Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke. As a retired sergeant major, we benefit by his expertise not only on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, but also in Congress. We have a lot of people here who have been enlisted, and we have had officers and generals and admirals, but when you get a sergeant major, they speak softly. And there's a reason the sergeant major speaks softly, because he doesn't have to speak loudly because they are so well respected. And so, Sergeant Major, your contributions to the committee are recognized and appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I rise here today to work with you as we go here and into conference.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into the detail here that you have. We have an opportunity to utilize a fund that will help our disabled veterans and get many of them off the street. I would yield to the gentleman and ask him is that not yet a worthy cause.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you very much. I reclaim my time. That's the commitment that I came to the floor here today knowing that yes, you wanted to create this trust fund and understanding whether or not there are any guidelines, your commitment to me to work with me and others who have an interest, that you'll give preference to homeless veterans, I take you at your word, Mr. Chairman, and I'll work with you.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Thank you very much for yielding. I am back on the floor, and I am here to make an appeal to my good friend, Ike Skelton. I am here to make an appeal, Mr. Chairman, because I need you to help me. Help me understand why I shouldn't be so upset here today. You have a provision in the bill that is going to open up the Federal Supply Schedule and extend that pricing into DOD whereby when you do that we expand the pool. When you expand the pool, you cost shift. Not only do you cost shift, you are going to increase pharmaceutical costs onto 7 million veterans. So our history here is that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress back in 1992 that said we are going to create the Federal Supply Schedule and we are going to do this cost control. Why? Because if anyone is entitled in our society to have this benefit, it is our disabled veterans. Then what happened? Then in the 1990s we sort of reformed eligibility with regard to the VA and expanded that criteria so the Federal Supply Schedule expanded beyond the disabled veterans now to all veterans. And now what has happened, you want to expand it, Chairman Skelton, into the DOD TRICARE pharmacy benefit program. When you do that, we are going to increase the price of prescription drugs for veterans. Do not go home and pound your chest and say I am denying increase in copays when you are about to vote for increases in drug prices for 7 million veterans. Chairman Skelton, I offered two amendments before the committee, and they were both denied. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. BUYER. Sure. If Federal discounts expand, price levels would be pushed up, the VA would pay a higher price for the drugs it provides to veterans. So this would place an increased pressure on the funding of veterans health care.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I offered two amendments directly to the Rules Committee asking one of my colleagues, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to do these amendments, and they were denied. It was dumbfounding to me.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chair, I come to the floor once again to defend veterans and the country. And I'm also equally disappointed that there are not many veterans willing to stand in the well against provisions in the Defense bill that would increase the price of prescription drugs in the VA. Now, why don't I have enough friends in the well? Well, they're going to have to answer for themselves for that question. But what is occurring here in the House is an assault upon drug manufacturers in the country. There is this quest and design that, let's get what available drug there is out there to everyone at the lowest price. How wonderful that would be. We, in this country, have a unique system. It's called the free market. It's called capitalism. We say unto the world, bring your greatest minds to America. You can go to the capital market, you can make an investment at risk to press the bounds of science that will increase the quality of life of our people and those around the world. Yet, there's an assault upon that system. The assault continues. It began in January whereby the Democrat majority wanted to extend Medicare drug pricing by saying, let's take the VA Federal Supply Schedule and extend that into the Medicare. Bad idea. Democrats tried that back in 1990 and found out that, whoa, that increased drug prices to veterans, and repealed it. But they passed it again in January. Now, what did they do in the Defense bill? In this Defense bill they've now taken the extension of the Federal Supply Schedule and extended it into the retail drug pharmacy benefit. When I did the redesign of the TRICARE pharmacy benefit in the Department of Defense, I created not only the retail network pharmacy benefit, I created the out of retail network pharmacy benefit, and at no time did I ever, ever, believe that we would extend Federal Supply Schedule into the TRICARE pharmacy. So what is about to happen? When you take the system in the VA and you extend that, and you create the pool and make it larger, you are cost shifting. And when you cost shift, you're going to increase these prices in the VA. Now, in the VA that's about 7 million veterans. It's about 1 percent of the market. You say, oh, Steve, that's not a big number. Well, it is ironic to me how Members will pound their chests and say, well, you know, I said no to an increase in a pharmacy copay, but they're about to vote ``yes'' to increase drug prices for veterans when they vote for this Defense bill. This is wrong, and it should not be done, and I'm appealing to Members not to do this. And I am disturbed, disturbed that my good friend, Ike Skelton, denied two of my amendments. I've worked for 15 years with Chairman Skelton on many, many different issues, and I am stunned that he would deny my opportunity to offer two amendments. One was very simple. It would be to have the Secretary certify that before he could implement this program you have to certify it will not increase prices on the VA. Why would you deny that amendment? They are going to deny the amendment because they know, going into this, that the creation of this program is going to increase prices on veterans. I just cannot believe we're about to do that here. Secondly, we should listen to the experts. If you're about to deny a particular drug under the formulary on TRICARE, you'd better have a pretty good reason, and we ought to be able to go to the committee to do that. But they're not going to do that. At this point I am pretty disturbed.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUYER. I do not.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUYER. GAO even did an analysis of the expansion. We asked them to look at it with regard to Medicare, when you tried to do it on Medicare, and pass the House. We know that any time you expand Federal pricing and you increase the pool, drug prices in fact will go up. As a matter of fact in 1990, talk to Chairman John Dingell because he passed that back in 1990, and they realized they made a mistake and it increased the price on veterans, and we had to repeal it. I ask you to talk to Chairman Dingell.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Hunter and Chairman Skelton. I am deeply concerned about the unintended consequences that section 703 may have on the price of drugs for America's veterans. I rise today and ask for your help to request the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the impact of the proposed provision to provide Federal pricing authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask the chairman if he would be willing to request the GAO to conduct such a study. I yield to Chairman Skelton.

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

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his support of this quest, and I believe that such a review will help alleviate any uncertainty with regard to this proposal, and I want to also thank Ranking Member Hunter. To my good friend, Chairman Skelton, you and I have had a great history together in this body for the last 15 years, and I consider you a personal friend. I apologize to you for when I let my passion get to the side of me. I am deeply sorry if in any manner you took my words directly personal to you because I would be offended if you felt that way. You are a genuine human being, and we all recognize that your passion and your support for the men and women who serve in the military is real and, more importantly, it is genuine; and equally, my passion with regard to the men and women in the military and our veterans. You and I will agree more than we ever disagree, and this is a moment where we may find ourselves in conflict. If I crossed the threshold to my good friend, I deeply apologize to you. I hope you accept my apology.

Mr. BUYER. I reclaim my time. Who has a lot to lose? We all have a lot to lose. If you want to open up and do price controls in pharmaceutical manufacturing, we all lose as a society. We will all lose. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Buyer

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BUYER. I do not.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am coming to the floor deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee has denied two amendments that would have protected veterans. We in the VA maintain a national formulary based on a system of deep discounts on prescription drugs through a system of price controls, and we maintain this national formulary. We're able to do that because we are able to purchase drugs at 76 percent of the non-Federal average manufacturing price. It is a price control. But what is happening? The onslaught of the Democrat majority against pharmaceutical manufacturers continues. They want now to extend the price controls, VA pricing, now into DOD. All I asked for was an amendment. The amendment would have asked for a certification from the Secretary of Defense to this Congress that their ambition to do this would not increase prices on our veterans. The VA national formulary amounts to about 1 percent of the pharmaceutical marketplace. The more we extend these price controls, whether it goes into the DOD TRICARE pharmacy, they even want to extend it into Medicare. As you do that, we continue to cost shift. I am deeply disappointed that the Democrat majority would make this onslaught, not just against pharmaceutical manufacturers, that gets their political juices going, but in the meantime they are going to smack veterans right in the face. It is very disappointing. Now, it is a simple amendment, and they should have made it in order. There was a second amendment. The second amendment that I asked to be in order, that was also denied, was that I asked that with regard to this provision, whereby the Secretary of Defense may now be able to deny a drug being placed on the TRICARE formulary, if they do not offer the Federal pricing schedule, I asked that, with regard to this provision the Secretary shall not be able to exclude from the pharmacy benefits program any pharmaceutical agent that the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee determines to be clinically effective or that the patient or the provider demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee that it is clinically necessary. That's denied also. I am stunned. I am stunned. But let's be very clear, America, what is happening. This is a socialist policy. You say oh, my gosh, Steve, don't use the word ``socialist.'' No, this is a socialist policy. A socialist policy is one of price controls. Why do we say we do that with regard to veterans? Because we say in the VA there is no greater classification of people in our society that we should be able to give these deep discounts to than our disabled veterans. But then what does the Democrat majority want to do? They want to take these deep discounts then and give them into TRICARE, give them into the Medicare prescription drug program. They want to continue to use price controls. What happens when you do that? Not only do you cost shift, but you also have a dulling effect on research and development that hurts, that hurts this country. I am deeply disappointed that these amendments were denied.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I am so upset that the Democrat majority has denied my amendments. I am trying to protect America's veterans.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. Once again, it champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. Setting a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would envelope Iraq in a cloud of chaos and self destruction and expose us to a heightened threat of terrorism at home. It ignores the President's plan for success in totality. It makes no consideration for the effort to make progress on diplomatic and economic fronts--essential components for that success to occur. They offer no solutions in this bill, only criticism. Mr. Hoyer's failed attempt on April 19th to correlate my involvement regarding the U.S. efforts in Bosnia in the 1990s to that of the situation in Iraq today stretches into the realm of absurdity. However, what was clear from that debate was that Mr. Hoyer at the time, as well as Mr. Murtha, agreed that we should not tie the hands of our President in military operations, even in operations that the Congress did not approve. Mr. Speaker, let me refresh everyone's memories of that debate which took place in this Chamber, a debate in which I was the lead sponsor of three significant resolutions or amendments that set the course of this Congress--all three which passed by significant margins with support from both sides of the aisle. But before I begin let me remind the Nation that there are significant differences and some similarities between the debate of Bosnia and today in Iraq. First, Congress did not authorize the President to use force in Bosnia. Congress did authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. Second, we did not begin the conflict in Bosnia, but we did in Iraq. Third, the Republican majority in Congress did in fact try to work with President Clinton to find a solution. Former Senator Bob Dole and I with others traveled with President Clinton to Bosnia and worked with him to set benchmarks for the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I did not assign a date certain to define success for each benchmark, this would have been folly. At the time the leaders of the peace were once leaders during the war and they focused more on these differences than that which brought them together as a nation. President Clinton did a very good job focusing the Bosnian leaders to accomplish the benchmarks and move to resolve their differences and build their new nation. Last week on the House Floor my colleague, Steny Hoyer attempted to re-write the history of my involvement, claiming that I supported a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Bosnia and therefore I should do the same with our forces in Iraq. The two contexts are dissimilar. Let me set the record straight. On October 30, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 247, a bill that I sponsored with my Democrat colleague, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 315 to 103. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no,'' Mr. Skelton voted ``yes.'' The bill stated that there should not be a presumption that the United States Armed Forces would be deployed to enforce a peace agreement that resulted from the negotiations regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In early December 1995, the Dayton Accords concluded, laying a basis for the path to peace in Bosnia. On December 13, 1995, I sponsored House Resolution 302 with Ike Skelton, a bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 287 to 141. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no.'' That bill reiterated the serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that would result in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite the expressed will of the House, President Clinton chose to proceed with the deployment of those members of the Armed Forces to enforce the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia. H.R. 302 declared the policy of the House was that the President should rely on the judgment of the commanders of U.S. forces on the ground on all matters affecting safety, support, and well being of U.S. forces. Congress also declared to furnish the resources to support the needs of President and the Secretary of Defense. Also on December 13, 1995, the President expressed to Congress that the military mission in Bosnia would be accomplished in 1 year, and our troops would be pulled out no later than December 1996. No one believed that the goal could be accomplished within 1 year. A date certain does not define success, the mission does. However, despite that assertion, in November 1996, without the consent of Congress, President Clinton announced that the timeline was slipping and that our troops would not be withdrawn until June 1998. By that point, the United States Armed Forces had acted quickly to achieve their military objectives in Bosnia. In short order, the courage, dedication, and professionalism of those personnel resulted in a significant mitigation of the violence and suffering in that region. However, the implementation of the civil infrastructure--the humanitarian support, the establishment of a judicial system and a validated police force--all of the fundamental parts that help make a society function had stalled and there was no definitive plan to remedy the situation. In response, on June 24, 1997, I offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 that passed the House by a vote of 278 to 148. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no'', Skelton voted ``yes.'' That amendment would have cut funding to U.S. military operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date set by the President. I did not set the date Mr. Hoyer, this was President Clinton's date. This amendment was later incorporated into the conference report that included provisions that would allow U.S. forces to remain if the President made certain certifications and accomplished certain benchmarks. While I used the date certain given to us by the President, I made it clear that I supported benchmarks that set the conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. forces after the mission had been successfully completed. President Clinton had set an arbitrary date without articulating a comprehensive plan--he did not identify the conditions to be met into order to trigger a troop withdrawal from Bosnia. He simply set a date, and then revised that date. We in Congress took that date, and required certain benchmarks to be met, while at the same time allowing the President the flexibility to allow troops to remain if he thought it was in the interests of U.S. national security. In Bosnia, we worked in a bipartisan manner with the President to set the conditions for success in Bosnia and gave the President maximum flexibility. Today, this President gets no such deference or flexibility from the Democrat majority. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha want to enforce a date certain for this President. They do not want to work with this President to set the conditions for success. They simply want to trigger a date for withdrawal, before the mission is done. It is ironic that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha voted against that amendment--they did not want to set a date certain for withdrawal and tie the hands of their President. They wanted to give him the latitude that he needed to insure that the mission in Bosnia met with success; to re-establish civility, an effective government, a validated police force and civil infrastructure. Today, their position is the opposite. President Bush is not setting a date certain as President Clinton had done. Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Murtha all are seeking to tie the hands of this President. They want to cut off funds to our forces who are only doing what this Congress has asked them to do. Congress should not tie the hands of the President with a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike President Clinton with Bosnia, President Bush had the approval of Congress to go into Iraq. He has given us a plan, conditions that must be met before we start to bring our troops home. Yet, Mr. Hoyer and his party want to set an arbitrary date, a date certain for withdrawal that does not correspond to those conditions whatsoever--cut off funding for our troops who seek only to succeed in their mission. This is defeatist strategy. We need to help establish a stable Iraq before we withdrawal our forces--the provisions in this bill do not allow us that flexibility and the price that we will pay is chaos in Iraq and further exposure to terror here at home. The majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid talks about polling data from Senator Schumer that indicate ``political'' gains by their party on Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Democrat majority think of Iraq in terms of political points, not national security. If we do not resolve this issue with immediacy, the readiness of our troops will be compromised. They are struggling to determine how they will redistribute funds to pay for their operations while we are here politicking. We must stop the defeatist strategy of the majority now-- the one by which they hope to gain political capital from to the detriment of our troops in the field. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. So we have 20 minutes. So as of right now we are still operating under the Veterans Affairs Committee time, not Mr. Hunter's time, would that be correct?

Mr. BUYER. So to the Chair it doesn't matter, with regard to the utilization. All right. Thank you.