Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3685, which was introduced by my good friend, the deputy ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Cliff Stearns of Florida. This bill would make it easier to find employment opportunities in their area and promote the VetSuccess Web site. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to discuss his legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, the challenge before the body is we now have legislation before us which is on an issue which is now being thrown into the courts, and we've got a statute that's not being followed by the executive branch; and it is completely within the rights of Congress to speak, but we've got to be very careful. Do we understand the scope and issues at hand? I submit we do not, and we are eagerly rushing something onto the floor. Let me go a little bit further. My colleague Mrs. Halvorson argues that this bill does not change the existing payment authority and does not address the legality of retained asset accounts for SGLI purposes, but I'm also a lawyer, and I respectfully suggest that it may do just that. I am not alone in my view with regard to this concern because I have been talking with other lawyers about my legal analysis of this present challenge. After the markup, one of the representatives of one of the veterans service organizations, of whom I've had disagreements with over the years, came up to me and told me that he agreed with the concerns. Members of the committee actually regret that I didn't offer the amendment to actually strip the bill, and I guess I never thought that this would actually come to the floor until these matters got addressed. It's laudable to require the VA to counsel SGLI beneficiaries on their benefits, the payment methods available to them. It's very clear in the statute, very clear already in the statute, but this bill goes a lot further and specifically requires counseling about something the bill euphemistically terms, quote, maintaining the payment, end quote. Now, what is that? What do you mean ``maintaining the payment''? The statute is already very clear what you're to do with the money when it comes to widows and orphans or other beneficiaries. This is a reference to the retained asset account payment method without calling it that. I think it is reasonable to ask how Congress can tell the VA to counsel anyone about Prudential's practice that may be illegal without well informing them of what Prudential is doing may be illegal and is being challenged in a Federal class action today unless, of course, we change the law and expressly make the practice legal, which Mrs. Halvorson maintains she's not doing. But somehow, I don't think that full disclosure is going to occur. I completely understand how my colleagues might find all this rather confusing, and I don't find it funny either. I'm also confused by Mr. Chairman's report statement after the Bloomberg article was released that he was outraged, and the VA should demand answers. Did we get answers, and now everything is all right? Did the VA's self-investigation resolve everything? The White House has also made a statement, calling this an unacceptable business practice. Have the unacceptable business practices been identified? Have they been stopped? Has something changed, and now Congress should mandate that the VA give specific counseling on the ``outrageous'' and the ``unacceptable'' business practice? That's what this legislation does. Mr. Speaker, this complex issue is directly before Congress in the form of H.R. 5993, as amended. We should not be effectively ratifying this practice by requiring the VA to counsel beneficiaries about it. Instead, we should give careful scrutiny and make sure we understand it sufficiently to decide whether to expressly authorize it in the law for the future. Our servicemembers and veterans and their families in the VA, Prudential, and life insurance experts should all have an opportunity to weigh in on the record. I want to make sure that it's clear and that I'm not taking a position for or against the practice of retained asset accounts. The real problem, as I see it, is that the retained asset accounts now, as they have been questioned, are receiving scrutiny and appear not to match the payment authorized in the United States Code. So when you pull out the United States Code--and we're talking about the present statute--so you turn to title 38, section 1790, and then you turn to (d). It says: ``The member may elect settlement of an insurance under this subchapter either in lump sum or in 36 equal monthly installments.'' It doesn't say anything in the statute about retained asset accounts. Now, why is that? Go back to legislative history. When this statute was written back in the mid-1960s, there as no such thing as a retained asset account. So what has changed? There is a commonly accepted business practice in America with regard to retained asset accounts. Now, in the latter part of the 1990s, the VA struck an agreement with Prudential then to adopt that business practice. But what they did is they adopted a business practice that is contradictory to the United States Code, the statute. So this bill before us is about to say, the VA should provide counsel to the beneficiaries about a business practice that is not even legal. That's like saying, Okay, in title 10, it is illegal to smoke marijuana, but in another statute Congress is going to provide counseling on the proper use of an illegal substance. And you say, Steve that's crazy. You are absolutely right, that's crazy, and that's why this legislation before us today is crazy. We should not be saying we're going to provide counseling with regard to some agreement that the executive branch struck that's in contradiction to the statute. Now, you've got the VA and Prudential. Immediately they do a powwow. Oh, my gosh, we've got a problem. We've got to try to define this. The White House has made a statement. Ooh, it says ``unacceptable.'' We've got to figure out--come together and strike an agreement. This is Groundhog Day, Mr. Speaker. The agreement that the executive branch struck with an insurance company back in the latter part of the 1990s was not authorized for them to do because the statute says how SGLI payments are to go directly to beneficiaries. It doesn't say you can do three or four other types of payment schedules. It only says two of them. You either give them a lump sum or you do 36 monthly installments. It's very clear. So this agreement is just as worthless as the agreement they struck in the 1990s when it comes to the law. I guess maybe it makes them feel better. Maybe they hope that it takes the heat off. This thing, this agreement is about politics, it is about substance and legality, and it is about public relations. But if you really want it to be about the law, then what we should do is look at the law; and we need to say, Okay, then maybe you need to amend the Code. If you have to amend the Code to say, We want to permit retained asset accounts, then that is, in fact, what we should be doing. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FACT SHEET Actions for Improving the Alliance Account Program, September 13, 2010 VA takes seriously the concerns raised regarding the Alliance Accounts (AA) and has reviewed the program to ensure that beneficiaries are protected, being treated fairly, and accorded the utmost care and respect. A full explanation of terms up-front, education about options, and financial counseling to assist in decision making will provide the transparency that will continue to ensure confidence in this important program. By the end of October, 2010, VA will make the following modifications to ensure: All benefits due under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) or Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policies are received by the beneficiaries in a secure, timely manner. Beneficiaries are enabled in making deliberate and responsible decisions with the assets they receive. Beneficiaries making financial decisions have been educated and assisted in understanding the complex issues before them. They will be made comfortable in competently managing benefits in accordance with their own time lines. Options available to the beneficiaries will be clear, competitive, and at no cost to the beneficiary. The entire settlement process is dignified and respectful of the individuals involved. The specific approaches that VA, working in consultation with other Agencies, has determined it will pursue in the near term are: VA will provide better clarity of payment options by using a new Claim Form that requires the beneficiary to affirmatively choose one of three clear payment options: Lump Sum Alliance Account (Retained Asset Account). Lump Sum Payment--Paid out in full via a check sent to the beneficiary. VA is exploring Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). 36 Monthly Installments--Paid out in full via monthly installments, as mandated by law, sent to the beneficiary (this three year payout option has always been available to beneficiaries). If the beneficiary does not select an option, the SGLI Program will utilize the AA. The AA provides immediate access to funds, while permitting beneficiaries the time necessary to study their options and make deliberate, responsible financial decisions. In addition: A VA-supplied letter will be enclosed with every Claim Form and every AA Kit that will explain in a clear and complete manner: That the insurance proceeds have been deposited into an interest bearing account at rates competitive with similar types of ``demand accounts'' (e.g., checking, money market, etc.). The current interest rate and the fact that the interest rate may vary over time. That the beneficiary can immediately write a ``check'' for the entire payment or any lesser amount. That AA funds are retained by Prudential until paid out. That while AA is not FDIC insured; it is backed by Prudential and State Guaranty Associations. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has established the following Web site for additional consumer information: http://www.naic.org/consumer_ military insurance.htm That free, professional independent financial counseling is available to all beneficiaries for a period of two years or as long as they have funds remaining in their AA. VA will also take the following actions: VA will require Prudential to conduct a follow up contact with beneficiaries whose accounts remain open after six months to confirm beneficiary understands the terms of the account. All SGLI/VGLI related information, including FAQ's, Web site information, handbooks, etc. will be modified to clearly and completely explain all aspects of the AA and all options available to the beneficiary. VA will clearly designate the source of correspondence by removing the SGLI seal from all ``checks'', forms, and correspondence and replacing it to show that it is from Prudential, with the subtitle of ``Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance''. VA will identify additional opportunities to encourage beneficiaries to use the free financial counseling service. VA will, in coordination with DoD, improve support to Casualty Assistant Officers and Transition Assistance Program (TAP) Personnel by helping to prepare additional training materials and instruction. VA continues to carefully monitor this program and remains committed to making any improvements necessary to ensure that Servicemember and Veteran beneficiaries are well-protected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. September 13, 2010.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, opposition to this bill. For that very moment, the chairman compliments the gentlelady for having legislation immediately upon a concern. It is so much like an American. We don't even have the patience to figure out where the problem is but let me tell you about our solution. Now, what we're supposed to do around this place is do a little homework, do a little investigation, find out what's going on, have the distillation of the facts, find out what the facts are in the first place. Oh, no, no, no. Let's run out there and act like we are ``doing something'' when we don't even know what the heck we're doing. It's the reason the American people get upset with us and they get upset with this institution; especially now, when you get so close to an election, you have to protect and guard yourself against politics over substance. This bill, by forcing it onto the floor at this moment in time, is exactly that. This bill condones a controversial practice the VA called retained asset, or alliance accounts, for paying Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, proceeds to the families of deceased servicemembers. Now, we all thought that the statute was being followed. It wasn't. Someone years ago down at the VA changed it. In the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we have not had adequate time to address the issues on this bill. There's no record on which we base and form policy decision or evaluate the views of the life insurance experts. None of us had the opportunity to do that. One of the executives from Prudential came by the office. We had a very good discussion about relevant concerns I can address a little bit later. The use of these accounts in place of the SGLI lump sum payment called for in the Federal statute is currently the subject of a Federal fraud lawsuit in Boston by five plaintiffs against the Prudential Life Insurance Company. Prudential is the VA's contractor managing the SGLI program and making the payments. New York's attorney general has launched an investigation of Prudential as well. My colleagues on the committee know next to nothing about a very complex issue, its history, the controversy surrounding it. Indeed, I would like to know more about it myself before having to even vote on it. I'm learning something new almost every day I deal with this issue. The issue requires careful deliberation by the committee. We should not have to base decisions on media reports in Bloomberg or The Washington Post.

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

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, when we marked up the bill in the committee, I raised very pertinent issues. I sought to work with the author of the bill. She had no interest in working out an amendment on the language. I thought what would happen is, well, I won't offer the amendment in the committee. We'll work this matter out as we learn more. The chairman even spoke about this week we were to have done a hearing on this bill. We get notice on Friday that they want to bring it to the floor. We're supposed to be doing a hearing on the bill this week before we bring it to the floor. But what's happening is is this body, called Congress, is in a panic. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. BUYER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here is our challenge. I don't know what about these other groups, Mr. Chairman, that you have had a chance to talk to. I just spoke to the new chairman of the American Legion.

Mr. BUYER. I am going to take all of it. I will even take your time, if you will give it to me. You know, you can stand up and say, Well, this veterans group supports it, and this one doesn't. You cited the American Legion. I just spoke to a brand-new commander of the American Legion who supports my position, so I don't know what the disconnect is. I can assure you, now that I am speaking about the fact that there is a legal problem, the fact that I informed the executive of Prudential with regard to this way forward that you have signed with the VA does not get you out of the hot water that you are in. There is a legal problem here. And the four corners of the document that we have before us is actually legislation that uses this clever and artful language about maintaining the lump sum payment. What do you mean, ``maintaining the lump sum payment''? It's almost like a code word for saying, We want to maintain our current business practice of the retained asset account because that's what the way forward agreement is. It's very clever. This is very wrong. Here is what we ought to do, Mr. Speaker. I have never done this before on the House floor with anyone in my 18 years, but I am going to ask this of Chairman Filner: Would the gentleman ask that this legislation be pulled from the floor at this time so we may work out the details rather than having this heated debate? You said that you would have a hearing on it. Let's go have a hearing. Let's work this out with our leading experts, and let's bring a work product to the floor that we can be proud of. And I want to ask the gentleman if he would withdraw this legislation. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER. Well, all right. Reclaiming my time, this was a very good moment for bipartisanship, to actually bring a work product to the floor that we could all agree on. And I am greatly disappointed, Bob, that you made that judgment call. But this is not right. This isn't right at all. The suspension calendar, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to be for legislation that is noncontroversial. It is supposed to be for legislation that the parties have worked out in a collegial manner, not to take something for which there is utter and complete disagreement, not to take something that there have been no hearings on, not to take an issue that it now finds itself in attorney generals' investigations and class action lawsuits, and we are just going to, like, bring it to the floor, even though we are going to pass a statute that is in complete contradiction of an existing statute. What are we doing? I mean, this is really a time-out moment here. This is a time-out moment, Mr. Speaker. And it is very, very bothersome to me that something like this would be placed on the suspension calendar, especially when this was the week in which we were supposed to be holding hearings on it. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are anxious to get out of here and you want us to adjourn for an election, but don't take legislation to the floor that is not properly prepared for the floor. And you have permitted that to occur, and that is not right. It is wrong, in my book. But you are the majority, and you have actually been able to show that you can do as you please, and the rules don't always matter, I guess, around here. But I want the Record to reflect my views on what is happening here. Also, I will file additional views with the bill and the report to explain in greater detail the legality of what I feel that we are facing, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this bill does not become law until it is fixed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you are moving fast today. Had I known, I would have been here for the first bill. And I am serious about that comment. You have to give us adequate time to get to the floor so we can respond to the bills. I am recognized, and I am making a statement, because I am really upset. I am upset because this is the way the majority has been running the Congress, Mr. Speaker. If you want to know why the American people are upset with the majority, it is because of this. If you don't give adequate notice to even a ranking member to be on the floor on bills, people are going to know. Do you know why they are going to know? Because I am going to tell the story. Rules matter around this place. Now, let me go back to the first bill. The only reason I mention this is because I want to thank--you just passed it, by voice vote. Let me tell you what is upsetting, something else that matters around here, and it is the Parliamentarian. You drop that bill, and the Parliamentarian makes those bills go to the appropriate jurisdictions. Something may get added by amendment to a particular bill that some other committee thinks that they want a view on it. Then what happens is the majority, not giving a doggone about the minority, puts bills onto this floor, whatever they want to do, so long as it is in comfort with someone else. They don't care about the minority or what our views are, so they just put it on the floor. So once again we try to change the ``may'' to ``shall'' language in the last bill. The Small Business Committee prevents it. Now, why would you do that? Why would the Small Business Committee, run by the Democrat majority, alienate the disabled veterans? Why do you keep doing this? We keep appealing to you to place the disabled veteran in a higher position with regard to other set-asides, and you won't do it. Mr. President, don't stand up and tell the American people, well, now we are going to focus on small business. Or, Madam Speaker, don't stand up and say we are now going to focus on small business. What did you do at the moment of calling? At the moment of calling, when you had an opportunity to do something about it, what did you do? Don't give the American people rhetoric. What did you do at the moment of acting? Oh, no, no, no, we are not going to do it. Oh, you do your stimulus bill. I want to respond to a $1 billion small business bill on veterans. No, we're not going to do that; we are going to do VA construction. Now you say, oh, my gosh, what are we going to do to stimulate small business? You had your opportunity over and over and over. So, yes, I am pretty upset, Mr. Speaker. I am really upset. I am upset at what happened on that last bill. I am retiring. I am leaving Congress. And I am hopeful that the chairman--that you are as pugnacious as you can be and focus on that to help that disabled veteran, and change that language, Mr. Filner, from ``may'' to ``shall,'' and I think it will go a very long way. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the bill in front of us, I rise in support of it. It is the Veterans Benefits and Economic Welfare Improvement Act of 2010. It is a bipartisan, omnibus veterans benefits bill that includes many provisions that help veterans and their families. H.R. 6132 will assist transitioning servicemembers by creating a new program through the Veterans Employment and Training Service to assist unemployed veterans who are not eligible for other VA education programs by creating a new on-the-job training and apprenticeship program. The bill also codifies programs that the VA is currently using to transform its disability claims processing system and provide veterans the right to equitable tolling when a claim reaches the Board of Veterans' Claims. The bill would assist pensioners by excluding the repayment of medical expenses or medical insurance awards or settlements from the veteran's annual income when determining their pension amount. I am also pleased and also appreciate the chairman's supporting of the provision by the ranking member, Henry Brown of the Subcommittee on Health to increase the pension for Medal of Honor recipients to $2,000 a month. Mr. Speaker, while I am sure we all agree that the provisions in this bill are laudable, it is unfortunate that certain provisions have also been left out. Ranking Member Boozman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity was also successful at the full committee markup of this bill in adding a provision that would have protected the veteran's Second Amendment right to bear arms. His amendment would have prevented veterans from losing this right without a judicial decision or due process. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. The provision was supported by the American Legion, AMVETS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the NRA, and the Gun Owners of America. Chairman Conyers of the Judiciary Committee raised questions on the jurisdictional issue regarding the provision and insisted that it be taken out. Here we go again. So to America, bills are coming to the floor, people are yanking things out of the bill. So what is happening is we are rushing bills to the floor, rather than allow them to be properly vetted through all jurisdictions. We are not going to do that. So what do we have? We have a bill now on the floor that had a gun provision taken out of it right before an election. That is great. I am not running again, so those of you who are pleased that I guess the gun provision was taken out of the bill, you can answer to your constituents about why that happened. So I'm, once again, bothered. It's unfortunate. I am leaving an institution that I love and respect, but, boy, am I bothered with the way it is being run. I ask Members to support this bill.

Mr. BUYER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for another bipartisan bill H.R. 5360, despite my deep disappointment that certain veteran-friendly small business provisions passed unanimously by the Veterans Affairs Committee have been stricken from the bill before us today. Those provisions directly would have improved opportunities for small businesses owned and controlled by service disabled veterans. H.R. 5360, is a bill that is a compilation of several bills reported to the Veterans Affairs Committee by the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity under the leadership of the distinguished Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and I appreciate her work and that of Ranking Member Boozman and Chairman Filner for bringing this bill to the floor. At a time when small businesses are facing a continuing shortage of credit, I am delighted to see that the bill includes section five which I introduced to reestablish the VA's small business loan program that expired in 1986. Under section five, VA would be authorized to guarantee small business loans up to $200,000 made by financial institutions. VA would also be required to contract with a financial institution experienced in this field to manage the program. I had originally introduced a similar provision in H.R. 293 and H.R. 4220. However, I am deeply disappointed that the Democrats on the Small Business Committee led by Chairwoman Nadia Velazquez once again chose to favor other small business set aside groups over service disabled veteran-owned small business by objecting to section 21 which I also included in this bill by amendment at the Full Committee markup. Section 21 would have merely leveled the playing field for service disabled veteran-owned small businesses when competing with other set aside groups for VA contracts by changing the word ``may'' to ``shall'' when awarding sole source contracts to service disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The Veterans Affairs Committee unanimously passed both of these provisions in hope that an additional source of credit backed by the VA will encourage lenders to increase the amount of credit and that a level playing field is the right thing to do for small businesses owned and controlled by service disabled veterans. It is truly unfortunate that Chairwoman Velazquez and Speaker Pelosi continue their history of opposing provisions that would benefit disabled veteran- owned small business. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate indeed that about 10 percent of homeless veterans are women and a significant percentage of those veterans bring children with them. So I am also pleased that the bill includes another provision which I introduced to establish a Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program for Women or HVRP-W. This program will focus on homeless programs specially designed to serve homeless women veterans and veterans with children. A veteran, especially one with children at their side should never be homeless. Section 13 of the bill contains a provision introduced by Mr. Boozman to encourage research and development in the field of assistive technologibs used to adapt the homes of severely injured veterans. This authority will make a disabled veterans' homes just a bit more livable. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our young people need positive role models. That is why the provisions I introduced as part of H.R. 4220 are an important part in this bill. Section 19 would provide a small temporary stipend to veterans who are new teachers in rural areas. Therefore, we are not only helping veterans to become teachers in rural areas, but we are also showing our next generation of America's what it means to make a commitment to the nation. Section 20 would also provide one-year internship jobs at VA for up to 2,000 graduates of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program. These positions will provide service disabled veterans with work experience while helping VA meet the needs of their fellow veterans. Anyone who has renovated a home recently knows the cost of construction continues to climb more rapidly that the overall inflation rate. Severely disabled veteran often need their homes adapted to make them more livable. That is why Mr. Boozman introduced provisions to make a small increase in the grants made under VA's Specially Adapted Home program. These provisions would increase the existing small grant to $13,756 and the large grant to $65,780. Mr. Speaker, section 24 contains provisions also introduced by Mr. Boozman as H.R. 4259 known as the WARMER Act. This bill updates the types and maximum values of energy efficiency loans that VA may guarantee while directing VA to standardize its appraisal process to ensure energy efficiency improvements are properly valued. Finally, section 25 is a provision introduced by Mr. Moran of Kansas to make it easier for severely disabled veterans to use the Temporary Residence Adaptation or TRA grant. TRA grants make small grants up to $12,000 available to adapt the homes of family members with whom a severely injured veteran is living. Normally, TRA grants are deducted from the veterans overall grant, thus reducing subsequent grants. The provision would allow VA to issue up to 25 grants in Fiscal Year 2011 without reducing the veterans total award. This will help determine whether disabled veterans would be more likely to use the TRA grant. Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure the Members of my support for this excellent bill despite the removal of several provisions that would benefit veteran-owned small businesses at this critical time and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5360.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5630, a bill which would set certain requirements for professional level jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office reported that one-third of the VA's regional offices reported that their VRE staffs did not have the skills needed to properly serve the disabled veterans who come to them for help. Although it is our understanding the VA currently hires counselors with at least a master's degree in vocational rehabilitation counseling, it does not require counselors to obtain and maintain certification in their field from a national certifying organization. There are also no educational qualifications for VRE employment coordinators. To ensure that the VA rehabilitation counselors are the best qualified in their field, H.R. 5630 would set a minimum hiring standard at a master's degree and would require counselors to obtain national certification within 5 years of hiring and to maintain these qualifications. Employment coordinators would be required to have a relevant bachelor's degree, to obtain certification within 5 years, and to maintain these qualifications. Counselors and coordinators who fail to comply with these standards will be subject to termination. Mr. Speaker, these are commonsense provisions which are designed to ensure that our disabled veterans are receiving the best vocational rehabilitation and employment services possible. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5630, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise also in support of H.R. 3787, as amended, introduced by my good friend, the former Command Sergeant Major Tim Walz of the Minnesota National Guard. I know where he wanted to go with this legislation. I think what he has done is really struck the right compromise. I discussed this even at the time in the committee. We don't like to think of America as a coalition government, but in fact that's what we are. We are States out there for which we all have to recognize the constitutions of each of the States and we are bound together by a U.S. Constitution. Different States have their own militia but at the same time they're also under the United States Code, and can be called upon. When they're called upon to serve in Federal status, in particular serving the Nation at war for a period of greater than 180 days or are injured on active duty, they gain access to not only being called a veteran but also to veterans' benefits. But this is a pretty good title. It is an honorary title with regard to those who served greater than 20 years in the National Guard and they had not been called to active duty for an extended period of time, which would make them eligible for VA benefits under the statute. So I think what the gentleman from Minnesota has tried to do is to strike the appropriate balance, and I believe that he has found it. I urge all Members to support H.R. 3787, as amended. I congratulate the former Sergeant Major on a job well done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3199 the ``Emergency Medic Transition (EMT) Act.'' This bill, introduced by Congresswoman Harman, was originally included as an amendment to the House passed version of the Health Reform bill. Congresswoman Harman, at my request, kindly withdrew the amendment so we could properly vet this with our VA Committee professional staff. I want to thank Congresswoman Harman for allowing my staff to review the bill and contribute suggestions. I am pleased to announce my full support of this legislation to help veterans and states alike. By funding this HHS program that will award grants to state entities with jurisdiction over emergency medical personnel training and licensing, states will be provided the resources for our veterans to receive the EMT training and certification they need, help fill state shortages in emergency medical technicians, and avoid duplicative training courses and costs. Further, the included GAO study will help Congress assess the program's effectiveness going forward. Licensing and certification of returning veterans for civilian jobs for skills that they have been trained and are well-experienced in from their military service has been a long standing point of frustration and a barrier to many returning veterans finding meaningful employment in a timely manner. Recent reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate among our newest cohort of veterans is at an alarming rate of 19.3% for the month of August. It is my hope that H.R. 3199 will alleviate a portion of this problem and help our combat medics get their EMT licenses with as little bureaucratic red tape as possible. Lastly, in order for this bill to meet its full intent and potential, it is critical for the Governors of our states to swiftly create consistent licensing standards necessary to fill EMT shortages and put veterans to work. I look forward to working with the states to accomplish this goal.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, H.R. 6127, the Extension of Health Care Eligibility for Veterans who Served at Qarmat Ali Act, to extend the VA healthcare enrollment period for certain veterans who served in the Qarmat Ali region of Iraq. Soon after the conflict in Iraq began in 2003, Army National Guard units from my home state of Indiana as well as units from Oregon, West Virginia, and South Carolina and National Guardsmen mobilized as individual augmentees from across the nation were called up and tasked with guarding the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility. For 6 months--from April to September--these National Guardsmen from across the nation bravely guarded the plant, located just outside Basra. Their mission was to secure the facility and provide protective services for the independent contractors who were working throughout the region to restore Iraqi oil production. Recently, they have been notified of their possible exposure to a toxic chemical known as sodium dichromate and are being asked to come forward, be evaluated, and enroll in VA's Gulf War Registry. Health problems associated with such exposure include respiratory issues, skin lesions, and burns. Contact may cause increased rates of lung cancer and other ear, nose, throat, and skin disorders. The men and women of these National Guard units completed their mission--and served our country--well. It was hard for me to discover that despite their safe return, their service may continue to put them at risk. In particular, I am very sensitive to the Hoosiers who may have been injured. Under current law, combat veterans who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations during a period of war after the Persian Gulf War or in combat against a hostile force during a period of ``hostilities'' after November 11, 1998 are eligible to enroll in the VA health care system, notwithstanding sufficient evidence of service- connection, for five years following separation from service. This includes members of the National Guard and Reserve who were activated and served in combat support or direct operations as long as they meet certain requirements. When Congress established the 5 year period of open enrollment for VA health care it was with the understanding that some wounds of war may not manifest themselves until years after a veteran leaves military duty. But despite our best intentions, we are finding that some veterans are faced with combat-related health problems that were not apparent even 5 years after the veteran re-entered civilian life. This creates a gap in services that unfairly penalizes these men and women for conditions out of their control. I commend the VA for their efforts to contact these veterans and create the Qarmat Ali Registry to aggressively track and treat veterans exposed to this toxic chemical as part of the Gulf War Registry. However, it is also important for them to have immediate access to VA's high quality health care system. The use of VA health care will help to identify potential medical conditions, and provide counseling, immunizations, and medications to prevent illness. Appropriate preventative care can substantially improve health outcomes and the quality of life for our honored heroes. But, some of the Qarmat Ali veterans who separated from service following their deployment in 2003 may no longer be eligible to enroll in VA health care under the 5-year open enrollment period. As a result, they must first file a claim and seek a service-connected disability rating before enrolling in the VA health care system and gaining access to the comprehensive medical care VA provides. Unfortunately, the claims process can be both time-consuming and daunting. It is unacceptable that the Qarmat Ali veterans, already subjected to harmful toxins during service to our country, must now await the outcome of a lengthy and sometimes adversarial claims processing system before they can enroll in VA health care. The VA was established expressly to care for veterans like these who willingly left their homes, families, and lives to protect and defend our nation and may find themselves sick or injured as a result of such selflessness. H.R. 6127 would correct this unintended gap in services by extending the enrollment eligibility period for Qarmat Ali veterans by 5 years from the date of notification. This would allow them to immediately begin receiving services at VA medical facilities for any and all of their health care needs. Breaking down barriers to needed care is the very least we, as a grateful nation, can do for the men and women who fight for our freedoms, in Qarmat Ali and around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6127 and these brave American heroes.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I am leaving this body here in the next 6 months. Now, one side is saying this is all about protecting jobs, about protecting teachers, firefighters, police officers. That's great spin. I'm going home. This is about protecting the ignominious conduct and behavior of legislators that didn't do their job and they're too frightened right now, 84 days before an election. They don't want to increase taxes, they don't want to cut spending, and they don't want to monetize the debt. So what do they do? They turn to the Federal Government and have us monetize the debt, issue bonds, have China do it so they don't have to make tough judgments. This is the bailout. This is another bailout. Folks, we cannot continue to do this. We talk about what type of Nation we want to pass on to our children. Let's not do this. I am distressed about it. When we passed the SCHIP as a body and came together, we said that we would do so and make eligibility at 133 percent of poverty. Then what happened? A lot of these States thought that the good economic times would never end, and so they mushroomed the eligibility.

Mr. BUYER. Two States are the worst offenders: New York and New Jersey. Instead of 133 percent, they are at 400 and 350 percent respectively, eligibility to poverty. Oh, no, no; they don't want to make the tough decisions. Guess what; not only do the State legislators not want to make tough decisions, this Congress also doesn't want to make tough decisions. That is why we are facing almost a $1.5 trillion annual budget deficit. America, please, please, wake up, and remember in November.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 5822, as reported. This amendment would provide $10 million in VA general operating expense funding for the VA-US Paralympic Adaptive Sports Grant Program. Madam Chairwoman, several years ago I had the opportunity to visit the U.S. Olympic Training Center in San Diego. From that moment we then set the course to restructure the United States Olympic Committee. Once we did that, by the relationships that developed, by the reorganization of the Olympic Committee, we then became a Nation at war. I then sought to leverage these relationships with the VA and their sports programs. I looked at this and how we can use sports as a platform for healing, and you know, when I looked back on this, yes, you know, we moved out and we embraced it. I started at the top and probably should have started at the bottom. I started where I started and it was with the Olympics, the Olympic Committee. Not everyone is an Olympian. That's the reality of this. Not everyone was blessed with an Olympic body or the mind or the will. But it's how do we, as a Nation, use sports as a platform for healing? And most of our warriors are athletes. And so when they get injured, how do we inspire them? Now, when we brought the Olympic Committee and the sports programs from the VA together, we were able to leverage that whereby our military athletes then could actually have an avenue to be part of the Olympic team. And that has, in fact, happened and has been done. Last year--and I want to thank Chairman Edwards--he supported the $10 million that went into this adaptive sports program. The Olympic committee helps with this grant program now to take the same ideal, the Olympic ideal, and move it out to all the communities across the country. And so an individual who may not be an Olympian can be an Olympian of their own community, can actually compete. It is that competition--it's not the winning. It's have you improved yourself, have you bettered your time, and making someone feel good about that, this Adaptive Sports program, whereby it's done at the local level and then builds up is really good, and this is a very good program. We're in our infancy, and I want to thank the chairman and for supporting this last time. So the concept I think is pretty simple. I do have some pictures here I'd like to share with everyone. This is a picture of disabled veterans and servicemembers running the 100 meter dash at the Warrior Games in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and this was in May of this year. And when you see this running the 100 meter dash, you know we've got a mixture here. This gentleman lost--this is a below the ankle, here is a below the knee amputation, and this is a double amputation, and they're sprinting the 100 meter dash. Think about the inspiration that they have. I mean, these warrior athletes are truly remarkable. I want to show you another photo of a double amputee. This Olympian right here during the winter games, this is Heath Calhoun, a Paralympian, and this was in Vancouver in March of this year. Mr. Calhoun is an Army Ranger. He was wounded when a rocket-propelled grenade hit his Humvee while he was serving in Iraq. He lost both legs as a result of that attack. His grandfather served in World War II, his father served in Vietnam, and he then sought to serve his country and lost both legs. He dedicated himself then to overcome this challenge and made the United States Olympic team and competed in Vancouver. So these Olympians also then mentor and aspire others into the Adaptive Sports Grant Program. So this is remarkable. This is building off the Olympic ideal to really help our warriors, and we're achieving the goal, and that is to use sports as a platform for healing. So $10 million can be a lot of money, but talking about what we get out of this, the intangibles that we can get out of this, when these men and women that go through this feel so good about themselves and take their bodies to new levels, guess what? They feel good about their families, they feel good about their jobs, and our goal here is to make sure that they can live as full a life as they possibly can. That's what we want to do.

Mr. BUYER. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Thank you very much. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw). When the majority went to this process to be restrictive here on the floor with regard to amendments on appropriations, that was really a dark day for liberty, and it's really very, very unfortunate. And I understand the Speaker wants to rule the House with a mighty hand and is utilizing the Rules Committee to make Congress an undemocratic institution. The American people are watching. They know that there's something going on in Washington, DC, that's not right. They don't completely understand all this process, but something they do know and understand and that's freedom and that's liberty. So we're charged with this responsibility to care for those who wear the uniform who now have been injured not only in the workplace but also on the battlefield. But when it comes time then for us to have an open discussion and debate on how best to do that, freedoms are denied. Pretty weird, pretty strange, very peculiar. As the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have three amendments that were made in order, but there are also two amendments that were not made in order. The first amendment that was not made in order would have transferred $230 million from the information technology system account to fund improvements in various other programs. In 2010, the VA conducted a major review of its major IT initiatives. Of over 300 programs that were reviewed, about 100 are still active or are in planning and about 100 are still being reviewed and about the other hundred have been stopped permanently or have been paused. This amendment would have taken the $230 million in savings from this review and put $120 million toward deficit reduction and use the remaining $100 million to increase the following VA accounts: medical and prosthetic research by $50 million to fund further research into new innovative treatments, such as the hyperbaric oxygen therapy for TBI; prosthetic devices for female amputees who often have difficulties with the fit and size of the traditional prosthesis tailored to the male physique; and helmets that measure the G-force impact and protect our servicemembers from these blast injuries. Also, with regard to the VBA general operating account, increase it by $2 million for VA to conduct an authorized longitudinal study for the VRE participants to assess the effectiveness of the program. Also, then increase the VHA medical services account by $48 million; $30 million to improve VA's suicide prevention programs, including $100 million for the national broadcast suicide prevention advertising campaign; $10 million for the VA to improve its services for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children; and $8 million for innovative treatments for TBI and mental health. Does that sound radical? That was made not in order. It is hard. That was not made in order. And so, okay, why? I don't know. The Rules Committee didn't give me an answer. That should have been made in order. That's something that should have been discussed. We have had a challenge here with regard to the IT systems at the VA, and I leave here in 6 months and the appropriators and the authorizers are going to have a real challenge here, especially as you go forward. Now, fortunately once we centralize the IT architecture you've got a really good--Roger Baker as the chief information officer, very talented individual, doing assessments. The Secretary's Shinseki. He gets it, he understands it. He's doing this review. But when you take down projects, and we've got those moneys, we can make judgments and choices with regard to how to use some of those dollars, and that's what we sought to do here, and that amendment should, in fact, have been made in order, and it's really unfortunate.

Mr. BUYER. There is another amendment, and I know, Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Chairman Edwards, had some concerns about one of the amendments that, in fact, was made in order, and I understand, and we can have a colloquy and we can get into that because I know you agree with what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Chairman Edwards agrees with the initiatives in working with--I guess we can call them green initiatives, green management initiatives, but it's the renewable energy portfolio that's being done down at the VA. And it's really this advance appropriation is making it hard on how we move moneys between accounts, at the same time, what type of amendments can be brought to the floor. I mean, I tried to do this a couple of years ago, and the parliamentarian knocked an amendment out. And so I wanted to raise this issue on the floor that we have about 60 projects out there, around $162 million, and we've got to figure out how to best fund these, and I will get into that with the Speaker later. My intention is not to offer that amendment that has been authorized to offer, and I will work this out with Chairman Edwards. But I'm going to ask to oppose the rule, even though I compliment the good work the committee has done. But we need an open process.