Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do also. I listened to the gentleman's arguments, and I wanted to make that clear.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has indicated for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, it is almost comical to me, because the gentleman from California almost gave my speech. I think that as I sit listening to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, even Mr. Conyers, I do not think, would advocate--matter of fact, I will ask the gentleman. I do not think the gentleman advocates, whether he does or does not, setting aside the mandatory three-judge panel under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Would the gentleman be in support of that or not?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the three-judge panel is important because not only do we have the nexus of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but we have that nexus the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] referred to when we have a State referendum. We have voters acting as one voting block, so there is a nexus. And I compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] for drafting this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation recognizes the nexus and the needs for the three-judge panel. Whether we want to debate this issue about the forum shopping or not, I think when we have the people's voice, we must respect the people's voice under the law. So often, Mr. Chairman, people like to talk about the fact we have a democracy in America. We do not have a democracy, we have a republic, a nation of laws, not of people, for the preservation of the rights of the minority. When we have a State referendum acting with that nexus we are talking about, I think it is important to have that single judge move from that to the three-judge panel so we do not have this debate about whether they are acting as capricious or arbitrary authorities. I think it is imprudent and it would be an imprudent exercise of Federal power. I compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] for his legislation and urge its passage.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make several points. I will not take the full 5 minutes. That is, I think the 1965 Voting Rights Act rightfully mandates the three-judge panel to pass judgment on issues dealing with voting rights. When we have a State acting as one voice in a State referendum, there is a proper nexus between the State's voice and that of issues of voting rights under the Voting Rights Act. So with that proper nexus, I think it is a very good issue for this Congress to take. So what we are saying here, if in fact we are going to always mandate in a voting rights case so that it be decided by three Federal judges and now the nexus, it is not also proper for us to have a three-judge panel decide the issues of a State referendum on the issues of constitutionality? I would submit that, yes, it is, because we do not want to take such a paramount issue and allow it to be decided by one. Now one can debate on either side whether it is arbitrary or capricious. I think it is extremely important to move to the three- judge panel, especially when we are talking about the people's voice. It is the people's voice under the law. The people's voice under the law is the protection of the minority, and I think that is what is so wonderful about our country and society as a republic, a nation of laws, not people, and I compliment the gentleman from California. It is a side issue to talk about, well, what is the underlying reason. I think that this is a good bill and should be applied across to all States. Mr. Chairman, that is why I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and say, oh, we are just going to allow it to apply to California. No, we should apply this to any State out there, so let us vote down the gentleman's amendment, and let us side with ration and reason and not with the side of politics.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I do not recall the gentleman moving to have them stricken from the budget.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come here to the floor to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for working out at times what can be differences, but measured on the whole, I think is a very good military construction appropriation budget. I came here because I was hopeful I would listen to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and whether or not he would address some concerns and allegations that he had made in a Dear Colleague, and some press statements, and which he did not come to the floor to retract, so I came here to open up a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about having some questions. Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics and things, and what he has done is he has cited some examples of the pork. He cited a fire station at Grissom Air Force Base. He said, ``There are numerous reasons that this $4.25 million project is not included in the Pentagon planning list. First, except for a small ammunition storage area used by the Reserves, this base is being closed,'' and he underlined that. ``Second, the base already has one fire station, which in the judgment of the DOD construction authorities is more than adequate to support the future operations at the base.'' Actually, I ask if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has received a letter from me today to respond to the factual inaccuracies.

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, then, the facts contained in the press release of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] are factually wrong and inaccurate, and I am hopeful not with any malicious intent. Grissom has not been closed. For him to say that that is accurate is completely false and someone is misguiding him. It has been realigned to a reserve base. It was done in October 1994. The Air Force has requested funds to build the fire training facility at Grissom in fiscal year 1996 and had the fire station placed on the schedule for construction in 1998. The House merely moves the request for the station up 2 years for the facility to be constructed within the reserve cantonment area. Grissom is home to the 434th Air Refueling Wing. There is currently a proposal to move the Indiana National Guard helicopters to Grissom Air Force Base as well. I invite the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to look at these facilities. He would know why we need this fire station for readiness. He is being misguided.

Mr. BUYER. No, I did not. I supported the B-2 bomber. If we have a disagreement with it, that is fine.

Mr. BUYER. How many C-130's are headed to Wisconsin?

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

Mr. BUYER. I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that it is absolutely false and inaccurate, and completely disappointing.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think it is the U.S. Congress who is charged with the responsibility to build the forces to protect the Nation's national security. And that is extremely important.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, to say that this was just requested by a base commander is totally inaccurate.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from General McIntosh, Chief of the Air Force, that talked about the military construction project, as follows: Department of the Air Force, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington DC, September 20, 1995. Hon. Barbara Vucanovich, Chairwoman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Chairman: Congress has inserted a military construction project into the Air Force Reserve's fiscal year 1996 military construction program. This project, Construct New Fire Station at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana, at an estimated cost of $4.25 million, is a valid Air Force Reserve requirement and is not affected by the base closure process. Maj. Gen. Robert A. McIntosh, Chief of Air Force Reserve.

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I was in the Hall as I heard the remarks from the gentleman from Montana which were quite disturbing to me, being a Desert Storm veteran. We all have the intellectual abilities to spin this however we want. Those who are going to vote against this amendment are going to be scared to death going back to their districts. I can understand that. I also respect your intellect. None of us here challenges your patriotism. Let me do say, though, that I believe that the flag is definitely a national symbol that is worthy of respect and should be protected against acts of disgrace. That is what this issue is about. None of us that will vote to support this amendment challenge the patriotism of those who are going to vote against this amendment, so stop the spinning there and trying to spin politics into this one, also. I think this is a great credit to our system, where we have 49 States out there come to us and they say, this is what the American people are asking of us. There are some in this body that are going to say no to that. I think that is really unfortunate. We should listen to the American people. Because the American people when they say, ``We are upset with the direction of the country,'' there are a lot of things that they say about that. One of these is a symbolic vote and one of substance here by supporting this amendment to prevent desecration of the flag.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to make four points, Mr. Chairman. One is a special appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], for the good work he has done, along with the new ranking member, the gentleman from Texas. The other point I would like to make is an appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for making this amendment in order, because in prior congresses it would be suspect whether it would be in order or not. The second argument I would like to make is an argument of process. We have proceded under the rules of the House. We set up authorizing committees and we set up appropriators. If we want to ignore the rules of the House and need to do that, then let us get rid of the Committee on Appropriations and put it all in one. We have done that. History has shown we have tried that before. What we have tried to do under this Congress is to stop the sieve of the money. This is one of the experiences I learned in the 103d Congress, was if you did not get a project, if it was not authorized, or you did not get the amount that you wanted from an authorizing committee, run off to the appropriators and they will appropriate money that either was not authorized or is in excess of the authorizing amount. If we have monies here in excess of the authorizing amount, that should not be made in order. However, it was made in order. I understand that. Now we are here on the House floor as a matter of process and procedure. [[Page H 6348]] Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the consciences of my colleagues to support this amendment and to support the authorizing committees, and not to support the appropriators spending money in excess of that which is authorized. The fourth point I would like to make is that on substance. All of us are beginning to learn there are more and more, tons of studies out there referencing AID. The Agency for International Development has become a bureaucratic beast, a beast for which, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is smiling, he understands what it is about. It is very difficult to rein in the excesses of that. I think the two gentlemen working together are beginning to do that, but I think that AID is a bureaucratic beast which Reagan could not reform, Bush could not reform, and President Clinton is having a very difficult time reforming. I think this House is going to have to take the leadership to reform it. Please support the Burton amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it also would affect environmental compliance. When the gentleman talks also about its impact upon NATO and our security interests, chemical weapons, demilitarization, while I applaud across-the-board cuts, I think that the subcommittee has done an excellent job, and we should support the subcommittee. When they say that this is not going to touch BRACC, when they say this will not touch BRACC, first of all, to my colleagues, we have to remember there are a lot of things in motion out there, whether it is in NATO or here in the United States, with regard to consolidation of posts and the impact upon installations. There are a lot of decisions that base commanders out there have to make, whether it is the commander of a fort. To say it will not be affected by BRACC does not really take some rational thought. A lot of these military construction projects, especially in Europe, are based because of consolidation of the force. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. First of all, Mr. Chairman, this body has exercised pretty sound judgment with regard to having an all-volunteer military. With that, and we talk about support for an all-volunteer force, it means the readiness. We have talked about it on the House floor often. It means training the force and equipping the force so they will be ready. Second is pay and benefits for an all-volunteer force. Third is taking care of the military family, and what that encompasses. We talk about it on the House floor as the quality-of-life issues, whether it is housing and recreation, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, this issue about let us do a 5-percent cut across the board, someone called it mindless. I am not going to call it mindless. I have voted in the past for across-the-board cuts. However, this one, I think the chairwoman and the ranking Member have done an excellent job in this military construction budget. There is no padding, as the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] said. There are some very important decisions that need to be done, and I think that the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations did a very good job. What are we cutting, when we talk about a 5-percent cut? That is new construction, whether it is for port facilities, a fire station, medical facilities, hospitals, dental clinics, outpatient clinics, recreational facilities; we are talking about child care centers, we are talking about barracks. When they say cutting for housing, I would like to ask the author of this amendment, he says it would not touch housing. Would his amendment affect military barracks?

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend from California, you did not fall asleep and wake up in a different country. We woke up to a new majority, I guess, here in the Congress. What I would also say to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums), is that I am going to rise in support of this because to me young men and women must not be denied the opportunity to prepare for careers of serving our Nation in the military while attending college. Some of our students and young minds, which we both have a great deal of respect for, are being denied that opportunity.