Selected Reserve Home Loan Equity Act

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.

First of all, civil servants have had a large role in shaping this. There have been nine pilot programs the Department of Defense has piloted through the years, and in all of those cases, civil servants have, in many cases contrary to the labor bosses, opted for the new system as opposed to the old system with which they are currently operating.

The problem with the current system today is that we are contracting out where we ought to be able to use Federal employees because we do not have the flexibility in terms of deployment. So we are using uniformed officers behind desks to get jobs done, Federal contractors to get jobs done, what Federal workers are, in many cases, more capable of doing, and that is wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but let me just say it is 320,000 uniform personnel doing jobs that civil servants are certainly capable of doing. These are 320,000 we had to call up from the Reserves to do work, potentially, that could have gone and stayed with their families and everything else because of these arcane rules.

In addition to this, Under Secretary Wolfowitz testified under oath that this would increase the number of Federal civil servants. So this idea that it is going to lead to more contracting out is not only bunk, it is disingenuous, it is wrong, and I think it takes civil servants in the wrong direction.

Let me correct a couple of other things that have been said in the debate. We had a Member yesterday say that the right to receive veterans preference is gone, the right to discrimination protection, gone. Veterans preference, located in chapters 33 and 35 of title V, those are nonwaivable under this legislation. Discrimination protection is located in 2302(b)(2) of title V

and explicitly referred to in this legislation. Overtime pay in chapter 55 of title V, also nonwaivable.

In fact, for middle-level managers, what we have done is corrected some inequities in overtime pay. Currently, GS-12s, 13s, and 14s receive less working overtime than they receive in ordinary pay, and we have corrected that in this. This is a benefit to managers. We have raised the level that SES'rs and managers can get in bonus over what the current level is. So we have raised the levels of what Federal employees can earn.

As far as collective bargaining, NSPS states that we must ensure that employees may organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing. As for the right to an attorney, which was alleged to have been taken away, we do not mention it, but neither does the underlying legislation, and we have established an independent review panel to consider employee grievances.

We have worked hard on this legislation. We held a couple of hearings in the Committee on Government Reform on this, but, most importantly, this is designed from nine pilot programs where the Federal employees themselves have spoken to this and have voted strongly to opt for the new systems versus the existing system. It does not pay for performance; it pays on a seniority basis.

This will allow us to expedite hiring. It will allow us to do the kinds of things that we have already given other Federal agencies. This is not new ground. There are numerous Federal agencies currently, in sections 71, 73, and 75, that we have waived or altered, and we do this here. In fact, there is less flexibility here than Congress recently gave to the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I might add, my colleagues who are arguing against this opposed those provisions in the Department of Homeland Security bill. We had an ensuing election on this issue. The voters spoke, and I think we have visited this issue once. There are fewer flexibilities here than we have in that as well.

I want to say a couple of other things. The Committee on Armed Services also had a day-long hearing and a 2-day markup of the DOD authorization bill. Dozens of the amendments offered there were also offered in our committee, and the votes were party line on these issues. They want to bring these same issues to the floor. I am not happy with every part of this rule. I had several amendments, particularly on the procurement side, that were part of the Committee on Government Reform's markup that were not included in the DOD bill that I could not get offered here. I understand the disappointment of those Members who are not able to have those heard at this point.

But 40,000 employees with over 20 years of experience want a new system, and defense of the current system not only leads to more outsourcing, it does not lead to the kind of performance-based pay and the salary levels that many of our best Federal employees are deserving of.

I worked in the private sector for a number of years. I worked for a company where our best asset was not our computers or our building; it was our people. They walked out the door every night; and we prayed to get them back because replacing them was costly, it created more inefficiencies, and it made us less competitive.

Those factors in the private sector ought to be extended to the public sector because our employees are our best asset, too. But I think we need to treat them well, I think we need to give them appropriate safeguards, which this legislation does. The unknown and the concerns by some on the other side are that all of this is not written by Congress. But we have put appropriate safeguards in this legislation. This will be part of a later debate, but I certainly support the rule.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

As I stated earlier, we debated these thoroughly in both committees. I cannot speak to every amendment that is being offered on the floor of the House. I understand the gentleman's concern. I know we will get debate on the motion to recommit, and we are debating it now. But I was also disappointed in not being able to offer some amendments. In addressing that issue, I think that is probably above my pay grade.

Although we were privileged to have the gentleman testify before us.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and we did take some of his suggestions in the markup. The gentleman's testimony was not for naught.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I include for the Record an editorial from the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, printed in today's Washington Post.

Defense for the 21st Century

(By Donald H. Rumsfeld)

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) laid out a number of objections on

this page yesterday to the president's proposed Defense

Transformation Act for the 21st Century. I respect Mr.

Skelton's long service, but I disagree with many of his

stated objections. Here is why.

Skelton argues that this legislation is the most sweeping

overhaul of the Defense Department since the 1986 Goldwater-

Nichols Act. He may be right--but that is precisely the

point. We are at this moment fighting the first wars of the

21st century with a department that has management and

personnel systems developed decades ago, at the height of the

Cold War.

The threats we face today are notably different from that

era. We learned on Sept. 11, 2001, that our nation is

vulnerable to enemies who hide in the caves and shadows and

strike in unexpected ways. That is why we must transform our

armed forces. Our forces need to be flexible, light and

agile, so they can respond quickly and deal with surprise.

The same is true of the men and women who support them in the

Department of Defense. They also need flexibility, so that

they can move money, shift people, design and deploy new

weapons more rapidly and respond to the continuing changes in

our security environment.

Today we do not have that kind of agility. In an age--the

information age--when terrorists move information at the

speed of an e-mail, money at the speed of a wire transfer and

people at the speed of a commercial jetliner, the Defense

Department is still bogged down in the bureaucratic processes

of the industrial age.

Consider: we have more than 300,000 uniformed personnel

doing jobs that should be done by civilians. That means that

nearly three times the number of troops that were on the

ground in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom are doing

nonmilitary jobs that should be done by civilian personnel.

Why is that? It's because when managers in the department

want to get a job done, they go to the military. They know

they can manage military people, put them in a job, give them

guidance, transfer them from one task to another and change

the way they do things. They can't do that with the civil

service, because it is managed outside the Defense Department

by others, with a system of rules and requirements fashioned

for a different era.

The defense authorization bill has grown from only one page

in 1962 to a whopping 534 pages in 2001. The department is

required to prepare and submit some 26,000 pages of

justification, and more than 800 required reports to

Congress each year--many of marginal value, most probably

not read. Since 1975, the time it takes to produce a new

weapons system has doubled, even as new technologies are

arriving in years and months, not decades.

We are working to fix problems that we have the freedom to

fix. We have reduced management and headquarters staffs by 11

percent, streamlined the acquisition process by eliminating

hundreds of pages of unnecessary rules and red tape, and

begun implementing a new business management structure. But

we also need legislative relief. That is why we are asking

for:

Measures for transforming our system of personnel

management, so that we can gain more flexibility and agility

in the way we manage the more than 700,000 civilians in the

department. And let me be clear: The provisions we have

proposed explicitly bar nepotism.

Expanded authority for competitive outsourcing so that we

can get military personnel out of nonmilitary tasks and back

into the field.

Measures to protect our military training ranges so that

our men and women in uniform will be able to train as they

fight, while honoring our steadfast commitment to protecting

the environment.

It is true, as Rep. Skelton notes, that the Goldwater-

Nichols Act took four years for Congress to pass. But we do

not have four years to wait before we transform--the new

threats are here now. If anything, our experience in the

global war on terror has made the case for transformation

even more urgent. Because our enemies are watching us--

studying how we were successfully attacked, how we are

responding and how we might be vulnerable again. In distant

caves and bunkers, they are busy developing new ways to harm

our people--methods of attack that could kill not 3,000

people, but 30,000 or 300,000--or more. And they are not

struggling with bureaucratic red tape fashioned in the last

century as they do so.

The fact is that the transformation of our military

capabilities depends on the transformation of the way the

Defense Department operates. This does not mean an end to

congressional oversight. What it means is that we need to

work together to ensure the department has the flexibility to

keep up with the new threats emerging as this century

unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2297, as amended. This bill is a compromise agreement that was carefully negotiated between the House and Senate, and contains a number of important measures to assist this Nation's veterans and their families. I want to take a moment to recognize and thank Chairman Chris Smith, Benefits Subcommittee Chairman Henry Brown and Benefits Ranking Democratic Member Michael Michaud for working with me to successfully craft this bipartisan, bicameral benefits package. I appreciate your leadership, professionalism and all of your hard work in guiding this legislation through the process and into law.

I also would like to thank the staff members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs for their work in preparing this legislative package and for their work throughout the year--Patrick Ryan, Darryl Kehrer, Paige McManus, Devon Seibert and Kingston Smith of the majority staff and Jim Holley, Mary Ellen McCarthy, Geoffrey Collver and Leah Booth of my Democratic staff. Likewise, I would like to thank Chairman Arlen Specter and Ranking Member Bob Graham of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as the Senate staff who worked diligently on this conference agreement--Mary Schoelen, Ted Pusey, Jon Towers and Chris McNamee.

Mr. Speaker, last week on November 11th we celebrated and honored the sacrifices and heroic deeds of our Nation's veterans with speeches and parades. Indeed, it is appropriate, necessary even, that we recognize and honor the many sacrifices of the brave men and women in uniform who have so gallantly served our nation. Mr. Speaker, speeches and parades are nice but they are not enough. Today, however, we match our complimentary words with actual deeds. We celebrate and honor those who have served the country and protected our freedoms by passing this legislative package, which truly honors their service and provides them and their families with important benefits that they most certainly have earned.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that this legislative package contains a number of measures that I introduced or of which I am an original cosponsor. Additionally, I commend all the Members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee on both sides of the aisle who have worked diligently this session to bring important measures forward. This compromise agreement contains many bills introduced by Committee members. Indeed, crafting and passing this benefits package has truly been a bipartisan effort.

I am pleased the provision to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to children with spina bifida whose veteran parent was exposed to Agent Orange in Korea is drawn from my bill H.R. 533. During a hearing the Committee received moving testimony from Michael Ruzalski, a young man severely disabled by spina bifida. Michael's father John served in the region of Korea's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) during the time that the Department of Defense acknowledges Agent Orange was used there. Congress has authorized benefits for children of veterans affected by such exposure in Vietnam. The children of veterans who served in the Korean DMZ are no less deserving. When military service results in harm to the children of our Nation's veterans, our country should assume the responsibility to compensate them for their disabilities.

A provision to remove unnecessary and arbitrary time barriers for certain former prisoners of war to qualify for service-connection of their disabilities on a presumptive basis is drawn from H.R. 1838, which I introduced. I believe that we should consider additional presumptive conditions for former prisoners of war and will continue to support legislation to accomplish that end. Nonetheless, we need to take action now to assure those prisoners of war who were interred in Iraq for less than 30 days, as well as those from earlier conflicts, that no durational requirement will be imposed for certain psychiatric and physical disabilities which may follow a brief period of internment.

The package includes a provision to permanently authorize the VA home loan program for members of the National Guard and Reserve. It also lowers their home loan fees. This provision is drawn from H.R. 1257, which I introduced with the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, Mr. Michaud. Now more than ever, our Reserve and National Guard forces are an integral component of our national defense policy. Making this program permanent for members of the National Guard and Reserve is the right thing to do, it's also the right thing to do financially--as Reservists have an exemplary record of repayment on VA home loans.

I am also pleased that this package contains provisions that provide long overdue

benefits for our Gold Star Wives. Specifically, it provides that remarriage of the surviving spouse of a veteran after attaining age 57 would not result in termination of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), home loan, or education benefits eligibility.

This legislative package would also repeal current law restricting a surviving spouse or dependent children to receiving no more than two years of accrued benefits if the veteran dies while a claim for VA periodic monetary benefits is being processed. I have worked to end this unfair restriction for a number of years. This provision is drawn from a bill I introduced a few years ago. I am pleased to finally have succeeded in repealing this two-year cut off.

The provisions reinstating VA's vendee loan program that previously passed the House are included in H.R. 2297. I would note that the language has been changed slightly. The change is intended to assure that VA will be required to operate a vendee loan program through September 30, 2013. I believe that these changes are necessary after reviewing an opinion of the Comptroller General concerning VA's authority to terminate the program.

H.R. 2297, as amended also contains a number of important measures that aim to expand self-employment training opportunities and provide valuable career and employment counseling to servicemembers transitioning from the military to civilian life. The bill also provides a substantial increase in monthly payments under the survivors' and dependents' educational assistance program. This action is consistent with my goals to improve and restore all veterans' education benefits to the necessary levels. As we all know, we have much to do in the area of veterans' education programs to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of higher education.

Another important measure that I am pleased the negotiated bill contains is the provision to authorize certain contracting opportunities for service-disabled veteran owned and controlled small businesses. A fair opportunity is all that veterans request. This provision should lead to improved results with respect to federal contracting with disabled veterans. However, improved results will also require increased efforts by the Administration to reach out to disabled-veteran owned and controlled small businesses. Indeed, federal agencies have a 3 percent contracting goal for service-disabled veteran small businesses, and currently not one federal agency comes close to meeting this goal. Hopefully, this provision will allow all federal agencies to improve their record in this area, as well as provide more opportunities for veteran entrepreneurs and a much-needed spark to the small business sector of this economy.

I am also pleased that in this package we have included provisions to permit state cemeteries to receive VA burial plot allowances for burial of all eligible veterans, including peace time veterans; allow a remarried surviving spouse to retain eligibility for burial in a national cemetery based on a prior marriage to a deceased veteran; and make permanent the State Cemetery Grants Program. We must do all we can to provide a dignified final resting place for our veterans and be attentive and caring to the surviving family members.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also authorizes the receipt of full compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and burial benefits to eligible members of the New Philippine Scouts, and other individuals who served in the organized military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, including organized guerilla units, if the individual to whom the benefit is payable resides in the United States and is either a citizen of the U.S. or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The bill also extends the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain a regional office in Manila, Philippines, through December 31, 2009. I want to thank Representatives Bob Filner and Juanita Millender-McDonald for their tireless work on this important issue.

On another important matter contained in this legislative package, I would like to express my thanks and applaud the actions of my friend and colleague Representative Ted Strickland of Ohio. Representative Strickland, along with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, introduced legislation to clarify the prohibition on assignment of veterans' benefits. This provision would protect veterans, their survivors' and dependents from unscrupulous business entities that attempt to prey on unsuspecting or elderly beneficiaries. Mr. Strickland's language would make clear that certain arrangements, including opening joint bank accounts that remove control and choice from the veteran over the receipt of veterans' benefits, are illegal.

I am also pleased that the bill removes a provision that the VA has indicated could limit benefits to veterans. This language was contained in section 5103 of title 38, United States Code and was intended to provide claimants with one year to submit information or evidence requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, the language used in that section ``no benefits may be paid'' could be interpreted to bar consideration of evidence that a claimant submitted in connection with an appeal. That language has now been removed, so that no claimant should lose benefits as a result of its application. The bill also permits the VA to decide claims in less than one year. If the claim is denied and evidence supporting the claim is submitted within the year, the Secretary is required to consider the evidence.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2297, as amended, contains many provisions that will make a difference in the lives of this nation's veterans and their families. It is a good bill, and I urge all Members to show their support for the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of our country by voting to pass this legislative package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for all of my 25 years in Congress I have worked for a strong national defense. Like so many pro-defense Democrats, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces.

So, repeatedly on the House floor and in the Committee on Rules, I have urged the Republican leadership to stop their assault on the bipartisan cooperation that has defined our approach to defense policy for so long. In response, the chairman of the Committee on Rules kept holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, in this second rule for the defense authorization bill the committee would allow a full and bipartisan consideration of serious defense issues.

Last night, very late, the Committee on Rules reported out the second rule. Guess what? It does even more violence to the tradition of bipartisanship than the first rule did. For the second day in a row, the Republican leadership has prevented the House from considering serious and substantive issues in the defense authorization bill. For the second day in a row, they cast aside bipartisanship to protect the partisan and right-wing ideology that has been attached to this defense authorization bill. This is a shameful way to run this institution, an institution that is supposed to allow the voices of all Americans to be heard.

For instance, Republican leaders used this rule to again defend their assault on America's environmental protections. The ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), offered their reasonable substitute to Republicans on environmental language. Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on this substitute.

To prevent terrorists from getting nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services and an acknowledged expert on defense issues, once again tried to strengthen America's cooperative threat reduction program, but the Republican leadership once again refused to allow his amendment, in spite of the fact that it simply does what President Bush has asked for.

To protect the American taxpayers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) tried to require that contracts over $1 million be awarded only in open bidding process, but Republican leaders decided to make it easier for big companies, for example, Halliburton, Brown and Root, Bechtel, to get private deals, so they rejected the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a staunch defense hawk from Mississippi, had a substantive amendment relating to the next round of base closures. But instead of allowing him and the House the vote they deserve, Republican leaders simply shut out his amendment.

Similarly, Committee on Rules Republicans blocked three important amendments that I offered to address defense issues that I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to Reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian defense employees serving in combat zones.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are using this rule to rig the game in favor of their attack on worker rights at the Pentagon. Now, these are the same Pentagon employees who showed such bravery and sacrifice on September 11. So the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) proposed an employees' bill of rights. It is a common-sense approach to protecting those public servants who work to protect us. It has the support of America's firefighters. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote to protect Pentagon employees.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes a mockery of the bipartisan cooperation that has been the keystone to our approach to defense policy, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.

If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Pentagon employee bill of rights. If the previous question passes, I urge a no vote on this rule. This is the only way to restore some semblance of bipartisanship to this process and to safeguard America's national defense policy from the partisanship and right wing ideology that are tainting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from California, the chairman, I am afraid has somewhat of a selective memory. I have handled the defense authorization rules on this floor for 25 years; and when we were in the majority, we always made in order the main issues of contention under the defense bill. Sometimes they were amendments that I personally opposed and that other prodefense Members on the Democratic side opposed, but we made them in order so that the House could express its will on the main issues raised in the Defense Authorization Bill.

This happened on numerous occasions. Sometimes those amendments came from people to my left in the Democratic Party who perhaps wanted to eliminate certain weapons systems. Sometimes those amendments came from conservative Republicans who did not like things that were in the bill. The main issues, not peripheral issues, and we appreciate the fact that some issues were made in order, some amendments were made in order that individual Members felt strongly about; but when we were in the majority, when there were significant issues that had support from a large number of Members either on our side or on the Republican side, we made those amendments in order and let the House express its will.

There were numerous instances when I personally voted against amendments that were included in the rule that we made in order and that other prodefense Democrats opposed, but we thought that the House should have the opportunity to express its will.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman that when we were in the majority we did not try and dictate what amendments the minority will offer. We did not say, we will give you a Democratic amendment on that subject but the Republicans cannot offer the amendment they want. That is exactly what they have done in the reverse here. They said, we will give you a Republican amendment on this subject, but we will not let the Democrats offer the amendments they want. Of course, Democrats would offer a different amendment on a particular issue than Republicans would. Republicans would offer an amendment which was, of course, much more friendly to the basic provisions in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

(Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen Civil Service Bill of Rights amendment. Last night, the Republican majority refused to allow the House to consider this amendment. The Republican leadership had decided what kind of Democratic amendment would be acceptable to be included in the rule and since no Democrat was willing to toe the Republican Party line, Democrats have been shut out once again on a straight party line vote.

The bill we are considering today makes enormous and far-reaching changes in the personnel laws affecting civilian defense employees. Furthermore, it does so with virtually no input or oversight from Congress. It leaves this massive overhaul in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

The Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen amendment would spell out an employee bill of rights to ensure that these valuable employees do not lose their basic employee rights. Yet under this unfair rule it will not be allowed to come to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to believe that just a few weeks after the war in Iraq, after all of us heaped deserving praise on all employees of the Defense Department, both military and civilian, that we would pull the rug out from underneath these patriotic, hard-working Americans.

Let me make it very clear. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Department of Defense authorization. However, a ``yes'' vote amounts to slamming the door in the face of the military's civilian employees.

As you cast your vote, think about these people and whether you will turn your back on them or whether you will do the right thing and vote to allow this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2297, as amended, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003. I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for their leadership on the full committee and their successful negotiations with the Senate. I also would like to personally thank my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for his leadership and bipartisan spirit shown in considering these bills assigned to our subcommittee. It definitely has been a pleasure working with Chairman Brown and his staff.

The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 includes provisions drawn from many bills introduced by Members of both sides of the aisle. Our Nation's servicemembers and veterans have earned and their families deserve all the benefits provided under H.R. 2297 and, indeed, they certainly deserve much, much more.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a sponsor and cosponsor of many of these measures that have been incorporated in H.R. 2297, including provisions aimed to make the home loan benefit for members of the Guard and Reserves permanent, to improve veterans education benefits, enhance self-employment opportunities, and expand employment counseling and job search assistance for servicemembers returning to civilian life after separating from military installations overseas.

H.R. 2297 provides for more equitable and rational treatment for surviving spouses and Filipino World War II veterans, of which I also fully support. It allows former prisoners of war to qualify for certain presumption of service connection and adds sclerosis of the liver to the diseases considered presumptively disabling for POWs. The Gold Star wives will benefit from our efforts to allow them to remarry after age 57 without losing the dependency and indemnity compensation, educational, and home loan benefits that they currently receive. This measure is long overdue and represents substantial progress.

I also support provisions brought forth by the other body which will increase education benefits for the spouses, surviving spouses, and dependent children for totally and permanently disabled and deceased servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this package will benefit servicemembers and veterans from my State of Maine as well as their families. It will help others all around the country as well. I fully support H.R. 2297, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2297, as amended, the Veterans Benefits Package of 2003.

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Lane Evans for their leadership on the full committee and their successful negotiations with the Senate.

I would also like to personally thank Chairman Brown and his staff for the cooperative manner shown in introducing and considering bills assigned to our subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with him and his staff.

As is the custom of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, a large number of bills considered by the Subcommittee on Benefits have been included in the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003.

I am pleased that H.R. 2294 which I introduced to extend the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education is included as section 307 of H.R. 2297, as amended. The Veterans Advisory Committee provides useful information to the Congress and should be continued.

I am also pleased that H.R. 3239 which I introduced to extend the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans is included as section 703 of H.R. 2297, as amended. This committee brings to the attention of the Congress specific issues of concern to African- American, Native America, Hispanic American, and Asian-Pacific Island American veterans. I know that the Native American veterans of Maine, as well as all minority veterans, will continue to benefit from the counsel and advice provided by this committee.

I am original cosponsor of H.R. 761 introduced by our ranking Democratic member of the full committee, Lane Evans, to permit seriously disabled servicemembers to apply for grants to adapt their homes before being discharged from military service. This provision included as section 401 will enable seriously disabled servicemembers to begin the process of obtaining suitable housing while on active duty.

I joined our Ranking Democratic Member Lane Evans in introducing H.R. 1257 to make the home loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs for members of the Select Reserve a permanent program. This provision is included as section 403 of H.R. 2297, as amended. That bill also provided for an equalization of the fees paid by reservists and active duty veterans. Although the fees were not equalized in the final bill, I note that the rates have been reduced to a nominal amount of 0.25 percent above that charged to active duty servicemembers and veterans. As we know, reservists are an integral part of this Nation's total force. Making their home loan benefits permanent and reducing the fees they must pay acknowledges their service in a tangible way.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1460 introduced by Mr. Renzi to provide additional opportunities for service-disabled veterans to contract with the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the record of contracts awarded to service-disabled veterans by Federal agencies is dismal and getting worse. Provisions from H.R. 1460 are included in section 308 of H.R. 2297, as amended. I hope that Federal agencies will take seriously their responsibility to contract with small businesses owned or controlled by service-disabled veterans. Under the provision, the committees expect that the Small Business Administration will accept the determinations of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to the definition of service-connection.

I joined my good friend and neighbor Mr. Bradley in introducing H.R. 2164 to provide an extension in the period of eligibility for educational benefits provided to certain children of disabled and deceased veterans, when those children are called to full time duty in the National Guard. This provision is included in section 303 of H.R. 2297, as amended.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2285 introduced by Mr. Simpson to require the Secretary of Labor to provide staffing at overseas locations to servicemembers who are separating from active duty. This provision is included as section 309 of H.R. 2297, as amended. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of Labor has not followed the lead of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in making these services available at overseas locations. This bill will require the Secretary of Labor to do so.

I joined our chairman on the full committee, Chris Smith, our ranking Democratic member on the full committee. Lane Evans and our subcommittee chairman, Henry Brown, in introducing H.R. 2297 which provided the basis for this larger bill. I appreciate the efforts made by the chairman of the full committee as well as Chairman Brown to operate in a bipartisan manner.

Although H.R. 3392, introduced by our Democratic Ranking Member Lane Evans and myself to improve the adjudication of claims for benefits was not considered by the House committee during this session, I note that provisions similar to that bill are included as section 701 of H.R. 2297, as amended.

I am also a cosponsor of many other bills included in H.R. 2297, as amended. As a freshman Member of Congress, I am proud to have been able to introduce and cosponsor legislation which will improve the lives of our Nation's veterans.

The House Committee on Veterans Affairs has a reputation of serving veterans in a bipartisan manner. This bill reflects that spirit of cooperation.

Our Nation's servicemembers and veterans have earned--and their families deserve--all the benefits provided under H.R. 2297, as amended.

Indeed, they deserve so much more.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this package will benefit servicemembers and veterans from my State of Maine as well as their families. It will help others around the country as well.

I fully support H.R. 2297, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who has fought for veterans for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has fought for veterans issues for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for all their work, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown). I think our servicemen, our veterans in this country, can be very proud of the way the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has handled itself this year in a bipartisan manner, looking out for veterans in this country for all the work that they do as well.

I would also like to thank staff on both the Republican and Democratic side for working together in a bipartisan way. The only way we are ever going to move forward and get veterans issues addressed in Congress is by working together in a bipartisan manner. I wish actually some other committees here in Congress would look at the way the Committee on Veterans' Affairs operates and act as bipartisanly.

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

Madam President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 2297, the proposed Veterans Benefits Act of 2003.

The pending measure, which I will refer to as the ``Compromise Agreement,'' is the final version of an omnibus bill. This Compromise Agreement would improve a variety of veterans' benefits, most significantly for the survivors of those who lose their lives on active duty, or who die of their service-connected conditions. It is entirely appropriate that, at a time when we have called our servicemembers into harm's way, we should extend not only our sympathies but critical assistance to the families left behind by those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

I will briefly highlight some of the most important provisions, and refer my colleagues seeking more detail to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill. I thank Chairman Arlen Specter and his staff for their efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans, and my colleagues in the House for working with our committee staffs to craft this agreement.

While this Compromise Agreement enhances many veterans' benefits, it focuses particularly on meeting the needs of survivors. I am gratified that Congress plans to increase the rate of educational benefits for survivors and dependents of veterans. This bill would raise education benefits by 13.4 percent over current levels--to $788 per month from $695 for full-time study--creating parity with the benefits that the Nation provides to active-duty servicemembers. Family members who have already faced the loss of a father, mother, husband, or wife in service, or who have helped a servicemember endure total disability, should not have to face limited educational opportunities and fragile futures due to resulting financial hardships.

I am very pleased that we have continued to build upon legislation of the past two years to assist the surviving spouses of servicemembers. In 2001, Congress passed legislation to allow survivors of severely disabled veterans to continue receiving VA healthcare coverage through the program called CHAMPVA after age 65. Congress extended this coverage last year, allowing eligible surviving spouses of veterans who died from service-connected disabilities or in the line of duty to retain their eligibility for CHAMPVA benefits even if they remarried after age 55. This year, the committees have agreed to allow the surviving spouses to retain survivors' benefits--Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, education allowance and home loan--if they remarry after the age of 57, placing these spouses on the same footing as those in other Federal survivorship programs.

The committees were also mindful of those who must live with the possible health consequences of a parent's service. Recent scientific evidence has suggested an association between exposure to dioxin, a toxic chemical found in the herbicide Agent Orange, and an increased risk of the birth defect spina bifida in children born to those exposed. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to provide benefits to children with spina bifida whose fathers or mothers served in the Republic of Vietnam and might have been exposed to Agent Orange. The Compromise Agreement would extend theses same benefits to affected children whose parents served in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone during the Vietnam era, where Agent Orange was also used a defoliant.

I am pleased that the Compromise Agreement also addresses the enduring, and sometimes invisible, scars of war. Recognizing the long- term effects of prolonged malnutrition and confinement, current law specifies a list of 15 disabilities that VA presumes are related to military service of former prisoners of war who were held captive 30 days or more. This legislation would eliminate the 30-day requirement for certain physical and mental disorders that could result from as little as a day of captivity. It would also add cirrhosis of the liver to the list of presumptively service-connected disabilities for those former POWs who were held captive for at least 30 days, as peer- reviewed studies have shown that former POWs have a higher incidence of this debilitating disease.

Another group of veterans who struggle with potential long-term health consequences are those who were exposed to significant doses of ionizing radiation, particularly in post-war Japan and during subsequent nuclear testing. Nearly 20 years ago, Congress mandated that veterans who suffered from illnesses they believed were caused by such radiation could request that VA ``reconstruct'' the actual dose of radiation that they received during service. A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences reported that the contractor-operated program established by the VA to produce this data for veterans suffered from a shockingly cavalier approach to quality assurance, resulting in data that failed to meet the standards assumed by both VA and veterans. The Compromise Agreement would require VA and DOD to establish an advisory board to oversee this dose reconstruction program's mission, procedures, and administration to ensure that it collects and interprets data adequately and fairly.

Congress required the Air Force to conduct a long-term epidemiological study of the veterans of Operation Ranch Hand, the unit responsible for aerial spraying of herbicides during the Vietnam War. This study is about to conclude, and experts agree that both samples and data could still provide key data for many unanswered questions. The Compromise Agreement would direct VA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to advise whether the study should be continued, describe the steps that would be involved in doing so, and evaluate the advisability of making laboratory specimens from the study available for independent research.

Finally, the Compromise Agreement would ensure that the core funding for the Medical Follow-Up Agency (MFUA) would be extended for 10 more years. MFUA uses this funding to update, maintain, and improve long- term epidemiological studies of military and veterans' populations. Congress, VA, military, and independent scientists have relied on MFUA data since World War II to evaluate whether specific exposures might have long-term health effects that suggest a need for benefits, new treatments, or further research.

Together, all of these provisions demonstrate that our nation will continue its commitment to those veterans who carry the burdens of the battlefield--whether obvious or invisible--long after the end of the fight.

In conclusion, I want to thank Senator Specter and his benefits staff for their work on this comprehensive bill, specifically Bill Tuerk, Jon Towers and Chris McNamee, as well as my benefits staff--Mary Schoelen, Tandy Barrett, Ted Pusey, Amanda Krohn, and Faiz Shakir, along with Julie Fischer, who recently left the committee, and Patrick Stone, who has recently joined it. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans and their families.