Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2486) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and extend housing, education, and other benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004. This solid compromise package incorporates 14 benefit bills that have been referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, this Congress and contains more than 40 substantive provisions. S. 2468 would enhance a wide range of veterans' benefits, including protections for mobilized servicemembers.

I want to draw my colleagues' attention to Title I of this comprehensive bill, which is derived from H.R. 1716, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act. This is a bill that I introduced last year along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and others.

The Veterans Earn and Learn Act represents the fifth in a series of employment and business opportunities bills that our Subcommittee on Benefits has offered over the last 3 and a half years. The Veterans Earn and Learn Act would significantly update the Montgomery GI Bill on-job training and apprenticeship programs to reflect learning opportunities in American business and industry today. This legislation is Congress's first major rewrite of the on-job training, or OJT, and apprentice policies for veterans since World War II.

Additionally, effective October 1, 2005, Title I includes a 10 percent increase in the monthly educational assistance allowance the VA furnishes to veterans and others pursuing this particular type of training.

The Veterans Earn and Learn Act is timely because almost 200,000 servicemembers and Reservists separate each year, and they would now all be eligible to use these Earn and Learn initiatives to continue to build transferrable skills.

VA's OJT and apprenticeship program is a valuable program for employers as well. Tapping into veterans as a rich resource of skilled and qualified employees is a shrewd business strategy for employers of all sizes. Veterans bring a unique combination of skill, discipline, character and talent to the workplace.

Title II of the compromise focuses on protecting the civilian job benefits of activated Reservists. In light of longer active duty tours, the major provision here would increase from 18 to 24 months the maximum period of employer-sponsored health care coverage that a Reservist-employee may elect to continue to receive.

Title III, Mr. Speaker, focuses on veterans' benefits matters. The key provision of this title is a $250 monthly increase in dependency and indemnity payments for a surviving spouse with children under the age of 18. This increase would be payable for 2 years following the service-connected death of a servicemember or veteran.

Title IV enhances housing benefits for veterans. Among its important provisions is an increase of the maximum VA home loan to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan amount for a single family residence. The increase raises from $240,000 to $333,700 the maximum VA home loan guaranty.

I am also pleased that this title makes some needed changes to provide flexibility in VA's administration of Transitional Housing program for homeless veterans. The very first loan under this program should close this month, I would point out to my colleagues, and I am looking forward to several more projects getting under way in the next 6 months.

Title V focuses on protecting some of our most vulnerable veterans and dependents when it is necessary to pay the VA benefits on their behalf to a third party.

This bill also makes improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I am pleased it includes provisions that I had authored, including one to furnish additional protections to servicemembers and their spouses with respect to residential and motor vehicle leases when the servicemember is mobilized or sent to a new duty assignment, sometimes with little advance notice.

Finally, I am especially pleased that one of the sections of Title VIII would allow the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be located at any location in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, if that location would allow greater cost efficiencies or a permanent building for the court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Arlen Specter and Bob Graham, the distinguished chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in writing this comprehensive legislation. I thank them both for their leadership.

The Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 incorporates 14 benefits bills that have been referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs this Congress. S. 2486 contains more than 40 substantive provisions which would enhance programs affecting veterans' education, training, employment, reemployment, compensation and pension, housing, fiduciary, protections for mobilized servicemembers, and other benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to title one of this comprehensive bill, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act, which is derived from H.R. 1716, introduced by Ranking Member Lane Evans and me and many others.

This section represents the fifth of six measures in a Veterans' Jobs and Business Opportunities package that our Subcommittee on Benefits has authored over the last 3\1/2\ years. I appreciate the vision and bipartisan leadership of Jack Quinn and Bob Filner, followed by J.D. Hayworth and Bob Filner, then Mike Simpson and Silvestre Reyes, and now Henry Brown and Michael Michaud on this package.

Title one of the bill would significantly update the on-job training and apprenticeship programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to reflect learning opportunities in American business and industry today. Indeed, this legislation is Congress' first major rewrite of on-job training, OJT, and apprenticeship policies for veterans since World War II.

Plus, effective October 1 of 2005, the bill would increase by 10 percent the monthly educational assistance allowance that the Department of Veterans Affairs furnishes eligible veterans, dependent widows and children, and Reservists.

The Veterans Earn and Learn title of the bill is timely because 419 military occupational specialties are currently transferable to the civilian economy. Almost 200,000 separating servicemembers per year, including Reservists, would be eligible to use these Earn and Learn initiatives to continue to build transferable skills. This measure represents a unique opportunity for veterans, Reservists, and dependent widows and children to use their VA educational assistance benefits to augment the entry-level wage the employer pays them as they train on the job. As the training wage increases over time, the monthly VA educational assistance allowance decreases.

VA's OJT and apprenticeship program is a valuable program for employers, too. For example, in a 3-year apprenticeship, VA education benefits under this measure would augment the veteran's training wage furnished by the employer by $17,891. In fact, Missouri has documented that VA's on-job training and apprenticeship programs improve employee retention and bring significant federal training dollars to Missouri communities to the tune of $38 million annually. Tapping into veterans as a rich source of skilled and qualified employees is a shrewd business strategy for employers of all sizes, as veterans bring a unique combination of skill, discipline, character, and talent to the workplace.

The monthly OJT/apprenticeship rates vary based on eligibility. But here are some brief examples of the amount of VA educational

program allowances beneficiaries would receive in 1- and 2-year on-job training programs and 3- and 4-year apprenticeships under the Montgomery GI Bill:

A Reservist participating in a 1-year on-job training program as a management trainee in a retail establishment would receive $2,471 over 12 monthly payments.

A widow or dependent child who participates in a 2-year training program as a financial adviser with an investment firm would receive $9,643 over 24 monthly payments.

A veteran who participates in a 3-year apprenticeship program in plumbing would receive $17,891 over 36 monthly payments.

A veteran who participates in a 4-year apprenticeship program as an electrician would receive $22,529 over 48 monthly payments.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that on-job training and apprenticeships are excellent, practical ways for veterans to use their VA education benefits, especially for those who are married with families to support. VA education benefits are not limited to classroom training.

Let me now highlight other titles in this comprehensive bill.

Title two focuses on employment matters. A major aspect of this title is a provision to increase from 18 to 24 months the maximum period of employer-sponsored health coverage that an employee covered by the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 may elect to continue to receive. This extension of coverage is essential given the longer active-duty tours of our reservists. I commend Representatives Henry Brown and Michael Michaud for their leadership on this issue.

Title three focuses on veterans' benefits matters. A key part of this title is the provision that provides a $250 monthly increase in dependency and indemnity payments for a surviving spouse with children under age 18. These payments are authorized during the 2-year period following the service-connected death of the servicemember or veteran. I commend Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham for their leadership on this provision.

Title four enhances housing matters. Among other important provisions, this section of the bill increases the maximum VA home loan to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan amount for a single- family residence. It also annually indexes the maximum amount of VA's home loan guaranty for construction or purchase of a home to that Freddie Mac limit. In effect, the increase raises from 240,000 to $333,700 the maximum home loan purchase amount on a VA-guaranteed purchase.

I am also very pleased this section makes some small needed changes the Department of Veterans Affairs has asked for to provide greater flexibility in its administration of the Transitional Housing program. I was pleased to work with VA in this regard so as to make the Transitional Housing program as effective as possible.

Title five focuses on fiduciary matters to protect our more vulnerable veterans and dependents when they require a third party payee to receive VA benefits on their behalf. These provisions are the result of 2 hearings held by the Subcommittee on Benefits, and I commend Representatives Henry Brown and Susan Davis for their work on this section of the bill.

Title six addresses various memorial affairs issues, including designating a monument constructed at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, CA, as a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial.

Title seven makes various improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I am very pleased this section of the bill includes the provision I authored to furnish additional protections to servicemembers and their spouses with respect to residential and motor vehicle leases. This provision modifies section 305 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to address the reality of servicemembers having to terminate leases due to longer-term mobilization or deployment. This provision clarifies that if a servicemember terminates a lease entered into jointly with a dependent--usually the spouse--the obligations of both the servicemember and the dependent are terminated. This affords military families the additional protections they need when the servicemember is mobilized to a new duty assignment--sometimes with little advance notice--and the family, too, must relocate.

Lastly, title eight addresses other important matters. I am pleased this section authorizes that the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be located at any location in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Another location may furnish greater cost efficiencies for the court.

In closing, I thank Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Michaud for their leadership and continued bipartisan cooperation. I'd also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs for their diligent work in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2486.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, the following is a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body and a letter from the Committee on the Judiciary concerning S. 2486 and our committee's response.

Explanatory Statement on Senate Amendments to S. 2486

S. 2486, as amended, the ``Veterans Benefits Improvement

Act of 2004,'' reflects a Compromise Agreement reached by the

Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs (the

Committees) on the following bills reported during the 108th

Congress: S. 2485, as amended; S. 2486, as amended; and S.

1132, as introduced (Senate Bills); H.R. 1716, as amended;

H.R. 3936; H.R. 4175, as amended; H.R. 4345; and H.R. 4658,

as amended (House Bills).

The Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs have

prepared the following explanation of S. 2486, as amended

(Compromise Agreement). Differences between the provisions

contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related

provisions of S. 2485, as amended; S. 2486, as amended; S.

1132, as introduced; H.R. 1716, as amended; H.R. 3936; H.R.

4175, as amended; H.R. 4345; and H.R. 4658, as amended; are

noted in this document, except for clerical corrections,

conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise

Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying

changes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), who has been a great workhorse on this committee. As I indicated earlier, this bill alone has some 40 disparate provisions. It encompasses over 14 bills. The gentleman, as the subcommittee chairman, has walked point on all of this; and I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his very able and very effective leadership as subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), my good friend and colleague, to allocate as he would like.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say once again that this is a good bill. As a matter of fact, it is a very, very important bill. And I do want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), our distinguished subcommittee chairman, who has done yeoman's work on this, and also the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who is the ranking member on that subcommittee. This has been a true bipartisan product. I think when President Bush signs this piece of legislation we can all be very, very proud.

I also want to join my friend from Texas in thanking the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for his outstanding and exemplary work in the Congress for the past 8 years, and he certainly has put veterans first. So again I want to thank him for his work as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. However, I want to make it clear that we do not want this as a precedent that on trade agreements only 2 hours of debate always are allowed. In this case I think 2 hours will be satisfactory. That will not always be true.

There are good reasons to support this FTA, and I do so. There is the historical relationship between our two countries, as mentioned. There are the present realities in our relationship, Morocco's important role in its area and beyond that. Also, there are some important provisions in this agreement; for example, relating to manufacturing goods outside of the textile area. Ninety-five percent of them will become duty-free. There are strong services commitments, strong IPR commitments. So there are good reasons to be supportive of this.

I do want to put in perspective, though, several issues that have come up in our discussion, and these issues really were raised by us on the minority side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to talk about raising issues as if it is a reflection of economic isolationism. That is the rubric, the mantra, the propaganda of the majority. They try to pin it on Democrats, including John Kerry. It is absurd. We raised several issues because they were legitimate ones, not because we opposed expanded trade, but because we want expanded trade to work for everybody. We want expanded trade to be shaped. We do not think it is some magic bullet that we simply have to shoot and everything will work out. We do not think trade policy should be on automatic pilot. We do not think that what is necessarily appropriate in one trade agreement is appropriate in another. These cookie cutter approaches of this administration are wrong, and surely we do not support this agreement because we think that the economic record of this administration is worthy of support by anybody in this country.

So we raised a couple of issues. And the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) referred to the prescription medicine provision, and I want to talk about it. Before I do that, a brief word and we will have more discussion during the 2 hours about the core labor standard provisions. The gentleman from California said we should not impose U.S. wages, identical laws on other countries. That is not what we are talking about. That again is propaganda from the majority side. What we are talking about are basic core international standards, and countries, including ours, have signed on to a declaration that says that people should have the right to associate, to bargain, to be free from discrimination, there should be no child or forced labor. That is what we are talking about when we say they should be incorporated into free trade agreements.

We asked the question, an important one, where is Morocco? Where is Morocco today in terms of their laws and their enforcement of these core labor standards? And the majority, because of their view that trade always works out for the best, it is always win-win, did not raise any questions about that. In fact, as to the reforms of 2003 in Morocco, there was not even within our government an English translation of these laws. And we asked for one and we looked at them. We talked to the Moroccan government about these laws, and I am pleased to say that we had a very useful discussion, which we initiated and the Moroccan government responded to, regarding the status of these core labor standards in Moroccan law and in Moroccan practice.

The reforms that were inaugurated last year were a major step forward. The Moroccan society has some history of some freedom for workers, and the independent union in Morocco supports this agreement, I think, as a result. But there were issues raised as to the ability of people to associate, to bargain, and to strike, and so we asked the Moroccan government to give us in writing the status, and I want to quote from their letter and I will place that letter in the Record. The letter read this way:

``The government of Morocco is committed to protecting the right to strike in conformance with ILO, International Labor Organization's core principles. In particular, the government will not use Article 288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.''

So I very much disagree with the administration's approach in general. They have in the agreements enforce their own laws. They put these in the agreements regardless of whether the laws incorporate the standards and whether there is implementation of them. And when we have a chance, when we take over, that will change. But in the meanwhile, the question is, is there conformance, is there conformance basically in Morocco with the core labor standards? And I think the realities as we were able to dig them out indicate that they are basically in conformance with the core labor standards.

Now a few words about prescription medicines. Why did we inquire? First of all, there is the same provision here as there is in the previous agreement, including Australia, the general patent provision that could be applied to reimportation of prescription medicines. It turns out in the case of Morocco that that provision is not going to have any potential effect. All of the legislation that has been introduced regarding reimportation does not include Morocco. They have a very small pharmaceutical industry. So I do not think, though I do not like this provision as a general rule, that we should vote against Morocco because of it, but we should make clear that we do not believe these provisions or this provision should be in trade agreements.

Now what about the impact of these provisions not on our important health needs but the important health needs of the people of Morocco? And we were concerned about that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about AIDS. Look, if we are really concerned, and I think we all are, we need to look at these agreements to see what is the potential impact on the availability of medicines to people in Morocco who are suffering from AIDS and where there is in other cases as well some kind of a health emergency? And there were several provisions in this agreement that raised questions about the accessibility of the people of Morocco in these cases to necessary pharmaceuticals and the ability of the government of Morocco to take the steps necessary to make these drugs available. And these are fairly technical provisions, but they relate to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. One relates to so-called parallel imports and the other to test data protections.

So I will make a long story short, and, if necessary, we can talk more about this when we have the debate of 2 hours. We entered into discussions with USTR. We on the Democratic side sent a letter to USTR, and they responded. And I include those two letters in the Record. And we said, in a few words, would the provisions in these two cases prevent accessibility to necessary drugs in a real case of emergency or necessity? And essentially what USTR has said: The agreement in the side letters, when read together, would not prohibit action by the Moroccan government to provide access to these drugs. And these side letters do have effect. The USTR has told us the

following, and I want to read them so there is clarity. This is from page 8 of the mentioned letter to me:

``As stated in the side letter, the letter constitutes a formal agreement between the parties. It is thus a significant part of the interpretive context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.'' And they also then earlier have said: ``Therefore, if circumstances ever arise in which a drug is produced under compulsory license,'' meaning the government of Morocco has given that license to make these drugs available, ``and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect public health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the way.'' And they say the same as to the parallel import issue.

So I just finish by saying this to make it very clear: We were concerned. There is an AIDS epidemic. There are other health issues of serious import for the lives of children and other citizens of Morocco, and we took the initiative to be sure that this agreement would not prevent the availability of medicines in these circumstances. The Declaration, the language that was worked out in Doha, made it clear as to WTO that countries could protect themselves and their citizens when there was an overriding health need, and we wanted to make sure that nothing in this FTA would override that ability. And I am satisfied because of the exchange of letters. I am satisfied because of what was written to us by USTR. I am now satisfied by their categorical statement at our hearing just a few days ago that there would be nothing that would prevent access to these medicines in the circumstances I mentioned because of the FTA.

For all of those reasons, I believe that the issue for Morocco has been addressed. But I want to make it very clear that when we negotiate these agreements in the first place, as is true for core labor standards, as is true for health needs, as is true for anything else, we should be sensitive to what the possible impact would be. We should not be using cookie cutter approaches when the lives and the livelihoods of people in our country and in other countries are involved.

So I support this agreement. I urge passage of the rule. But I think this has been a healthy process, and I think we have both clarified the meaning of this agreement, and also I think what we have done is to serve notice as to how these agreements should be negotiated in the future.

Embassy of the

Kingdom of Morocco,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.

Hon. Sandy Levin,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Levin: I have deeply appreciated the

continuing opportunity to work with you on the U.S. Morocco

Free Trade Agreement. In particular, I welcome your interest

in our nation's labor law, specifically the comprehensive

reforms, passed last year.

I want to address through this letter some of the issues

that have been highlighted in conversations with you and your

staff. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to fire an

individual because they are a member of a labor organization

or have engaged in labor organizing. To fire someone on these

grounds would be arbitrary under the 2003 law and would make

available the full remedies provided under that law.

Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to refuse to hire an

individual because they are a member of a labor organization

or have engaged in labor organizing. It is also illegal to

refuse to rehire or extend the contract of an individual for

these reasons.

Section 473 is a provision in the 2003 Labor Law and the

provision's intent is to ensure that labor representatives do

not undermine the traditional labor organizations. The

government intends to implement this provision to achieve

that goal, consistent with the core provisions of the ILO.

The right to strike is protected in the Moroccan

constitution. Further clarification of these rights is

underway. The government of Morocco is committed to

protecting the right to strike in conformance with the

International Labor Organization's core principles. In

particular, the government of Morocco will not use Article

288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.

Concerning the questions regarding Labor Representatives,

employers have the obligation to organize the elections for

the labor representatives. Employers cannot vote in these

elections and are not able to choose labor representatives.

Only employees can vote and elect freely the labor

representatives.

Employees can join freely the Union of their own choice.

Unions designate their representatives within the companies.

On the ILO involvement, Morocco has always worked with ILO.

For instance, ILO assisted Morocco to write the Labor Code of

2003 and the new law on child labor. Morocco, as in the past,

will continue to ask the support of ILO and work with this

organization in all labor issues such as new laws and will

ask its help in providing assistance for the implementation

of the current rules.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on these

issues and any others of potential concern. Nevertheless, I

wanted to get back to you in a timely manner on the key

issues addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,

Aziz Mekouar,

Ambassador.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2486. This legislation includes a number of measures to improve the lives of this Nation's veterans and their families.

I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of committee, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and both of their staffs for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor.

In particular, I also want to acknowledge the work and contribution of Pat Ryan, who is retiring from the committee after many years of service.

I also want to thank the members of the other body, Senator Specter and Senator Graham and their staffs for the contributions made to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, we recognize the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform who served our Nation. By passing this important legislative package, this bill honors their service and provides them with the care that they have earned.

As is the committee's custom, this bill incorporates a large number of provisions from bills introduced by other Members from both sides of the aisle in both bodies. The House Committee on Veterans Affairs has a long-standing record of working in a bipartisan manner, and I am glad that we have the

gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Smith's) leadership on his side, who has worked together with us on our side so that we can continue this practice.

I am very pleased to be a sponsor or an original cosponsor of many of the other bills which were incorporated into this package and look forward to their implementation.

Mr. Speaker, we can finalize the committee's work for this Congress. We have many accomplishments that we can be proud of, and I want to thank the chairman and members of the committee for working so hard and dedicating our work to our Nation's veterans. I urge all Members to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2486, a legislative package encompassing a number of important measures to assist this nation's veterans and their families.

I would like to thank the Chairman of our Committee, Chris Smith, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Henry Brown and Mike Michaud, and their staffs for their work in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

I also want to thank the Members of the other body, Senator Specter and Senator Graham and their staffs for their contribution to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon us to recognize the many sacrifices of the brave men and women in uniform who have so gallantly served our Nation. We do so by passing legislation honoring their service and providing them with the benefits they surely have earned.

As is the Committee's custom, this bill incorporates a large number of provisions, from bills introduced by Members from both sides of the aisle and both bodies. The House Veterans' Affairs committee has a long-standing tradition of working in a bipartisan manner and I am proud that we have continued this practice as exhibited in this bill. I thank the Chairman for his leadership in continuing this tradition. This bill is truly the product of a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

I am very pleased to be a sponsor or an original cosponsor of many of the bills which were incorporated into this measure. These provisions will improve the quality of our life of our Nation's veterans and their families. It honors their service and sacrifice to this country.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has made important strides in providing quality educational assistance to servicemembers, veterans and their families; however, we have not made similar progress with respect to the job training and vocational programs available under the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Accordingly, S. 2486, as amended, is a strong step in the right direction in the job training and economic development area.

Specifically, this bill includes important provisions that would modernize, enhance and encourage greater participation in the on-job training and apprenticeship programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It is important for veterans to be able to use the Montgomery G.I. bill education benefits for academic courses leading to a degree. I used VA education benefits to further my own education upon leaving military service. It is, however, just as important for the future electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics and other skilled workers to be able to effectively use the Montgomery G.I. Bill to fulfill the training and certification requirements they may need to prepare them to transition to the civilian workforce and contribute to society. The Committee worked diligently to ensure that these provisions accurately reflect contemporary industry and labor practices. We also worked with the VA to address its administrative concerns regarding these provisions. More important, Mr. Speaker, these provisions will provide veterans with improved job-training skills and opportunities under the Montgomery G.I. Bill.

I am pleased to support in the bill a measure brought forth by the other body which will allow an additional 10-year period for those Gold Star Wives and the surviving widowers of men and women who die during military service to use their education benefits. Men and women who die during military service are often in their early twenties and leave behind young children. By providing an additional 10 years, we will allow those surviving spouses an opportunity to raise their children before resuming their education. We have learned that this benefit is underutilized because surviving spouses are reluctant to resume their education while raising young children.

The bill recognizes the need for continued health insurance for those members of the Guard and Reserve who are called up for increasing periods of time. Therefore, a provision is included allowing these reservists to maintain employer-sponsored health insurance for 24 months, 6 months longer than that provided by current law.

I am pleased that a measure introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, is included. He recognized that one of the biggest obstacles to effective utilization of employment-related rights for returning servicemembers is the lack of information concerning those rights. The bill requires the Department of Labor to provide employers with a notice of employee rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, known as USERRA, and requires employers to post those notices.

S. 2486, as amended, also includes a provision requiring a study and report on employment, retention and advancement in employment of former servicemembers. This study and report will provide valuable information and assist Congress in our efforts to do all we can to facilitate the transition of servicemembers to the civilian workforce and promote veterans' employment opportunities generally.

Several years ago, an evaluation of VA's programs for survivors found that surviving spouses of veterans who have children and who receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) need an additional $250 per month to maintain the same standard of living as DIC recipients without children for the first 5 years after the veteran's death. I joined the Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Mike Michaud and others in introducing H.R. 1750 to implement that recommendation. I am pleased that the bill will provide the increased benefit to DIC recipients for the first 2 years following eligibility. I regret that funding was not available to provide benefits for a longer period. Nonetheless, this is an important step in implementing the evaluation's recommendations and providing for the widows and widowers who have borne the battle and their children.

I am particularly pleased that included within this bill are provisions that would codify current VA regulations regarding additional cancers recognized as presumptively service connected under the ``Atomic Veterans'' program, and repeal a bar that prevents a veteran or survivor from applying for VA compensation, subject to an offset, if they have already received compensation from the Justice Department under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. As the son of a veteran who was exposed to ionizing radiation in the Pacific, I have long been an advocate for the ``Atomic Veterans'' program and will continue my efforts to recognize and honor their often dangerous confidential service in defense of this country.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I support the provision of this bill which will exclude VA life insurance proceeds from being counted as income for those very low-income survivors of wartime veterans. Currently, those who have an effective advocate are able to time their request for death pension in a manner which will allow them to give up a few months of death pension benefits in order to keep the veteran's life insurance proceeds. Those without effective advocacy often lose a year of benefits. We care for the widow and widower of those who have borne the battle by providing a simple solution to the problem identified by VA in current law.

Veterans who are disabled by reason of VA medical treatment or vocational rehabilitation activities qualify for cash benefits and grants for specially adapted housing. They are, however, denied grants for automobiles and other motor vehicle adaptations. A provision drawn from a bill introduced by Mr. Reyes and myself will not allow such veterans to obtain an automobile grant.

Veterans who have lost the use of their arms do not currently qualify for specially adapted housing. I joined Mr. Michaud in introducing a bill to permit such veterans to qualify for this benefit and am pleased this bill includes a provision drawn from that bill.

This bill will significantly improve VA's home loan program, including home loans for Native Americans. I am pleased that provision from bills introduced by Mrs. Davis of California and the newest Member of our Committee, Ms. Herseth of South Dakota, are included in the final bill.

VA's most vulnerable veterans are those who require a fiduciary to handle their financial benefits. I joined Mrs. Davis of California in introducing legislation to provide improved protections for beneficiaries whose benefits are misused by fiduciaries. This bill contains a number of important provisions drawn from H.R. 4032.

The bill also makes a number of improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act which was substantially rewritten in the first session of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, many provisions from this comprehensive package are drawn from bills which have been considered by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. The bill has been enhanced and improved by measures considered by the other body. As we finalize the Committee's work for this Congress we have many accomplishments of which we can be proud.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership and his dedication to serving our nation's veterans. This is an excellent bill which will make a difference in the lives of this nation's veterans and their families. 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 think this is a very important moment on this floor, and I think

that we owe this entire committee a debt of gratitude; the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); certainly to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown). I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for yielding me this time. And, of course, on the health bills that I will speak very briefly to, our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Speaker, let me say why I think it is important that Members owe these colleagues a debt of gratitude. There is not one district that does not confront the dilemma of a veteran. There is not one district that does not owe to those veterans appreciation and applause. Many times we find those families and the veterans wondering about the concern and the commitment of this body or of their fellow Americans for the work they have done.

In the backdrop of Veterans Day, I want to acknowledge both the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee, who are always steadfast in reminding us not to forget the veterans. This comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvement Act is a gift long overdue. And the reason I say that is because I represent the Veterans Hospital in Houston, Texas, and among the issues that we are concerned about, in addition to taking care of the health needs of those veterans, there are the psychological needs and the employment needs.

Americans need to know that this legislation is now going to deal head-on with the large unemployment that we find among veterans, and returning veterans. For a number of years, Mr. Speaker, I have worked with an organization called Stand Down, which works with our communities' homeless veterans. Whenever I go to Stand Down, the veterans simply say, all we want is an opportunity; all we want is to be able to be apprentices, as this particular bill is doing; all we want is to be able to have full-time VA monthly educational assistance, as this bill is doing; all we want is to have competency-based apprenticeships; all we want is for our families to have increased benefits and to show our pride in our Nation and also to make our Nation again proud of us.

So I want to thank my colleagues for this legislation, and I add my appreciation as well as someone who represents the veterans hospitals for the legislation that deals with S. 2484, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act, and as well the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. What this does is of course say to our veterans that we care.

Let me also say to my colleagues that I spent some time in Iraq just a few weeks ago, and visited, after going to Iraq, the Landstuhl Hospital in Ramstein, where there were a number of injured soldiers, many of them who will be returning veterans. I want my colleagues to know that what they wanted most of all was to return to conflict, to combat, to be with their comrades as soldiers. But they were grateful, as returning veterans, that we would show them that we care, and today we are showing them we do so. We could not have done it without the leaders of this committee.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am today thanking them, and as I close, I want to add a very special appreciation for a dear friend of this House and a dear friend of veterans in the United States of America, and that is our friend and colleague, the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

I cannot say enough, Mr. Speaker, about the compassion of Ciro Rodriguez. I cannot say enough about the kindness and the caring attitude that he has exhibited to his colleagues and friends on the floor of this body. More importantly, I cannot say enough about his voice of reason when challenging the system for health care for all Americans, but clearly challenging the system for health care for our veterans. He demonstrated such a cooperative spirit with his own chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I know they had a special bond and a special friendship in working together.

We know that health care for our veterans is an indication to their families and an indication to veterans and the enlisted personnel as to how much America thanks them and how much America recognizes their sacrifice. We could not have done it without the face of Ciro Rodriguez going out day after day visiting with his own veterans, speaking across the country, speaking as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and recognizing the importance of thanking our veterans in a real meaningful way by the legislation he has helped to produce.

Might I also thank him for his support in providing posthumous citizenship to those who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, to those who were not citizens but who came from our immigrant community. Ciro, we owe you a debt of gratitude. It is my honor and privilege to have served with you. The veterans of America will thank you continuously as they rise again to serve their country and in their daily lives, and their families owe you also a debt of gratitude. Thank you again, my friend. We wish you the very best. We honor you as you honor the veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank each and every one of the members of this committee for allowing this body to thank the veterans by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support all the legislation on the floor for the veterans of America.

I rise today as a strong supporter of S. 2486, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 2004, which received unanimous approval in the Senate and is now before this body for passage. The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act would improve and enhance education, housing, employment, medical, and other benefits for veterans.

As a Member of this body I have always been an ardent supporter of our Nation's brave veterans and of the idea that they should receive the best of care and support that our Nation has to offer. I am heartened by this legislation because it takes steps toward improving opportunities that veterans can receive as a condition of their service.

I am especially pleased to find provisions in this legislation that will increase education opportunities for Armed Service members after they leave the Armed Forces. Specifically, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act increases the voluntary contribution amount that active duty members of the Armed Forces may make in order to receive increased monthly educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill. This additional assistance can very well mean the difference between whether our veterans will be able to afford an education. Furthermore, this legislation excludes veterans' education benefits from the determination of eligibility for, or the amount of, Federal education grants and loans. This is an important distinction because veterans education benefits have been earned through service and should not count against any other aid an individual may be able to receive due to their level of financial hardship. These provisions together will provide more opportunities for our veterans to attend institutions of higher learning and obtain high paying career jobs after they leave the Armed Forces.

The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act also provides important housing provisions for our Nation's deserving veterans. This legislation calls for increasing the maximum housing loan guarantee amount for which veterans are eligible. As well, the legislation gives power to the Secretary for permanent authority to guarantee adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) and hybrid ARMs, and to modify interest rates applicable to hybrid ARMs. These important housing provisions will make it easier and more likely for our veterans to purchase suitable housing for themselves and their families.

While The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act contains a large number of different provisions, this legislation is really about providing our veterans with the ability to improve their lives once they leave the Armed Forces. These men and women left their civilian lives behind to serve our Nation; we owe it to them to allow them to improve their lives once they return to civilian status.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Let me begin by responding to some of the comments my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), offered. Those have to do with HIV/AIDS and with gender inequality. We are all very concerned about dealing with those very serious crises that are out there. Most of us have come to the conclusion that one of the best tools that we can utilize to deal with those challenges is to encourage greater economic growth. Improving the standard of living for people will dramatically enhance the chance to deal with gender inequality, to deal with the challenge of having the resources to tackle greater education when it comes to the proliferation of HIV/AIDS.

So let me say that this agreement is itself a very, very comprehensive, unique and cutting-edge agreement which will create opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic.

Last week this body overwhelmingly passed the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. There is certainly a great deal of differences between Australia and Morocco. Australia has an economy which is very much like ours. They are a developed, industrialized nation with stringent labor and environmental standards. And like the United States, they have an economy that is increasingly based on services.

Morocco, by contrast, is a developing country facing many of the challenges that confront nations throughout the developing world. They are working very hard in Morocco to modernize their infrastructure and develop new sectors even as they strengthen the traditional industries like agriculture and textiles. They are aggressively pursuing labor and environmental reforms as well as combating piracy and counterfeiting. In short, Morocco is working diligently to climb higher and higher up that proverbial economic ladder.

The very remarkable thing about trade liberalization is these two trade agreements, with vastly different economies, can both be unequivocally good for all parties involved, making it a win/win. Trade is not only beneficial for big economies like the United States or wealthy economies like Australia, but it is very, very important for small, developing economies like Morocco, and I would argue in many ways because of the contrast that exists, trade agreements like this for developing nations create a potential for an even more dramatic improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living in those countries.

Unfortunately, economic isolationists often hide behind the guise of fair trade, an argument that was just put forth by my colleague from New York. They use fair trade to argue that because some countries lack the resources to pay American wages or enforce identical labor standards that we have in America, the most developed nation in the world, that we should somehow not trade with these countries. This is a tragically misguided argument.

It is precisely because these countries have further to go up that economic ladder that we should and must pursue open trade. Trade liberalization provides the tools for economic growth by opening up new markets, by building the legal framework necessary for a healthy business and investment environment by creating the resources to set high labor and environmental standards. Morocco is a perfect example of just such a country.

Mr. Speaker, for many years Morocco has been working to bring its economy into this new and vibrant 21st century. It has been working to increase its standard of living, and it has been striving to raise its labor and environmental standards. In fact, Morocco's aggressive efforts to reform its labor laws since the start of the free trade agreement process began, culminated in a groundbreaking new labor law that was passed just a few weeks ago.

These reforms address issues ranging from child labor to the minimum wage to nondiscrimination of women and the disabled, leading again to deal with the challenge that the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) raised. This new labor code makes Morocco a leader in the developing world, and it is a testament both to Morocco's commitment to high standards and the effectiveness and the importance and the dynamism of economic engagement.

Morocco is living up to its commitments even before implementation of this free trade agreement, but I want to make it very clear, while the FTA is critical to helping Morocco stay on its current path of economic development, it is by no means a mere gift from the United States of America. American businesses, American consumers, American workers and investors will all benefit from this agreement. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of all trade in consumer and industrial goods will immediately become duty free. American farmers will have a huge advantage as they gain greater access than even Morocco's traditional European trading partners currently enjoy. U.S. service providers will benefit from broad-based liberalization across all service sectors, and American producers will benefit from the highest intellectual property protections ever negotiated in a free trade agreement, and that is particularly of concern to those Members from areas like southern California where our entertainment industry is so important. Setting an example and dealing with this issue of intellectual property is key.

The FTA also grants us an opportunity to strengthen our relationship. I want to say that relationship has been dramatically strengthened from the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has done in developing this important relationship we have. He and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and others he mentioned have been very critical to building this U.S.-Morocco Caucus, and I congratulate them for their hard work in doing what we can to build that relationship which I believe has played a big role in leading us to this point where we, by an overwhelming margin, are going to pass this.

I believe this trade agreement is going to have a chance to deal with one of the challenges that exists in Morocco, and that is dealing with a challenge which has been going on for a long period of time with the Western Sahara. It is my hope that as we strengthen further this relationship between our two countries, we will be able to see a resolution to that.

Mr. Speaker, we know this has been a very important relationship between our two countries. Since 1777, when our

friendship formally began, Morocco has proven to be an important and strategic partner. This friendship has never been more apparent than throughout our recent global efforts to combat terrorism. We all know Morocco has been a critically important ally to us in that effort, and as a Muslim-Arab country, they have been an ardent U.S. supporter in a part of the world where our list of very good friends is not as strong as we would have liked.

Mr. Speaker, on both economic and political fronts, Morocco is making tremendous efforts. Today we are able to strengthen this important relationship while tearing down barriers, creating new opportunities for, as I said, American workers, American investors, American business people, and Moroccans alike. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for our pro-economic growth agenda by voting for this rule and for the underlying measure.