Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2009

Mr. President, Senator Sanders and I are introducing the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act which will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs. I introduced similar legislation in the 108, 109, and 110 Congresses. I am also pleased to note that there is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 32, sponsored by Representative McIntyre. Last year, the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs approved the bill by a voice vote.

I would like to thank the junior Senator from Hawaii for working with me to improve outreach to veterans. This year, he has introduced an omnibus veterans health care bill, S. 252, which includes a provision creating a grant program for organizations that, among other things, perform outreach to veterans. At my request, this grant program was extended to include State and local agencies that conduct outreach to veterans, consistent with provisions of my outreach bill. I greatly appreciate the Chairman's willingness to consider the key role these agencies play in ensuring that veterans receive the benefits they have more than earned. I would also like to thank Senator Sanders for working with me to expand the scope of this grant program.

Based on Senator Akaka's recommendations, I have made a few changes to my outreach bill this year. He has informed me of the special need to increase outreach to veterans in rural areas. I have modified my outreach bill to reflect this important need.

I was extremely troubled by revelations of gaps in care as servicemembers transition to the VA that emerged as a result of investigations of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I appreciate the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs' attempts to remedy these gaps, but more work remains to be done. It can be extremely difficult for veterans to navigate the VA's health care and benefits systems. This bill will increase congressional oversight of the VA's outreach activities and authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work with State, local and community-based organizations to perform outreach.

Several years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' The program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the U.S. military.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored several events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and preregistration for internment in veterans cemeteries.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of

the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration to ensure oversight of the VA's outreach activities. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would give the VA grantmaking authority to award funds to State, local and community-based organizations to conduct outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.''

I look forward to working with Chairman Akaka and the members of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee to make the veteran outreach grant program a success. As we continue to deploy members of the Armed Services overseas at a staggering pace, it is essential that we ensure a smooth transition into the VA for all veterans in need of care. It is the least we can do.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic pay raises for Members of Congress.

As I have noted when I raised this issue in past years, because Congress has the authority to raise its own pay, something that most of our constituents cannot do, it ought to exercise that authority openly, and subject to regular procedures including debate, amendment, and a vote on the record.

Regrettably, current law allows Congress to avoid that open debate and public vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. The annual pay raise takes effect unless Congress acts to prevent it.

This stealth system of pay raises began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury or more recently the Financial Services Appropriations bill. But as I have noted before, that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. Last year, for example, Congress enacted a consolidated appropriations bill in which all but three appropriations bills were included. The traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, was included in the massive consolidated appropriations bill, along with funding for eight other appropriations bills. Amendments to that consolidated appropriations bill were effectively shut off, thus, in particular, preventing any amendment that would have stopped the automatic pay raise from going into effect three months later in January of 2009. I voted against the consolidated appropriations bill in part because it did not permit an up or down vote on the Member pay raise.

Sadly this is not an uncommon situation. As I have noted in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end.

This issue is not a new question. It was something that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.

Although the amendment on pay raises languished for 2 centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by \3/4\ of the States.

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.''

I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. At the very least, the stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed for 2009 certainly violate the spirit of that amendment.

This practice must end and this bill will end it. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise their pay, and my bill would require just that. We owe our constituents nothing less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Rural Health Access Improvement Act of 2009.

The purpose of this legislation is to continue ongoing efforts to ensure that Americans in rural areas have access to health care services. Much has been done in the past to improve access to rural providers such as hospitals and doctors. Much more still needs to be done. And it is even more important in light of the economic challenges we face.

I hold town meetings in each of the 99 counties in the great state of Iowa every year. As many know, Iowa is largely a rural state, and a significant concern that I consistently hear during these meetings is the difficulty my constituents experience in accessing health care services. As the former Chairman and currently the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, it has therefore been a priority for me to improve the availability of health care in rural areas.

In Iowa, as in many rural areas across the country, hospitals are often not only the sole provider of health care in rural areas, but also employers and purchasers in the community. Moreover, the presence of a hospital is essential for purposes of economic development because businesses check to see if a hospital is in the community in which they might set up shop. As you can see, it is vital that these institutions are able to keep their doors open.

In previous legislation, Congress has been able to improve the financial viability of rural hospitals. For instance, the creation and subsequent improvements to the Critical Access Hospital designation have greatly improved the financial health of certain small rural hospitals and ensured that community residents have access to health care.

However, there are still a group of rural hospitals that need help. I am referring to what are known as ``tweener'' hospitals, which are too large to be Critical Access Hospitals, but too small to be financially viable under the Medicare hospital prospective payment systems. These facilities are struggling to stay afloat despite their tireless efforts. Like in many communities in across the country, the staff of tweener hospitals and their community residents take great pride in the quality of care at these facilities. I have heard countless stories of the exemplary work tweener hospitals in Iowa perform not only as providers of essential health care, but also as responsible members of their communities. It is for this reason that many provisions in this bill are intended to improve the financial health of tweener hospitals and ensure that people have access to health care.

Most tweener hospitals are currently designated as Medicare Dependent Hospitals and Sole Community Hospitals under the Medicare program. There are provisions, both temporary and permanent, included in this bill that would improve Medicare payments for both types of hospitals. This includes improvements to the payment methodologies so that inpatient payments to Medicare Dependent Hospitals would better reflect the costs they incur in providing care. Improvements are also proposed in this bill to Medicare hospital outpatient payments for both Medicare Dependent Hospitals and Sole Community Hospitals so they would both share the benefit of hold harmless payments and add-on payments.

Also, a major driver of the financial difficulties that tweener hospitals face is the fact that many have relatively low volumes of inpatient admissions. This bill would improve the existing low-volume add-on payment for hospitals so that more rural facilities with low volumes would receive the assistance they desperately need.

Over the years, many have commented that it is simply unfair for many rural hospitals to receive only a limited amount of Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, or DSH, payments while many urban hospitals are not subject to such a cap. This bill would eliminate the cap for DSH payments for those rural hospitals for a two-year period.

There are also other provisions that would continue to help rural hospitals. The rural flexibility program would be extended for an additional year. This essential program provides valuable resources for rural hospitals.

This legislation also seeks to improve incentives for physicians located in rural areas and increase beneficiaries' access to rural health care providers. It includes provisions designed to reduce inequitable disparities in physician payment resulting from the Geographic Practice Cost Indices, or adjusters, known as GPCIs. Medicare payment for physician services varies from one area to another based on the geographic adjustments for a particular area. Geographic adjustments are intended to reflect cost differences in a given area compared to a national average of 1.0 so that an area with costs above the national average would have an index greater than 1.0, and an area below the national average would have an index less than 1.0. There are currently three geographic adjustments: for physician work, practice expense, and malpractice expense.

Unfortunately, the existing geographic adjusters result in significant disparities in physician reimbursement which penalize, rather than equalize, physician payment in Iowa and other rural States. These geographic disparities in payment lead to rural states experiencing significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining physicians and other health care professionals due to their significantly lower reimbursement rates.

These disparities have perverse effects when it comes to realigning Medicare payment to reward quality of care. Let me put that into context. Iowa is widely recognized as providing some of the highest quality health care in the country yet Iowa physicians receive some of the lowest Medicare reimbursement due to these inequitable geographic adjustments. Medicare reimbursement for some procedures is at least 30 percent lower in Iowa than payment for those very procedures in other parts of the country. That is a significant disincentive for Iowa physicians who are providing some of the best quality care in the country, and it is fundamentally unfair. Congress needs to reduce these disparities in payment and focus on rewarding physicians who provide high quality care.

The inequitable geographic payment formulas have also exacerbated the problems that rural areas face in terms of access to health care. Rural America today has far fewer physicians per capita than urban areas. The GPCI formulas are a dismal failure in promoting an adequate supply of physicians in states like Iowa, and more severe physician shortages in rural areas are predicted in the future.

The legislation I am introducing today makes changes in the GPCI formulas for work and practice expense to reverse this trend. It recognizes the equality of physician work in all geographic areas and establishes a national value of 1.0 for the physician work adjustment. It establishes a practice expense floor of 1.0 floor and revises the calculation of the practice expense formula to reduce payment differences and more accurately compensate physicians in rural areas for

their true practice costs. These changes are needed to help rural states recruit and retain more physicians so that beneficiaries will continue to have access to needed health care.

Last year Congress enacted a number of other provisions to improve Medicare payment for health care professionals and providers in rural areas that will expire at the end of 2009. This bill extends the existing payment arrangements which allow independent laboratories to bill Medicare directly for certain physician pathology services through 2010. It extends and improves the rural ambulance payments enacted in the Medicare Improvements for Providers and Patients Act of 2008 by increasing payments from three to five percent and extending them an additional year, through 2010. The bill also includes several new provisions to improve beneficiary access to health care services. It permanently increases the payment limits for rural health clinics. It also allows physician assistants to order post-hospital extended care services and to serve hospice patients.

Finally, the bill would protect rural areas from being adversely affected by the new Medicare competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment. It would ensure that home medical equipment suppliers who provide equipment and services in rural areas and small metropolitan statistical areas, MSAs, with a population of 600,000 or less can continue to serve the Medicare program by exempting these areas from competitive bidding. We must ensure that rural areas continue to have medical equipment suppliers available to serve beneficiaries in these areas.

As you can see, we still have much to do when it comes to ensuring access to health care in rural America. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me because it is close to the anniversary of the death in Iraq of a very brave young man, Corey Shea, whose picture is here.

He was killed in Iraq just the day after Veterans Day of last year, and I went to the funeral, along with my colleague Senator Kerry, to the town of Mansfield, Massachusetts. Like I think most Members, I try very hard to attend the funeral of every young man and woman who is killed in the service of the country. It's the least we can do. It's not a great deal, but it's the least we can do to show a small piece of the gratitude we feel to those people and our obligation to their families.

Also, it seems to me, anybody in our position who has to vote on going to war needs to fully understand the consequences of those votes, and going to the funerals of the young people killed in those wars ought to be mandatory for any of us who vote. That doesn't mean you don't vote for the war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan. I've been to funerals of people killed there. But it is an important thing to hammer home.

In this case at the funeral I met an extraordinary woman, Denise Anderson, the mother of Corey Shea, who was, in her grief at the loss of her wonderful young son, further concerned because he would be buried alone.

His country took him when he was too young to have married or raised a family. So under the rules of eligibility for burial at a veterans cemetery, he was to be buried alone. His mother said as bad as it was for her to lose her son, the thought that he would be alone forever added greatly to her pain. So she had asked if she could be buried with him, and she was turned down.

Now, under the rules a member of the military eligible to be buried in a national cemetery who has a spouse with children can have up to three parts used. So we're not taking anything away from someone. In Corey Shea's case, this wonderful young man who lost his life has three parts available, and his mother simply asked to be allowed to use one of them. She was turned down.

At that point Senator Kerry and I decided to see what we could do. So we filed legislation to alleviate that, and I am enormously grateful to all members from both parties in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the speed with which they acted and the grace they showed to this brave, grieving mother. And I am very pleased that the bill which we would dare concur in, called the Corey Shea Act, is going to be included in this package.

Mr. Speaker, rather than go further myself, I'm going to read the testimony that Denise Anderson, the mother of Corey Shea, presented to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We obviously exhausted our remedies, I should say. She applied. Only after it was clear that only legislation would work did we file a bill.

And, of course, I should point out, as a tribute to Denise Anderson, this isn't a bill just for her and her son who lost his life. It's a bill for any parent of any young member of the military who will know at least that that's available to him or to her.

So nearly a year after her son was killed in Iraq, she had the opportunity to address the committee, and here's what she said:

``I stand before you humbly asking you to pass or amend this bill number H.R. 761. This would allow me to be interred with my son, who was killed in action in Mosul, Iraq on November 12, 2008. He sacrificed his life for his country, and I sacrifice every day being without him.

``My son, Corey, had a heart as big as the world. He would be the first one to volunteer or help someone in need. But he would always hesitate to ask for help. He was a lot like me in that way, but today I show my passion for this bill by standing in front of you asking for your help. If you knew my son, you would understand what kind of person he was. He was a very respectful young man who would do anything for anybody. He was my heart and soul, and I cannot express the bond between us. If you have children, you might understand, but losing a child is against nature and he should be burying me.

``I was a single parent until Corey was about 8 years old. His biological father was not around. In fact, he was in prison. He never paid child support, and I worked over 60 hours a week just to support him and make sure he had everything he needed. Jeff took over the job of stepfather and Corey gladly accepted him. When he came home on leave, we would stay up until the sun came up. I did not want to miss a minute with him.

``My son was killed by an Iraqi soldier. These soldiers are supposed to be working with our troops over in Iraq. He was an Iraqi soldier for 4 years before turning on our soldiers. On that terrible day, he killed two soldiers, including my son, and wounded six other American soldiers.

``I was not home when the Army came to my door, but my 18-year-old

daughter was there. She is a very intelligent person and knew why they were there. She called me, not telling me what was going on, which was probably a good thing. But when I arrived home, the Mansfield police and the Army vehicle were parked in front of my home. My son had only a month left on his first tour, and he would have been home. After passing out, the police called the paramedics, who took me to the hospital.

``The whole town came together for Corey. They were so involved with his funeral, and it was very heartfelt. My son was the only and hopefully the only soldier who passed away during this war in Mansfield. He is a Mansfield hero. I belong to the VFW in Mansfield, Massachusetts, and I have spoken to many veterans that are members there, and they don't have a problem with me being interred with my son. In fact, everyone I spoke with doesn't haven't a problem.

``This amendment would not be taking up any other deserving space for other veterans. My son has three extra plots, but he was not married nor did he have any dependents. He did not have time, since, like I said, he was a child himself.

``I could speak all day regarding my son and what a wonderful and respectful young man he was. But I am here to ask you to amend the bill number H.R. 761. If you decide to pass this, it would give me some peace in my life to which I can pay more attention to my husband and daughter, whom I feel I have been neglecting. I could finally be able to move forward in my life just knowing I can spend eternity with my son.

``Please listen with your hearts and amend this bill. I appreciate your time listening to me today. This may be a minimal issue with you, but it means everything to me.

``Thank you for your attention in this matter.

``Denise Anderson, proud mother of Specialist Corey Shea, my warrior hero and wonderful son.''

I would only say the one difference I would have with Mrs. Anderson is no one here takes this as a minimal issue. We are grateful to her for giving us one more chance to show in a small way how much we honor those who have lost their lives.

I will just repeat one thing I said, Mr. Speaker, in the testimony. I cannot think of a greater disproportion than what Denise Anderson gave to us, her son, and what she has asked us to give in return. I am pleased that at least the House will be doing that today.

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

It appears this legislation has a lot of wonderful components in it. It represents about seven individual bills. It would amend title 38 of the United States Code and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to make certain improvements in the laws relating to benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

The bill, H.R. 3949, is designed to continue the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education, improve protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, improve VA outreach programs, establish a VA scholarship program, and expand eligibility for burial in a national cemetery.

Public Law 109-461 requires VA to maintain a database of veteran- and disabled veteran-owned small businesses and to validate the ownership and control any business included in the database. Implementing those provisions, VA has allowed any business that applies for inclusion in the database to be listed prior to being validated. The bill would require VA to list only those businesses that have been validated. This will prevent nonveteran-owned businesses from misrepresenting themselves as veteran-owned.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to bring to my colleagues' attention the disappointment on this side of the aisle that the amended bill we are considering drops section 102 from H.R. 3949, which was unanimously reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Section 102 would clarify that Congress intends to allow VA contracting officers at the Department of Veterans Affairs to award sole source contracts to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses on the same basis as so-called 8(a) businesses under the Small Business Act. VA contracting officers often interpret the Small Business Act as giving 8(a) firms a higher priority than service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, which we do not believe is consistent with congressional intent. All this provision would do is to give veterans a level playing field with 8(a), women- and minority-owned small businesses. So obviously we're disappointed. We're not clear why this happened, but we wanted to bring that to the attention of my colleagues.

Furthermore, service-connected disabled veteran small business owners have earned and deserve an equal level of priority for VA contracts. Unfortunately, the Small Business Committee majority and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee majority have asserted jurisdiction and are holding up this important provision to help service-disabled veteran-owned small business, and this is just a week before Veterans Day, I might add.

Service-disabled veteran-owned small business owners are men and women of all races and economic groups from all over the country. In these difficult economic times, they need the help section 102 would have provided. While I regret that this important provision isn't in the bill today, we hope to work with the Small Business Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to ultimately reach an agreement on a way to allow service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses just simply a fair opportunity to obtain sole source contracts from the Veterans Administration. Servicemembers continue to experience service contract and lease difficulties that are related to permanent change of duty stations and deployments. H.R. 3949 would clarify the member's rights and obligations under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, when terminating a service contract or lease due to military orders.

The bill also contains provisions that would authorize the United States Attorney General to initiate action in a U.S. district court on behalf of a veteran whose rights under SCRA may have been violated and allows courts to provide relief to the member, including monetary damages, and assess civil penalties up to $110,000. Unfortunately, courts sometimes fail to recognize the individual right of action that is implicit in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. As one hearing witness noted, it makes no sense to provide a right and then deny the individual the ability to enforce that right. Therefore, the legislation would also codify a private right of action to make it clear to all courts that an individual has a right to bring legal action to protect rights granted under SCRA.

Title 3 of the bill includes an authorization to allow VA to provide up to $25 million in grants to State veterans agencies and to allow these agencies to provide all or a portion of these grants to county veterans service agencies to increase outreach to veterans.

Such grants carry with them significant responsibility for the VA and State and local veterans agencies to ensure simply these funds are properly accounted for and to measure the results of this provision.

One of the least discussed injuries due to the traumatic effects of improvised explosive devices is the damage to the body's visual system. Unfortunately, these effects may be subtle at first or not occur immediately after the event. To accommodate the increasing number of visually impaired veterans whose sight has been affected either directly by combat or the effects of aging and disease, title III also would authorize the VA to grant scholarships to persons in educational programs relating to treating visual impairment and mobility issues.

Now persons receiving such scholarships would be required to commit to working within the VA health care system for a requisite number of years. The bill also stipulates conditions for repayment of the scholarships in the event that the individual fails to fulfill the conditions that are specified in this scholarship.

Finally, my colleagues, the bill would define the conditions under which the parents of a deceased veteran could be buried with the veteran in a national cemetery.

I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

If the gentleman will yield, I thank my colleague for his support, and I look forward to working with him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3949) to amend title 38, United States Code, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, to make certain improvements in the laws relating to benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

H.R. 3949, as amended, the Veterans' Small Business Assistance and Servicemembers Protection Act of 2009, is a necessary cornerstone to grant deserving heroes the protections and opportunities to succeed. This legislation includes several important provisions and would not be possible without the hard work of many members of this committee and of Congress as a whole.

H.R. 3949 addresses the needs of veteran-owned small businesses. A provision of the bill will require that all businesses listed in the Department of Veterans Affairs VetBiz Vendor Information Pages database have been confirmed as veteran-owned small businesses so our veterans are furnished the economic benefits that Congress intended them to receive through their military service and sacrifice. I would again like to thank Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, for her continued leadership on this issue.

H.R. 3949 also includes a timely bill, first introduced by one of our active committee members, Representative Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona. This provision seeks to reauthorize the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education whose authorization is set to expire at the end of this year. Reauthorizing the advisory committee will provide the VA Secretary with a group of subject matter experts to help work to ensure our heroes have the educational opportunities they've earned.

Furthermore, this comprehensive bill includes important updates to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. H.R. 3949 will strengthen our efforts nationally to support veterans, servicemembers and their families during deployment. The bill will allow greater flexibility for family cell phone plans, rental leases, and motor vehicle leases when servicemembers are deployed or required to change duty stations. The bill authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to bring a civil action in U.S. district courts to enforce provisions of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

The provisions on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act included in H.R. 3949 are a collaborative effort that includes bills introduced by Representatives Brad Miller of North Carolina, Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia and Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, respectively. Their efforts to protect our deployed servicemembers are commendable.

Another important provision included in this legislation seeks to assist in VA's outreach efforts to improve coordination among the key offices within the Department of Veterans Affairs. This provision was originally introduced by my colleague, Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina.

To help the 160,000 legally blind veterans in the United States, a provision of this bill would establish a scholarship program for students seeking a degree or a certificate in the area of visual impairment, orientation and mobility. This would help our blind veterans by increasing the number of vision rehabilitation specialists with the appropriate education and training. I would like to thank Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas for her continued leadership on this issue and her dedication to the needs of our veterans.

Finally, the legislation honors our fallen American heroes by providing an eligible parent of a deceased veteran to be buried in a VA national cemetery when the deceased veteran does not have an immediate spouse or child. I want to thank Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts for introducing this incredibly important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation will provide needed changes for our veterans and their families while addressing the unique needs of veterans and servicemembers as they serve the country. I would like to thank the committee's ranking member, Representative Steve Buyer of Indiana, members of the committee and my colleagues for working in a bipartisan manner on H.R. 3949. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues who got this final bill here and for helping our veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my chairwoman, I would like to say I concur with the gentleman from Florida's assessment on section 102. And when we looked at this, one of the things we discussed was this was procedural because of the jurisdictional issues. And I would sure be willing to work with the gentleman to make sure we do bring that back up again. I think the issue here was all of the good in this bill would have been held back and we wouldn't have been able to move any of it forward as we worked out the jurisdictional issues.

So I do concur with your assessment that it is an important piece. We did vote on it unanimously, and I think down the road here we need to get it in.

At this time I yield 5 minutes to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Ms. Herseth Sandlin.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who had an important piece of this bill incorporated in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

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

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