude and consensus building attributes. He was not only a friend of the farmer but a friend of the veteran. As a World War II veteran from the European Theater, he, like others, left freedom in his footsteps and he knew the value of a strong defense. He also remembers the soldier, the sailor, the airman, and the marine wherever they are away from home, wherever they are standing watch, protecting our liberties. That was John Myers. Indiana was well represented by his formidable presence on the Committee on Appropriations, later chairing the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. When we mentioned his bipartisanship, whenever one went to John he also had to go to Mr. Bevill, or if one went to Mr. Bevill he had to go to John. Nothing happened out of that subcommittee unless it was agreed to by both of them. They worked in such a strong bipartisan nature. Their presence is truly missed here in the 105th Congress. Congressman Myers is retired to the Seventh District in Indiana to continue his service to the communities he represented for so many decades. I wish John and Carol and the family all the best as they move into the new phase of their lives. The naming of the new post office under construction at 150 West Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, IN, is well deserved and an appropriate tribute to John, who served as the ranking member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. I offer my strongest support of the designation of the John Myers Post Office Building in Indiana.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would amend the Constitution to empower Congress to enact legislation to protect Old Glory from desecration. The American flag is a mighty symbol, not only to the citizens of this great Nation, but also to those abroad who see it flying, at our embassies or on the ships of our naval fleet. It represents the freedom of our people, the courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our people to protect our freedoms from ``all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' This is not an issue about what people can say about the flag, the United States, or its leaders at any given time. The rights under the first amendment are fully protected. The issue here is that the flag, as a symbol of our Nation, is so revered the Congress has a right to prohibit its willful and purposeful desecration. It is the conduct that is the focus. Across the river from here, is a memorial to the valiant efforts of our soldiers to raise the flag at Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of cloth that rose on that day over 50 years ago. It was the physical embodiment of all we, as Americans, treasure; the freedoms we enjoy; the triumph of liberty over totalitarianism; and the duty we have to pass the torch of liberty to our children undimmed. The flag is a symbol worth defending. I urge the adoption of the flag protection amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], and her comments. Mr. Speaker, the topic I would like to talk about today is on STEP 21. The main point is specifically that local governments and the metropolitan planning organizations do in fact support STEP 21. I want to give a special recognition and thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] for their work on STEP 21. The continuous and bitter battle over transportation funding has caused a great amount of misinformation to be spread all around. Those who endorse the status quo, whether they are against the flexibility to the States or enjoy the funding inequities of the formula, they have tried to mislead Congress and others into believing that local government and the MPOs, the metropolitan planning organizations, are opposed to STEP 21. I have letters of support here that I will place into the Record from those who support STEP 21, the first being in particular the mayor, Mayor Goldsmith of Indianapolis. His quote is, ``. . . as the mayor of one of the Nation's largest cities, I enthusiastically support the STEP 21 proposal.'' The Association of Indiana Counties say that STEP 21's features will give the ability for them to make ``. . . funding choices that make sense for our counties, not the one-size-fits-all approach of current law.'' The Evansville Urban Transportation Study, which represents the MPO for southern Indiana: ``The STEP 21 legislation continues to support strong planning through the continuation of support for metropolitan planning organizations.'' Mayor Heath of Lafayette, Indiana: ``It is important for you to know that the State of Indiana, in partnership with its local governments, supports the STEP 21 effort.'' The Indiana Metropolitan Council: ``The Indiana MPO Council represents the 12 urbanized areas of the State of Indiana. This letter extends the MPO Council's support of STEP 21 legislation.'' Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the statements that local governments and MPOs are opposed to STEP 21 is false. As a matter of fact, it is an outright lie for those who endorse such a statement. I urge all of my colleagues to look past the misinformation being spread around. STEP 21 preserves all of the current law's local planning authority. Indiana is just one example of a State where the governments, the organizations, and residents are well-informed and understand that STEP 21 maintains the role of local governments and MPO's in making the transportation decisions that affect their communities. One of my continuing priorities as a Member of Congress is to pull in the reins of a massive Federal Government to ensure that decision making be returned to the States and local governments. I abhor the Washington-knows-best mentality where the massive Federal Government has control over the decisions that should be made at the local and State levels. I would not be here this afternoon endorsing the STEP 21 bill if it removed the decision making of our State and local governments. STEP 21 not only brings fairness and equity to the funding distribution formula, it allows the local governments and the MPO's to have control over the decision making process of their own local communities. STEP 21 should pass this House, and it is a worthy cause to bring flexibility to the States, fairness in the equity funding formula. I again salute the gentleman from Texas [Tom DeLay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. City of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, April 18, 1997. Hon. Dan Coats, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Coats and Lugar: As the debate moves forward on the reauthorization of federal transportation programs this year, much is being said about the impact on local governments of the Streamlined Transportation Efficiency Program for the 21st Century, or STEP 21 proposal. It is important for you to know that as the mayor of one of our nation's largest cities, I enthusiastically support the STEP 21 proposal. STEP 21 preserves all of the current law's local planning authority as well as all current funding guarantees for urban areas. In as much as STEP 21 would direct more funding to states like Indiana, urban areas like Indianapolis will be guaranteed more funding for our much needed transportation infrastructure projects. An added bonus of STEP 21's streamlining and flexibility features will be the ability for us to make funding choices that make sense for our community, not the one size fits all approach of current law. I appreciate your efforts in working toward passage of the STEP 21 program, which finally directs a fair share of transportation funds to our state and its communities. Sincerely, Stephen Goldsmith, Mayor.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] for yielding this time to me. I have grave reservations about this. I applaud the gentlewoman for all of her work on child notification, but I find myself involved in investigation of sexual misconduct in the military and now sexual misconduct, fraternization and sexual harassment in the VA. The victims are very real here. Let us not get lost in the high weeds. The juvenile justice system is about rehabilitation, also. So when my colleagues talk about the exploration of sex and first-time experiences, let us not forget about victims of potential sexual offenses while they are also juveniles and the further exploitation and the fear of these now children victims in being able to come forward. So I have some very strong concerns, and I think the letter that was referred to from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in not supporting the legislation as written should be taken with great notice and this should be corrected in conference.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act. While the overall crime rate in the United States has fallen in recent years, violent juvenile crime has increased drastically. And what is more shocking and more alarming, is that violent crime can be perpetrated by 12-year-olds. Instead of playing baseball or fishing, many of today's juveniles are engaging in mayhem. Between 1965 and 1992, the number of 12-year-olds arrested for violent crime rose 211 percent; the number of 13- and 14-year-olds rose 301 percent; and the number of 15-year-olds arrested for violent crime rose 297 percent. We are not talking about shoplifting or truancy, or petty thievery. We are talking about violent crime: murder, rape, battery, arson, and robbery. Older teenagers, ages 17, 18, and 19, are the most violent in America. More murder and robbery are committed by 18-year-old males than any other group. We have seen this increase in juvenile crime occur at a time when the demographics show a reduced juvenile population overall. Soon we will see the echo boom of the baby boomers' children reaching their teenaged years. If the current trend in juvenile crime is left unchanged, the FBI predicts that juvenile arrests for violent crime will more than double by the year 2010. That results in more murder, more rape, more aggravated assault, and unfortunately, more victims of crime. I salute the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for his hard work to head off the coming crime wave. H.R. 3 would provide resources to States and local communities to address their juvenile crime needs, to get tough on juvenile offenders, and to provide fairness to the victims of violent juvenile crime. Individuals must be held accountable for their actions. Juveniles particularly need to get the message that actions have consequences. Unfortunately, today nearly 40 percent of violent juvenile offenders have their cases dismissed. By the time a violent juvenile receives any sort of secure confinement, the offender has a record a mile long. We need to change the message from one of ``getting away with it'' to one of accountability. States and localities who enforce accountability will be able to get Federal resources to help. Law-abiding citizens, young and old alike, need assurance that violent criminals, even if they are teenagers, will be held accountable and sanctioned and that the victims will receive justice. I urge the adoption of H.R. 3.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, in December 1896, a number of opticians from across the State of Indiana met in Indianapolis for the advancement of the profession. A motion was carried to form the Indiana Optical Society. Over the years, the organization has been known by different names, but this was the beginning of the Indiana Optometric Association. The organization has significantly enhanced the profession by formulating a code of ethics; by seeking a school of optometry--the School of Optometry at Indiana University--and by adopting standards and methods of practice.The organization is a strong advocate of education among its members. The Indiana Optometric Association also contributes significantly to the welfare of Hoosiers. As early as 1922, it held the first Save Your Vision week. It has participated in industrial vision research programs as well as vision awareness activities in schools and among the general public. It is my pleasure to congratulate the Indiana Optometric Association for its 100 years of service to the eye health and vision care needs of Hoosiers. I also ask unanimous consent that the resolution passed by the Senate in the Indiana General Assembly be printed in the Record. Senate Concurrent Resolution A Concurrent Resolution Celebrating the Centennial Anniversary of the Indiana Optometric Association Whereas, the Indiana Optometric Association (IOA) was founded in 1897 and will be celebrating its Centennial Anniversary during the year 1997, and Whereas, the IOA is marking 100 years of successful advocacy for the profession of optometry in Indiana, and Whereas, the IOA has provided 100 years of service in the public interest on behalf of the eye care and eye health of Indiana's citizens, and Whereas, the IOA was instrumental in the decision of the Indiana General Assembly that established the Indiana University School of Optometry in the early 1950s, and has forged an ongoing professional relationship with the School of Optometry that is a national model, and Whereas, the IOA commends the Indiana General Assembly for its continuing support of the profession of optometry and the patients it serves, and Whereas, the IOA has historically distinguished itself as an exemplary professional optometric association in the United States, and Whereas, the IOA rededicates itself and the profession of optometry to serving the eye health and vision care needs of the citizens of the state of Indiana for the next 100 years, Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring: Section 1. That, on behalf of the people of the State of Indiana, we extend our sincere appreciation to IOA for its dedicated service to the people of the State of Indiana and the profession of optometry. Section 2. That the Secretary of the Senate is directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Indian Optometric Association.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for working as hard as he has on this legislation. I also appreciate the cooperation we've had from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on H.R. 240. Veterans' preference and its implementation in the Federal work force are issues that cause me great concern. We need effective and comprehensive enforcement of preference laws and regulations. Federal agencies have long abused veterans preference in hiring, promotion, and retention. I view the entrenched bureaucracy as the main source of the problem. There are many hiring managers that would like to see veterans go away. They resent a veteran's presence in an organization for any number of reasons. Maybe it's because these managers didn't serve and are embarrassed by the presence of those who did. Maybe it's because they have other diversity goals which they believe take precedence over veterans. Our career civil servants must be made to follow the law, and their political bosses should be educated to watch closely for these unacceptable personnel practices. The American people understand the nature of the sacrifices made for them by their veterans, and understand why veterans deserve preference--especially those disabled in the performance of their duties. The Nation has a history of helping veterans returning to the work force and working successfully to place them in jobs, dating back to at least the post-Revolutionary War era when land grants were given in return for military service. Veterans' preference must remain the cornerstone in hiring, promotion, and retention. Veterans' status is blind as to race, gender, age, religion, and other differences that make this Nation a melting pot. We are not arguing against diversity, but we do believe that veterans' preference must remain first among the priorities of Federal managers. There is no excuse for hiring managers to develop ways around the hiring or retention of veterans in their employ. Currently, there is no effective means by which a veteran may air a preference grievance, especially if the veteran is not hired. How then, are we to hold managers accountable for the provisions of law giving preference to qualified veterans? The redress issue is at the core of the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1997 and will help our veterans without harming other Federal workers. As long as we continue to have conscientious lawmakers willing to address veterans' preference, we remain confident that we can take the corrective actions necessary to ensure its future health as a viable program for veterans who have faithfully served. I urge my colleagues to support the measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor; I do not come here often, but I come with very deep concern. A majority of the majority party Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. The letter that we sent was pursuant to section 592(g) of title 28, United States Code, that she apply for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the following matters: The illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee in connection with the 1996 elections. No. 2, the attempted influence of the 1996 elections by foreign countries, foreign corporations, or persons representing such entities; and, No. 3, the improper fundraising conduct or practices by administration officials, the Democratic National Committee, or individuals working on behalf of the committee in connection with the 1996 elections. We believe that section 591(c) of the Independent Counsel Act necessitates that Attorney General Janet Reno seek the appointment of independent counsel in reference to the matters which I just listed. Accordingly, per section 591(c), the Attorney General has been authorized to initiate the preliminary investigation which is defined by the act and is distinct from the Department's current investigations into the matters. We also believe that it is very clear that the matters referred to are an obvious political conflict of interest for the Attorney General and other political appointees within the Department of Justice. I am well aware that she has held at bay those of us who have been asking for the appointment of special counsel by saying that there is not sufficient credible evidence. I am not so certain how much more credible evidence she needs. Often the Washington Post it seems gets cited here on the House floor, not by Republicans but by Democrats on the House floor, and here we have now Bob Woodward, who gained national attention with regard to President Nixon some years ago, is now talking about allegations that the White House supplied top secret intelligence information to the Democratic National Committee to keep a Latvian businessman with alleged ties to organized crime, international crime, from attending a $25,000 fundraiser with President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe anyone in this country has a problem with the National Security Agency advising the President with regard to an individual, whether they should or should not be at a Presidential dinner. It is part of their job. What is distressing, though, is when the National Security Agency leaks top secret, classified information to political operatives, that being that our intelligence architecture was monitoring the international calls of this alleged organized crime individual and syndicate, and the fact that that intelligence was leaked to someone who did not have a right to know, who did not have a security clearance, is a breach of our security at the highest levels within the White House. Why was that done? It was information that was leaked and it was done under this guise, under the pressures of political fundraising. As a matter of fact, to quote out of this article, I guess quoting whomever Bob Woodward is using for his intelligence to write this article, he quotes a White House senior official that the information that was leaked was top secret and it further demonstrates the total politicalization of all intelligence and White House operations, anything and everything was done in the name of fundraising at the White House. Mr. Speaker, the reason that the Committee on the Judiciary had asked for the special counsel deals with the outright admissions by the Vice President, Al Gore, and Ms. Margaret Williams having admitted engaging in fundraising activities, the propriety of which is being questioned by many within the White House itself. I have heard in their defense even the Vice President would say, well, there is no controlling legal authority, some kind of a lawyerly type of language that only lawyers can understand. But when you pull out Title XVIII of the U.S. Code it is very clear, and it being very clear for people that anywhere can understand in America, that fundraising activity is not permitted in Federal buildings. So whether it is out of my congressional office, whether it is out of a senatorial office, whether it is a Cabinet member or the President of the United States, it is wrong, and Janet Reno as the Attorney General of the United States, we seek your appointment with due speed.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. The procedure is defined in the bill as the partial delivery of a living fetus which is then destroyed prior to the completion of delivery. This is a particularly appalling procedure in which the difference between complete birth and abortion is a matter of a few inches in the birth canal. The bill applies only to the procedure in which the living fetus is partially delivered prior to the abortion act being completed. There is the exception in the bill for the instances in which the life of the mother is at risk. It is amazing for me to listen to people here say we are not going to let Congress get involved in this issue. They should stay out of the operating room, when in fact Congress does get involved with prohibiting certain drugs to be used, overnight stays for mastectomy, prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. We have got mandates. I heard a gentlewoman from New York standing here who is an advocate of the overnight stays for Medicaid births, and I agree with her. But yet she wants the Government to get involved in certain things but not certain things--drawing the line.