Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. What this means, Mr. Chairman, is we still have work to do. And I didn't want to be overcritical about the pressure the leadership gave you to get this bill to the floor. I think you and I both would have liked to have done something more comprehensive. But with this Disability Claims Commission sitting out there, and they have given 2 years now of labor, we are going to have to come back at this one in earnest. And I am most hopeful that you will continue your work with the Veterans' Affairs Committee as we work in this endeavor of a seamless transition.

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.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. I rise in favor of this bill, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. For over 15 years, whether it was on the House Armed Services Committee or chairman of the personnel responsible for the military health delivery system or now at the VA, issues on seamless transition have been around. It appears that we can only measure success incrementally. For that, it is also unfortunate, because we deal with bureaucracies with both of these very large Departments and their subagencies. Mr. Skelton had some challenges in front of him because his leadership rushed him to get this bill to the floor. He also then convinced Chairman Filner to waive the jurisdiction of the VA Committee so that this bill could get here. I want to thank Chairman Filner for complementing the amendment that I had offered in the Armed Services Committee, and I also want to thank Chairman Skelton. I want to thank Duncan Hunter. I want to thank Dr. Vic Snyder and John McHugh for working with me on the amendment that was offered at the Armed Services Committee that profoundly enhances the seamless transition. In its original form, the bill required a year-long pilot position on transition. Pilot programs can be useful in exploring new ground. But when it comes to seamless transition, and especially during a war, this is not new ground, and we need to proceed. Back in 1982, is when Congress directed VA and DOD to work collaboratively together on health care. That was 25 years ago. I believe this collaboration is still being stymied by bureaucrats protecting their respective rice bowls. My amendment replaced the pilot project with system changes. It required a written transition plan for wounded servicemembers. The bill would require an interoperable electronic exchange of critical medical information between the Departments and the use of the electronic DD Form 214, which DOD would provide to the VA. That allows VA real-time access to veterans' medical history. There are countless examples of veterans seeking care at a VA facility, only to discover that their paper and military health records are not available. The lack of prior DOD health services is especially critical for badly wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The ability to transmit data between DOD and VA will speed the recovery of these warriors by avoiding duplication of unnecessary treatment or, more importantly, failing to provide lifesaving procedures. Electronic exchange of critical medical information might also prevent bureaucratic intransigence on the part of VA. For example, I recently heard from a former Indiana National Guard member who was wounded in the neck and shoulder by an improvised explosive device. When he eventually filed a disability claim, the VA said the documentation in his military medical record was not sufficient to prove the injury was service connected. Hopefully this rapid exchange of information will put an end to such bureaucratic injustices. Further, H.R. 1538, as amended, would require the use of a uniformed separation and evaluation of physical by DOD and the VA, but the VA could use more disability ratings. This cornerstone seamless transition eliminates the frustrating requirement for a servicemember to have two physicals, one at the military and one at VA. I associate my comments with Mr. Filner. Too often, recently discharged veterans filing VA disability claims must undergo a VA physical because their discharge physical failed to address issues affecting the veteran's claim for benefits. Corporal Murphy, for example, in a hypothetical, gets his discharge physical from Fort Hood, Texas, on June 3. A week later he files a disability claim to the VA for his bad knee. Meanwhile, 90 days later, his physical records at the National Records Center in St. Louis arrive. During that period of time, his medical records are not available to process his claim, and our corporal has already lost 3 months. This is foolishness. The result is not only costly but also delays the processing of a veteran's claim and possibly entry into life-changing programs, like the VA's vocational rehab program. Finally, the amended wounded warriors bill would collocate VA benefit teams at military treatment facilities and other agreed upon sites to facilitate the transition of recovering servicemembers. Why should a wounded warrior undergo a lengthy period of convalescence and be required to seek out VA benefits counselors at VA offices that are usually far away from the MTF where the veteran is living. Instead of making Airman Mendez, for example, go to the VA, it is time to mandate the VA to be present where the airman is undergoing treatment. This will give him timely access to VA counselors and benefits that process needed benefits. These teams would provide preseparation counseling for recovering servicemembers, and records would be transmitted electronically from DOD to VA before the date of separation or retirement, thereby reducing delays, which now bedevil the system. Access to these teams would enable most veterans to leave the treatment facility with their VA benefit in hand. My own personal experience over the past decade validates the importance of these reforms. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BUYER. Was the time yielded to the Veterans' Affairs Committee 10 minutes or 20 minutes?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Mississippi be recognized for 1 minute out of order.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 47--a resolution establishing a national day of remembrance, reflection, and celebration for those citizens who so valiantly defended our Nation and protected their fellow servicemembers through extraordinary feats of courage and achievement--recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. I extend a thank you to my colleagues from the House Armed Services Committee for leading the effort to commemorate the recipients of our Nation's highest military honor. As a Nation, we can never forget the sacrifices these men and women have made to keep America free. The first Medal of Honor was awarded on March 25, 1864. As we approach this anniversary, let us reflect on the lives and deeds of those brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have received this honor throughout our Nation's history. In 1782, General George Washington started the tradition of recognizing the valiant actions of American soldiers by establishing what became known as the Badge of Military Merit. Washington presented a heart of purple cloth to three of his soldiers in August of that year, an act that was largely lost in history as the Revolutionary War came to a close. This honor was the predecessor to what we now know as the Purple Heart. Though the Badge of Military Merit faded into the past, the idea of awarding a decoration to recognize the gallant efforts of our soldiers never died. In 1847, not long after the outbreak of the Mexican- American War, a ``certificate of merit'' was established to recognize troops who distinguished themselves in battle. No medal accompanied the certificate and the award was again discontinued at the end of that conflict. During the Civil War another proposal arose to establish a medal, but the idea was rejected by then General-In-Chief of the Army Winifield Scott. The Navy, however, adopted this concept, and in December 1861, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation that established a Navy medal for valor. Not to be outdone by their friendly rival, the Army quickly followed suit with their own resolution to establish a similar award, signed into law in July 1862. In 1863, Congress established the Medal of Honor as a permanent means to recognize our Nation's most gallant warriors. Since then, it has been awarded to almost 3,400 of our Nation's bravest citizens. Today, the number of living Medal of Honor recipients is at its lowest point in history--there remain only 111 as of February 1. This resolution is a lasting tribute to those 111 men and women, the recipients who are no longer with us, and to those to come in the future who stood up and answered the call to protect and defend this land.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There was a peculiar comment a bit ago from the gentleman from Ohio when he said, well, I didn't call you unpatriotic when you sent troops into battle and they didn't have their up-armored Humvees. What a weird statement to say. You see, we prepare our force. So, for example, when myself and Colonel Phillips in the first Gulf War, those Hummers that we took in, they didn't even have doors on them. We didn't have doors on the side of those. We didn't go in with all the side plates and front plates, groin plates, neck plates, shoulder plates. We didn't do all that. Most of that, the body armor, was reserved for special ops. When you move in to counterinsurgency and then the enemy begins to use roadside bombs to attack our Hummers, what do we have to do? We respond. That is why I made the comment of what does our military do? They improvise, they adapt and they overcome, and that is exactly the same thing which our enemies do. So it was a very peculiar comment to say, well, we didn't attack you because. I don't know. It's so peculiar, I don't even want to comment anymore on it. What I would like to comment on is the nature of the enemy and the significance of Iraq and the global war against militant Islamists. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to turn our attention to the nature of the enemy we face and the significance of Iraq in the global war against militant Islam. We often use the term ``global war on terrorism'' to describe our efforts since the September 11 attacks. I believe this is a misnomer. In reality, we are engaged in a campaign to counter a global, radical Islamist insurgency, a global jihad. This global insurgency is, in fact, a diverse confederation of Islamic movements that uses terrorism as only one of its many tactics in their war against the West. On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, declared war on the United States, Israel and the West in his statement ``World Islamic Front Declaration of War against Jews and Crusaders.'' Subsequently, bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a statement after September 11 announcing a two-phase strategy for al Qaeda's war. First, reestablish the Islamic Caliphate, the historical and temporal authority of all Muslims that existed from 632 A.D. until 1924 A.D, and, second, use the Caliphate as a launch pad for a jihad against the West. No one believes that Osama bin Laden directly controls this worldwide insurgency. Rather than a single monolithic movement, al Qaeda is but one movement that symbolizes a broad and diverse confederation of militant Islamic movements that operate around the world. This insurgency includes such wide-ranging organizations as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Islamic Army of Aden, al Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Abu Sayyaf Group in Malaysia and the Philippines. In addition, Iran, a majority Shia country, backs numerous radical Islamic groups, including Hezbollah and Palestine rejectionist groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These wide-ranging and disparate groups are loosely linked ideologically, linguistically and culturally. They use family ties, personal relationships and financial links to coordinate their efforts. Thus, the global jihad plays out in a variety of theaters around the world. These include: The Americas, where in North America we saw the September 11 attacks and as a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report stated, Federal authorities have shut down at least 25 charities contributing to terrorist activities since September 11. That is here in our own country. In South America there is a strong al Qaeda presence in the tri- border area of Argentina, Paragiau and Brazil. In Western Europe, where there have been recently uncovered plans for attacks against Great Britain and the United States and where insurgent financial networks and planning cells flourish throughout Europe supporting insurgent activities. In the Southern Pacific, where the Bali bombings in October 2002 were attributed to an al Qaeda-linked cell. In the Ibernian Peninsula and North Africa where North Africans were blamed for the May 2004 Madrid bombings and where there have been bombings in Casablanca, Morocco and Tunisia. In the greater Middle East, where there are ongoing Islamic insurgencies in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine. In East Africa, where simultaneous bombings in October 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania were coordinated from the Sudan. The Caucuses and European Russia, where nationalist insurgencies in Chechnya, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have been co-opted by Islamic militants. South and Central Asia, where the Taliban and al Qaeda continue to operate in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas. And in Southeast Asia, where Islamic insurgencies continue in Indonesa, the Philippines and southern Thailand. These Islamic insurgencies share a common goal. They are oriented toward the overthrow of the current world order and its replacement with a pan-Islamic Caliphate. They wish to change the status quo using violence and subversion in order to initiate a clash between Islam and the West. They use terrorism, subversion and propaganda to further their goals and initiate open warfare. It will come as no surprise that most of the active Islamic insurgencies take place either within the historical bounds of the Caliphate, meaning North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Middle East, or in areas claimed by the new broader pan-Islamic Caliphate, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These insurgencies contribute to what is called an arc of instability that reaches from Indonesia across South Asia and the Middle East to North Africa. Where does Iraq fit into this global jihad? Iraq has become the front line in the open warfare of the global insurgency. In many ways, Iraq is a microcosm of the complex worldwide Islamic insurgency. The centrality of Iraq to the insurgency became clear in a July 2005 letter to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from al Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. In discussing Iraq, Zawahiri stated: ``I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.'' Zawahiri went on to outline the larger strategy for Iraq. First, expel the Americans from Iraq. Second, establish an Islamic authority and reestablish the Caliphate. Third, extend the jihad neighboring secular Islamic countries. Fourth, eliminate Israel. Thus we see a clear statement from the number two man in al Qaeda that Iraq is centrally important to the global jihad. Al Qaeda is not alone in operating in Iraq. There have been extensive Iranian involvement that has been alleged recently. On March 14, 2006, General John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``Iran is pursuing a multitrack policy in Iraq, consisting of covertly supporting the formation of a stable, Shia Islamist-led central government while covertly working to diminish popular and military support for U.S. and Coalition operations there.'' While the full extent of Iranian support is unknown, it appears that at a minimum Iran is supporting the 20,000-man Badr Brigade as well as the 2,000-man Wolf Brigade which is an offshoot. Just this week, administration officials announced that Iran was the source of deadly explosive form projectiles being used in Iraq. Iraqis also grasp that Iraq is central in this global struggle. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told us here in a joint session of Congress, ``I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of that war on terror, but let me be very clear. This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and that of terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak.'' The centrality of Iraq in the larger global Islamic insurgency cannot be disputed. Our enemies and our friends in the region grasp its significance. To fail in Iraq is to fail in the larger struggle. And our enemies are watching. They remember what America did not grasp the scope of the threat posed by radical Islam. Yet the signals were there: In 1979, 66 American diplomats taken hostage, held in Iran for 444 days. In 1983, a truck bomb kills 241 Marines at their barracks in Beirut. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland. In 1993, six killed at the first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists. In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemembers were killed at Khobar Towers. In 1998, 225 people killed in bombings at our U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In 2000, al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS Cole kills 17 American sailors. In 2001, September 11, killed 2,973. Until 2001, we failed to properly react to this threat. The enemy perceived us as weak and believed that we lacked the will to fight. This resolution before us, if approved, will signal our lack of resolve and I am troubled. It will be interpreted, I believe, by the forces of the global jihad that the United States lacks the will to persevere against the forces of radical Islam. It will give comfort to their thoughts, for they will know that we in Congress are uncertain and irresolute. In a war where information and willpower are more important than firepower, we must continue to send the signal that we cannot and will not cease to fight the enemy's vision of the world. You see, even if you have your way and you say we are going to withdraw the troops, whether they come back to the United States or whether they go to an over-the-horizon position and this new infancy government fails, we cannot cower to the security of America. This front continues. The Bible states, ``If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?'' If the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow? This resolution, I think, sends the wrong signal to our friends and to our enemies and I urge my colleagues to support those troops, sound the certain trumpet, and defeat the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I just want to compliment her for her civility and the way she led the debate. It was a good discussion, and it is exactly what the American people are looking for from this body. I congratulate the gentlewoman.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it proper for one Member to try to question the motive of another Member? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BUYER. I thank the Speaker. I am thankful that the gentlewoman gave the answer to her question, and the answer was that it was implicit. It is very easy in debate to come down and to create a straw person and then attack the straw person. If the gentlewoman has felt that way, that is completely unfortunate. But please don't say you have been called unpatriotic. That is the exchange I had with an earlier speaker. Don't accuse Republicans of such things. I am disturbed by that and very bothered.

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have neglected to do?

Mr. BUYER. I am more than pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BUYER. Now I seek to reclaim my time, because that is a legitimate question. As the commander in the field, if you say to the commander, ``I support you.'' All right? What is the commander going to say? The commander says, ``All right, I have a mission, and you say I support you.'' That means, I suppose, that I support you by making sure that you have been properly trained, that you have your uniform, that you have your ammunition, you have your helmet, you have your body Kevlar. You have what is necessary to accomplish your mission. But do you? If the commander says, ``I need more troops to accomplish that mission,'' you say, ``But you can't have those.'' Is that then supporting the commander? That is why I pointed out the contradiction in that the Senate says to General Petraeus, ``We agree, you are our best commander to go over there.'' And before they took that vote, he said, ``I need those five brigades.'' So they passed the vote and they sent General Petraeus over. Now we are faced with a vote that says I support the troops, I support the members of the Armed Forces. How can we say, ``I support you, but, Mr. Commander, we are not going to give you the troops''? That is the point of the question. So please don't try to spin it into something that says, oh, you are calling me unpatriotic. That is what I think is rather peculiar. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any other speakers?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, it only makes Members look silly if they pollute the debate. One thing about war is that you have to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Right? You hear that a lot. We do it and our enemies do it, and it is extremely important. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the former veteran of the Arizona National Guard, Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to, on my time, yield to the gentlewoman. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman on my time, since she would not yield on her time. Would the gentlewoman please identify by name a Republican who has called a Democrat in this debate unpatriotic?

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes in the middle of debate when one gentleman refuses to yield to another gentleman, it can be for a variety of reasons perhaps, but sometimes it is because the argument is pretty weak. So I have listened to this debate. I have not heard anybody on this side of the aisle call any of my Democratic colleagues unpatriotic. So the gentleman who just spoke protests too much. Maybe he has some deep feeling inside, has some guilt inside perhaps. I don't know. I can't speak to that. Only he can. I would be more than pleased to yield to him. I would extend the courtesy to him. But I just don't recall that at all. As a matter of fact, I had to turn here to some staff that is with me because they are just as sensitive about this as I am and the seriousness of this debate. The gentleman to my left is an Air Force Academy grad and he is the Air Force Reserves, and he flies C-5As right into Baghdad. He knows what that is like. The two gentlemen right behind me, this gentleman right here, Jeff Phillips, served in the first gulf war, in the second gulf war, and has two Bronze Stars. This other gentleman over here, Jim Lariviere, served in Afghanistan and wears the Bronze Star. So I turned to all three of these guys and I asked them, Have you heard anybody say or make someone feel as though they were unpatriotic? And the answer was ``no'' from these three men. So please don't come and pollute the debate because it only makes you look silly. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, are you questioning my motives Parliamentary Inquiry