Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his support of this legislation and once again for his fine work on the Veterans' Committee. This bill before us will name the VA outpatient clinic in Appleton, Wisconsin, as the ``John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.'' In the State of Wisconsin, they have a council; and this council is made up of many veterans organizations. They met on October 21 of 2005 to discuss H.R. 1691. The council had a discussion, a motion was made and was seconded and carried a unanimous vote, no objections, to support the bill that is before us today. The veterans organizations that were in support of this legislation in the State of Wisconsin and offer this under the American people are the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, the Navy Club of the USA, the Army Navy Union, the Catholic War Veterans, Wisconsin Vietnam Veterans, American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the U.S. Submarine Veterans of World War II, the United Women Veterans, Polish Legion of American Veterans, Wisconsin Association of Concerned Veterans Organizations, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the County Veterans Service Officers Association, AMVETS, the Jewish War Veterans, and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. These are 24 of the veterans organizations that supported the gentleman from Wisconsin's legislation. In closing, I believe we can tell a lot about a nation by the individuals whom we choose to honor, and this is a very appropriate means and manner to honor one of America's true heroes. With that, I ask that all Members support H.R. 1691.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1691) to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Appleton, Wisconsin, as the ``John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Health Subcommittee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a member of the committee.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the ranking member and Marine, Lane Evans, for his work and cooperation on this bipartisan legislation. This is the way the committee is supposed to work. We have invested almost 6 years of work on this to bring corrections to IT systems, and I am glad that we have been able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to deliver a product to this floor for which we can be proud of. I would also like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the chairman and ranking members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for their hard work in providing the oversight required to define these problematic issues and helping to make needed legislative changes to address these shortcomings at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would also like to reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his support in bringing accountability to VA's IT programs within the appropriations process. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), Army Vietnam vet, for his work on this and the original cosponsorship, along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth). Finally, I would also like to thank Art Wu, Len Sistek, Kimo Hollingsworth, Ginny Richardson, and Risa Salsburg for their diligence and dedication in serving our Nation's veterans on the committee, and also the staff directors, Jim Lariviere and Jim Holley, both for the majority and the minority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act of 2005. This is a bill whereby when we come to this body we do not leave our experiences behind. We are to learn from the past and to plan for the future. We are to modernize Federal governments, to cut through the bureaucracy, and to create workable solutions that will become a standard that will be leveraged across all departments of the government, creating greater efficiencies, responsiveness to people, and saving money. That is exactly what this product has done, and it is being brought to the floor in a bipartisan fashion, and so I ask all my colleagues to support this. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, along with Ranking Member Evans and other distinguished Members of the Committee, will introduce legislation that will mandate the Department of Veterans' Affairs to empower the Department's Chief Information Officer with authority over resources, budget and personnel related to information technology for the Department. Since coming to Congress in 1993, I have witnessed this Committee struggle with VA's inability to adequately manage its IT funding and IT modernization efforts. While there have been significant improvements in VA's IT modernization efforts, the improvements have come at significant cost to our Veterans: $600 million plus for a decade of VETSNET--the automated compensation and pension claims processing system that still has not been implemented in 10 years. $342 million for CoreFLS--the failed financial management system. $300 million for the HR Links--the failed automated personnel system. $485 million annually to maintain VISTA, VA's 25-year-old medical information system. This legislation, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act'' will ensure accountability in VA IT spending, and reorganize VA's IT infrastructure to better serve our nation's veterans.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, the speaker before me, because what he has really laid out is sort of the complaints that we hear from the Democrat side of the aisle, the complaints for years when they controlled Congress and laid out policies and rules and regulations that prevented, really, people to bring capital at risk to build refineries. So we hear a lot of complaints, but we do not hear of ideas and actions to help an industry that will help America. This is a good bill. I support the bill. I want to compliment the chairman for his good work. I also believe that Hurricane Katrina did reveal a weakness in our energy supply systems, highlighting the reliance this country has on the gulf coast for our energy resources. Approximately 47 percent of the U.S. refining capacity and 28 percent of oil production are located in the hurricane-prone region. So I think it is time for America to take steps to build more refineries and protect this country in time of natural disaster. This is a good bill. It will address our growing need for gasoline, heating oil, and other fuels and will bring more supply to the market and for the American people. So despite the noise that we maybe hear on the floor, for the American people this is a good bill. I am concerned, though, that a section of the bill was removed that dealt with the interchange rates, and what we wanted to do was to address the channels of trade to bring more transparency to how credit card companies actually apply these interchange rate fees and how the consumer then picks it up. I am pleased, in a conversation with the chairman and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), they are going to consider having a hearing on the issue; and I think that is a good thing. I strongly support the Bush Administration's clean diesel rules, which will reduce air pollution from diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel by more than 95 percent. These rules will not only help clean the air, but they will also encourage greater use of highly fuel-efficient clean diesel engines. The use of highly fuel-efficient clean diesel engines is a mandates free way of making our existing domestic refining and oil production go further. In fact, according to the Department of Energy, if diesel vehicles made up 20 percent of our fleet in 15 years, we would save 350,000 barrels of oil a day. I understand the challenges that so-called ``boutique fuels'' present. Section 108 takes steps towards addressing these challenges. However, I want to make it clear that I have been assured by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Gentleman from Texas, that Section 108 of the legislation does not intend to alter or delay--in any way--the Bush Administration's on- and off-road diesel rules.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are considering this bill today. As my colleagues are aware, Public Law 109-13, the Emergency Supplemental, included provisions which made changes to VA's insurance program for active duty servicemembers and veterans. However, these changes expire on September 30, 2005. H.R. 3200, as amended, would: Repeal section 1012 of the Supplemental, the section dealing with the insurance changes, and replace it with the text of H.R. 3200, as amended; make permanent the increase from $250,000 to $400,000 in maximum Servicemembers' Group and Veterans' Group Life Insurance coverage; make permanent the increments of SGLI coverage from $10,000 to $50,000; and require the military service Secretary concerned to notify a servicemember's spouse, in writing, if the servicemember declines SGLI or chooses an amount less than the maximum, as well as notify the spouse if someone other than the spouse or child is designated as the policyholders' beneficiary. Similar language was included in H.R. 2046, which passed the House on May 23rd of this year. The spousal notification language does not apply to the Veterans' Group Life Insurance program. There were no public hearings prior to House and Senate passage of the defense emergency supplemental. In June, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, chaired by Jeff Miller of Florida, held a hearing on the provisions included in today's bill, and it is supported by the Administration and veterans groups. H.R. 3200, as amended, will ensure the current $400,000 maximum level of insurance coverage is available to millions of active duty servicemembers, Reservists, and veterans, as well as commissioned members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Service. I cannot underestimate the impact of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Chairman Miller and Ms. Berkley, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, for their hard work and active participation in crafting this bill, as well as the subcommittee vice chairman, Jeb Bradley. This has indeed been a team effort. I also want to thank the subcommittee staffs on both sides of the aisle--Paige McManus, Chris McNamee, and Mary Ellen McCarthy. Mr. Speaker, as the original increase in SGLI and VGLI expire at midnight this Friday, I urge my colleagues to support the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Enhancement Act.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3200.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. We have. We have held three hearings. Part of the reason dealt with their modeling and their forecasting. For the 2005 budget, they used 2002 data, and they also had false assumptions. So we have informed them that they have every opportunity to get right the 2007 budget because now they tell us about the use of old data and poor measuring criteria. So they have every reason now to get it right. So what are they changing with regard to their assumptions and how are they improving the data with regard to the 2007, because that is what they are doing right now. So what has occurred is we get the 2005 right. They come with a 2006 budget amendment. We just held a hearing on the 2006 budget amendment, which is just under $2 billion; and then we told them that we are going to do some handholding as they prepare the 2007 budget.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the issue is accountability. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) touched on it and so did the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). The credibility must be rebuilt, and OMB is integral to this process. I have asked Secretary Nicholson to review the leadership of the VHA bureaucracy to ensure that the right people are running it, and also its finances and some within the health network. In particular, I am greatly disappointed and have lost confidence in the leadership and management of the Deputy Under Secretary for Health, for Operations and for Management. In the meantime, Congress will ensure that veterans health care is funded. We will hold VA accountable for its use of these dollars in the performance of its mission. Over the recess, other Committee on Veterans' Affairs members, staff, and I will personally visit VA health care facilities because there is no substitute for boots-on-the-ground examination. I will specifically visit a polytrauma center in Minneapolis. One of the harshest realities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is the number of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with loss of limbs and other severe and lasting injuries. With the body armor which we are providing to our soldiers, they can turn that up, and what is happening is it protects the torso, and they are having now loss of limbs and traumatic brain injuries. VA has four regional traumatic brain injury rehabilitation centers. One of them is in Minneapolis, one is in Palo Alto, another one is in Richmond, and one is in Tampa. These are very important regional referral centers for individuals who have sustained these serious disabling conditions due to combat. VSOs and others are saying that these individual veterans are not being seen because of cuts in the VA. I find that challenging. I want to make sure these allegations are correct, so I am going to go on the ground to see if it is true. I have also asked the GAO to review the VA's budget process, and I think that will be very important for some other eyes on this issue. Mr. Speaker, America's veterans will receive the health care they have earned. $1.5 billion is a significant number for an important constituency, and I anticipate that we will act quickly to provide it. We can all see that only 2 months remain in the fiscal year. Unspent funds from this appropriation will be available for their use as down payments on the 2006 budget supplemental so that all funds will be put to good use. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his work. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for this motion. I also commend my colleagues in the Senate for their willingness to act quickly to Secretary Nicholson's request and to resolve this matter. I also want to thank the President, because when this was alerted to everyone's attention, the President acted and sent over a number. He also did the 2006 budget amendment. In the end, those of us who exercise great care to raise and support the military know that our obligation does not end upon one's discharge. We care for the wounds and the injuries. We care for those who are left behind. We care for them to make as whole as possible and to create a climate so that one may take advantage of economic opportunities to live beyond a disability paycheck so that the defenders of liberty may also enjoy the bounties of the liberty for which they fight. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees in order to ensure that the veterans' funding can be done as quickly as possible.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2361, Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with supplemental funding of approximately $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2005. Several weeks ago, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 3130 which provided $975 million in health care funding for the fiscal year. We did that in response to revelations at the time to a line of questioning that I had with Dr. Perlin of VHA at a full committee hearing on health care modeling and forecasting. We learned that since the spring of this year VA hospitals and clinics were shifting significant amounts of funds into medical services from maintenance and capital equipment accounts. This shifting was driven by underestimates of long-term care requirements and increased use of VA facilities by returning Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans to also include a surge of veterans in categories 1 through 6 and category 7 for health care. I directed Secretary Nicholson to tell us what additional funds he needed for 2005. I also then immediately informed the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of this issue. The Secretary returned from meetings with his staff on June 30, bringing to us a number of $975 million. This House acted the very same day in which the Secretary made his request through the President of the United States approving to the penny the VA's request. Yet the number was not even dry on the paper when, in fact, days later we were then informed that number was really $1.275 billion, and they needed an additional $300 million. The $300 million is for a carryover account which we in Congress permit the VA to utilize. So you will hear this number. What is really important is the $975 million number; and as a matter of fact, just last week the VA said they hold to the number. The additional $300 million is for the carryover account. The Republican Senate leadership offered a number of $1.5 billion. Now the challenge we have is they passed a number on the Senate interior appropriations bill of emergency supplemental. The House passed a $975 million number that was paid for out of the 2005 budget. As Members go to the interior conference, we have a challenge. We have got moneys which were paid for, the Senate asks for emergency. Now I suppose we are asking for an instruction that is saying make it an emergency supplemental. So what we are doing is rolling one on top of another. We have $975 million which was paid for out of the 2005 budget. Now we are going to vote for an instruction to the conferees on $1.5 billion on emergency supplemental. So these are issues that conferees are going to have to work out at conference. But when we look at VHA's forecasting performance which has been the focus at some of our animated hearings in the House, 3 over the last several weeks, in April they provide notice to the Committee on Appropriations that they are going to reprogram $600 million. Then in the latter part of June when we hold our hearing, they testify they are short $975 million, but they have ``work-around solutions.'' Then a few days later while we are on our July break, we learn that the number was short $300 million. They are going to spend down the $975, and the $300 million is the carryover account. We either take care of that in 2005, or we have to include it in the 2006 budget amendment. If Members watch this, we go from $600 million to $975 million to $1.275 billion. What is it going to be in August? I think that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) are indicating. So that is why I am going to support the motion to instruct, because there is a loss of confidence here in the House with regard to the number that has been given to us. Patience with the VHA bureaucracy has run out.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would say everyone wants the modeling to be correct and for us to reestablish trust and confidence on our predictability of a budget number. When we do that, we bring purity to the process and OMB also brings trust and confidence. I think there is lack of trust and confidence under the budget number, and OMB has proven they are not as good of a caretaker here as they think they are. We will work cooperatively with OMB because they also are part of this process of the pain.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations when they took up this matter at the request of the President. I also would like to commend the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in the consideration of this bill in a timely fashion and ensuring that the Servicemember Group Life Insurance Enhancement Act of 2005 was quickly passed. I also want to note that the gentleman has been actively involved in these insurance provisions since we were first made aware of them. Following the submission of the supplemental, he convened a roundtable with the administration officials, and he has taken a lead on the crafting of this bill; and I want to thank him for his efforts. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), the ranking member, for working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) on this legislation. Her input was valuable, and we appreciate her efforts on behalf of men and women who wear the uniform and our veterans. I also again want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his contributions to this legislation. I also reserve the last of my thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of full committee, for his good work. Congress must act promptly to ensure permanent SGLI authorization is enacted before September 30 of 2005, or the coverage levels for servicemember life insurance will revert to $250,000 on October 1 of 2005. I do not believe any Member of this body would want to see that happen. I strongly urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to H.R. 3200.

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

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3200) to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program, and for other purposes.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his hard work on this legislation. On April 16, 2005, Mr. Renzi introduced H.R. 1618, which would create a traumatic injury protection program similar to what was enacted in Public Law 109-13. On June 16, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) testified before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and his comments helped shape the bill which we are currently considering today. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) is a strong supporter of our Nation's servicemen and women, and I appreciate his input. I would also note that I have had continuous dialogue with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), and I deeply appreciate his passion. In having grown up in a military family, he has great understanding of the sacrifices of the men and women who wear the uniform. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2005, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported H.R. 3200, the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Enhancement Act of 2005. Among other things, this bill would provide a permanent authorization for increases in maximum life insurance coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, referred to as the SGLI program, and the Veterans' Group Life Insurance, referred to as the VGLI program from $250,000 to $400,000. Public Law 109-113, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act For Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, increased the maximum coverage to $400,000 under these programs. However, the authorization expires on September 30, 2005. It is my understanding that the Senate included the termination date, which was approved in the conference report, to afford the legislative committees the jurisdiction and opportunity to hold public hearings and further consider the specifics of the emergency authorization before it could be made permanent. The increased level of coverage was requested by the President because of concerns over death benefits for the survivors of servicemembers being inadequate as our Nation fights the global war on terrorism. H.R. 3200 would also repeal the provision of Public Law 109- 13 which prevents a married servicemember from declining SGLI coverage, or opting for an amount less than the maximum, without the written consent of the spouse. Public Law 109-13 mandates spousal consent, even in cases where the couple is estranged, as long as they are legally married. The committee does not believe providing a spouse such veto authority over life insurance elections is good public policy. The spousal consent requirement could also result, for example, in a servicemember's spouse excluding stepchildren as beneficiaries. The government should not interfere legally in a servicemember's highly personal choices about such family matters. H.R. 3200 would instead require the military service Secretary concerned to provide written notification to the spouse or the next of kin of an unmarried servicemember as to the servicemember's insurance election. The committee believes that this is the preferable way of ensuring that the spouse or beneficiary is informed about this important financial decision, while preserving the individual right of the servicemember to make decisions about life insurance coverage. Finally, Public Law 109-13 also provides for a new traumatic injury program. The traumatic injury program provides financial assistance in the amounts from $25,000 to $100,000 to servicemembers who suffer certain traumatic injuries. The traumatic injury protection under current law is mandatory for servicemembers who elect SGLI coverage with premiums paid by the servicemember. No hearing had been held on this new program until June 16 of 2005, when the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 3200 in its draft form and on the traumatic injury protection program. H.R. 3200 would allow a servicemember to decline traumatic injury coverage. This program authorization will be effective December 1, 2005, for servicemembers, but it is retroactive to October 7, 2001, when Operation Enduring Freedom began, for qualifying losses that are a direct result of injuries incurred in Operation Enduring Freedom and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.