End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2010

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to address the subject of reconciliation.

I have previously spoken about gridlock in Congress and the negative impact it is having on our stature internationally. We are unable to confirm judicial and executive nominations which is paralyzing the work of the Senate and putting the government's ability to confront the Nation's challenges at risk. It slows the judicial process and leaves many posts empty, including those in defense and national security.

The most central issue at the moment, however, is health care reform. Health care reform passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Senate, it passed by a supermajority vote of 60-39. The only issue before us now is aligning the already-passed Senate version with the already-passed House version. Despite its passage by 60-39, Republicans are still trying to stop this bill by threatening to filibuster the amendments needed to bring it into a condition that will pass the House of Representatives.

These tactics, which amount to a minority of Senators halting a bill that has overwhelming support, can be overcome by the often used reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is an optional procedure that operates as an adjunct to the budget resolution process established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The reconciliation process has been used by nearly every Congress since its enactment to pass a vast array of legislation.

In their endless efforts to circumvent the will of the majority and thwart the passage of much needed and much supported health care legislation, the Republicans have launched a campaign against the reconciliation process, making it out to be an illegitimate tactic that the Democrats have invented to pass health care legislation. That is simply untrue.

A look back in time, however, shows that the very same Republicans who are now denouncing the use of reconciliation were the very same Republicans who were defending its use not too long ago.

When he was chair of the Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg, in defending the use of reconciliation to try to pass an amendment allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2005 said, ``Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions. The fact is all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position. Is there something wrong with `majority rules'? I don't think so.''

When using reconciliation to pass Medicare spending, Senator Gregg said, ``You can't get 60 votes because the party on the other side of the aisle simply refuses to do anything constructive in this area.'' Senator Chuck Grassley, when defending the use of reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts, said that reconciliation was ``the way it will have to be done in order to get it done at all.''

Last year Republican Congressman Paul Ryan said of Democrats using reconciliation, ``It's their right. They did win the election. We don't like it because we don't like what looks like the outcome.''

Republicans are implying that reconciliation is a new idea, and has never been used to pass significant legislation. The fact is, since 1980, Congress has sent 22 reconciliation bills to the President. Of those, 16 enacted into law occurred under Republican majority control.

The 16 reconciliation bills created with a Republican majority included:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resultant

FY Majority reconciliation act(s) Veto? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1980 (P.L. 96-499). 1982................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1981 (P.L. 97-35). 1983................................. Republican............. Tax Equity and Fiscal None.

Responsibility Act of

1982 (P.L. 97-248).

Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1982 (P.L. 97-253). 1984................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1983 (P.L. 98-270). 1986................................. Republican............. Consolidated Omnibus None.

Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-

272). 1996................................. Republican............. Balanced Budget Act of Vetoed by Clinton.

1995. 1997................................. Republican............. Personal Responsibility None.

and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of

1996 (P.L. 104-193). 1998................................. Republican............. Balanced Budget Act of None.

1997 (P.L. 105-33).

Republican............. Taxpayer Relief Act of None.

1997 (P.L. 105-34). 2000................................. Republican............. Taxpayer Refund and Vetoed by Clinton.

Relief Act of 1999

(H.R. 2488). 2001................................. Republican............. Marriage Tax Relief Vetoed by Clinton.

Reconciliation Act of

2000 (H.R. 4810). 2002................................. Republican............. Economic Growth and Tax None.

Relief Reconciliation

Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-

16). 2004................................. Republican............. Jobs and Growth Tax None.

Relief Reconciliation

Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-

27). 2006................................. Republican............. Deficit Reduction Act None.

of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).

Republican............. Tax Increase Prevention None.

and Reconciliation Act

of 2005 (P.L. 109-222). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The six reconciliation bills created with a Democratic majority included:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resultant

Fiscal year Majority reconciliation act(s) Veto? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1986 (P.L. 99-509). 1988................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1987 (P.L. 100-203). 1990................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1989 (P.L. 101-239). 1991................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1990 (P.L. 101-508). 1994................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None.

Reconciliation Act of

1993 (P.L. 103-66). 2008................................. Democrat............... College Cost Reduction Vetoed by Clinton.

and Access Act of 2007

(P.L. 110-84). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This could not be further from the truth. The new Reagan administration and Republican majority in 1981 that first used reconciliation to pass major legislation--Reagan's tax cuts--and used it again in 1982 to cut spending and roll back some tax cuts. A Republican-controlled Senate also used reconciliation to pass the 1996 welfare overhaul, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare Advantage and COBRA.

Republicans have used reconciliation many times to pass partisan bills. For example, the 1995 Balanced Budget Act, the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, and the 2006 Tax Relief Extension Act were all passed in reconciliation and with small vote margins. Two of these passed only with the tie-breaking intervention of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Democrats got more votes for the health bill than any of these measures received.

Republicans have also complained that reconciliation is not proper for a health care bill. However, over the past 20 years, reconciliation has been used to pass almost all major pieces of health care legislation, including COBRA; the Children's Health Insurance Program; the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals that take Medicaid and Medicare to treat anyone entering an ER; and welfare reform, which disentangled Medicaid from welfare.

Further, the health care bill has already passed with 60 votes. It is only the amendments that need to pass via reconciliation. The 2009 budget resolution instructed both Houses of Congress to enact health care reform. Again, comprehensive health legislation has already passed both Chambers, garnering a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. Since the House and the Senate versions are slightly different, using reconciliation to implement the budget resolution by reconciling the two bills follows established procedure. Reconciliation will be used only to pass a small package of fixes to the original health bills that are necessary to align the House and Senate versions. This is actually less ambitious than the usual reconciliation process, which usually applies to entire bills, not just small fixes.

I would say to the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Filner, he just did a 1-minute where he said, Let it go, let it go. So I'm a little surprised he's bringing up the health care bill and talking about it prior to these six wonderful bills we're going to pass on Veterans' Affairs. But since he brought it up, I think it's probably appropriate that I return with our side of this issue, because, as he pointed out, last night the House of Representatives passed the Senate bill, which was the government setting up exchanges-- which these exchanges include taxes, they include mandates and regulation, and it's phased in over a number of years to 2014. But there are some problems, frankly, with that bill. If there were no problems, then Ike Skelton, who's chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would not have brought it up 2 days ago, sort of furiously to try to get it in, because he voted against the health care bill.

So the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voted against the Senate health care bill last night. The day before that, he brought up the idea that we have to protect DoD veterans who are on TRICARE. That's probably one of the flaws in the bill that's being sent to the President. It has some serious ramifications for our military and dependents under TRICARE, Madam Speaker, for veterans' widows, orphans, and for children suffering from spina bifida as a result of a parent's exposure to Agent Orange during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. As deputy ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I joined with Ranking Member Steve Buyer, of our committee, and Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon to introduce

H.R. 4894 to protect the Department of Defense and the VA beneficiaries.

So I'm a little surprised that the Democrat leadership didn't take up our bill. Instead, they passed a more limited bill introduced by, as I mentioned, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, which, after reading it, provides limited protection for TRICARE beneficiaries but not the DOD and VA health care systems and the VA health care benefits. Moreover, I was also surprised to learn from the Congressional Budget Office there could be a cost associated with our bill, the $4.4 billion, so-called, for the cost of our bill. I'm an original cosponsor.

So what are the implications for these beneficiaries? Simply, it means that the government takeover of health care could result in a savings of $4.4 billion made on the backs of servicemembers, widows, and orphans, and children suffering from spina bifida as a result of a parent's exposure to Agent Orange. I don't think the public realizes that. So I think it's important to get this information out, and I'm hopeful that we can solve this problem.

Over the weekend, there were a lot of claims made that there is no problem for TRICARE and VA health care beneficiaries under the Senate health care bill that was passed by the Democrats yesterday. Well, frankly, there is, and it's a big problem. As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, if it wasn't a problem, then Ike Skelton, the Armed Services Committee chairman, would not have been here 2 days ago trying to offer a scaled-down bill to correct the problem. He would not have taken his own bill, H.R. 4887, to the floor in a quick effort to solve this issue.

So it's important to reiterate that this bill does not protect the DOD and VA health care systems. It doesn't fully address TRICARE either, as a result of the CBO score of H.R. 4887. The Ike Skelton bill does not stop $4.5 billion from being cut from TRICARE, but we think ours will. The veterans service organizations know what is happening. The American Legion, the VFW, DAV, and the National Association of Uniformed Services have all supported our bill, H.R. 4894, which they believe will protect veterans.

So, Madam Speaker, I hope that the House Democrat leadership will see fit to act as soon as possible to allay the fears of all these veteran service organizations as soon as possible to correct the measure with H.R. 4894, to stop these cuts and to protect the individuals and their families who have served and sacrificed on behalf of our Nation and, I might add, to allay the fears of men at war who think when they come back they will retire or possibly be under Champus/VA.

With those comments, let me then move to the bill that we're considering. I rise in support of H.R. 4810, End Veteran Homeless Act of 2010.

Now, my colleagues, this bill would amend Title 38 of the United States Code to make certain improvements in the services provided for homeless veterans. This important legislation represents a combination of a number of bills that moved through the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I believe truly exemplifies the manner in which our committee can and does work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring forth legislation that improves the lives of our veterans.

It is with a deep and personal commitment that I and everybody else on the Veterans' Affairs Committee embrace and aggressively want to tackle the challenge of homelessness and veterans and forward our mutual goals of ending this chronic problem among our veterans.

Since the enactment of the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act back in 2001, which significantly expanded the VA's homeless program, we've seen a significant number of previously homeless veterans returning to leading productive and sober lives. H.R. 4810 continues that proactive approach by permanently extending a VA program that provides grants to entities that help low-income families that are homeless, transitioning to permanent housing, or already in permanent housing; increasing the annual amounts authorized for VA's Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program from $150 million to $200 million; and encouraging the VA to expand its promotion for homeless veterans to include programs for homeless veterans that are female or that have children.

VA's latest estimate indicates that about 107,000 veterans were homeless on any one given night last year. With the unemployment rate for veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom aged 18 to 24 standing at a staggering 21.1 percent, more simply must be done to ensure that our veterans come home not to joblessness and homelessness, but to supportive communities and meaningful employment.

I recently had the pleasure of participating in the grand opening of the new HONOR--Hope, Opportunities, Networking, Outreach, and Recovery--Center in my congressional district in Gainesville, Florida. This newly renovated comprehensive VA homeless center includes a 45-bed domiciliary to care for disabled and homeless veterans with special medical needs. The HONOR Center will also have program offices for outreach, grant and per diem, and other essential services, including a special area that's designated just for women. The HONOR Center will provide a full continuum of care and a homelike environment and will provide homeless veterans with family-style dining and special recreation areas including a nice library with a meditation room and a full-time recreational therapist.

The HONOR Center has been in development for nearly 3 years, and I was very pleased and proud to see such a wonderful resource for homeless veterans open in my congressional district in Gainesville, Florida.

So, Madam Speaker, H.R. 4810, the End Veteran Homeless Act, is one important step in achieving our goal of eliminating homelessness among veterans. But still, my colleagues, it is only one step. While I support its passage, I look forward to continuing to work hard in the future to make sure America's veterans are welcomed back from service with open arms, good jobs, and happy and healthy homes.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would like to thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer, who unfortunately couldn't be here this morning, of the Veterans' Affairs Committee as well as Chairman Michaud and Ranking Member Brown of the Subcommittee on Health for bringing this bill forward. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4810 and do their part to ensure that not a single one of the brave men and women who fight in uniform to defend our rights come home to a life without a job and a home.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4810) to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the services provided for homeless veterans under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the first of a series of six pieces of legislation that will benefit our Nation's veterans. This Congress, and certainly this committee, has been concerned with these veterans in our daily work, and we are proud to present these items which will help prevent veterans' homelessness, protect National Guard employment, help veterans keep their home, give veterans a cost-of-living adjustment.

Before I begin on this package, Madam Speaker, I just would like to briefly comment on a little item that came up yesterday during the debate on health care.

One of our veterans service organizations and the ranking member of our committee claimed that the bill that we would pass would hurt veterans' health care. I just want to point out on behalf of all the Chairs on this side of the aisle, all the legal opinions that have been made, veterans' health care is not affected by the health care bill that we passed. All the benefits will be retained. Nobody will be penalized for being part of the veterans health care system or any other part of veterans health benefits.

Congress actually received a letter yesterday from the Vietnam Veterans of America which said: ``It is unfortunate that some continue to raise what is now even more clearly a false alarm that is apparently meant to frighten veterans and their families in order to prompt them to oppose the pending legislation. While there is a legitimate debate as to whether or not the pending health care measure should become law, Vietnam Veterans of America does not appreciate spreading rumors that are not accurate by any political partisan from any point of the political spectrum.''

I just want to allay any fears that veterans have about this health care legislation. And certainly our committee, should anything arise that was unintended, we will move quickly to make sure that veterans health care is kept at a high quality and no one is penalized for having veterans health care in this country. So I want to point that out, Madam Speaker.

Now, to get back to the bill we have, H.R. 4810, under consideration. Almost half the homeless on the street tonight, Madam Speaker, are veterans--anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000. This is a national disgrace. It is our national disgrace. It's been an issue that I have been working on since I came to Congress when I joined the Committee on Veterans' Affairs almost 18 years ago. Now that the Democrats have the majority, we want to put forward a plan, as our Secretary of Veterans' Affairs has announced, a plan to end veterans' homeless within 5 years. Zero tolerance. That's going to be our policy.

Today we have the opportunity to take bold action to combat homelessness, but, as I said, we have a willing and eager administration to make sure that we achieve this goal. President Obama and his Secretary of Veterans' Affairs have, as I said, pledged to end homelessness over the next 5 years. Our Secretary has committed to expanding proven programs and launching innovative services to prevent veterans from falling into homelessness.

This bill before us, H.R. 4810, does three important things to provide the administration with the necessary tools to combat homelessness:

First, the bill would provide additional funding for the Grant and Per Diem Program, which provides grants to community agencies so they can, in turn, provide transitional housing, health services, and other supportive services to homeless veterans. Providing needed resources to the local agencies that care for our homeless veterans is just one way our grateful Nation can support the vital and compassionate work performed in communities all across the country.

Second, this bill helps low-income veteran families who are occupying permanent housing from becoming homeless by extending powerful and effective support services. Examples of these services include outreach, case management, and assistance in obtaining benefits from the VA, as well as public benefits from State and local agencies.

Finally, H.R. 4810 helps the increasing number of female veterans who end up being homeless. This is especially magnified for our women veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, who are four times more likely to become homeless than their male counterparts. My bill would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to focus outreach efforts on homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children.

This powerful bill is the result of significant work by the entire committee. I would like to thank the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, Mike Michaud from Maine, and Ranking Member Henry Brown from South Carolina for the bipartisan leadership they demonstrated on this bill. I'd also like to recognize the important contributions of our colleagues Harry Teague of New Mexico, Ciro Rodriguez of Texas, and Phil Hare of Illinois. Each of these Members are true advocates for homeless veterans and introduced legislation helping homeless veterans that are now key provisions of this bill. I'd also like to thank our staff from the Health Committee, especially our staff director, Cathy Wiblemo, who has worked so hard on this legislation for such a long time.

There are hundreds of thousands of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is our duty as a Nation, when we put our men and women in harm's way, to care for them when they return. We must also live up to the promise to honor the service and sacrifices of our veterans from previous conflicts. This is an opportunity today, Madam Speaker, to make a difference in the lives of veterans who are sleeping in cars, looking for public housing, searching for relief, and feeling helpless.

I urge all of our colleagues to pass H.R. 4810 to provide the help and support that our homeless veterans need and deserve.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a famous President once said: ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' The deputy ranking member--I didn't know we had such a title--is spreading fear, and I would just like to make it clear to every veteran, every family of veterans, and all Americans, there will be no reduction of any benefits of any veteran in the veterans health care system. There will be no taxes. There will be no diminution of services. Let's just make that clear.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4810.

I urge my colleagues to unanimously support the bill. I have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of a letter signed jointly by myself and the Republican Leader, Mr. Boehner. It is addressed to President Obama. In it, we express our views on the limits of the ``pocket-veto'' power. I also submit a copy of the letters referenced therein.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

May 24, 2010.

Hon. Barack Obama,

The President, The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: This is in response to your actions of

December 30, 2009, on House Joint Resolution 64, a short-term

continuing resolution of appropriations that was presented to

you on December 19, 2009. That measure was intended to

accommodate your review and approval of the regular

appropriations but was rendered unnecessary when you were

able to act swiftly on the regular appropriations. You

therefore decided not to approve the joint resolution.

Although you cited The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929),

you returned the parchment to the House with a memorandum of

disapproval stating that you wanted to leave no doubt that

the joint resolution was being vetoed as unnecessary.

You acted on the joint resolution on the ninth day of the

10-day period during which you could approve it. The standing

rules of the House made the Clerk available to receive your

message. The House and Senate stood adjourned sine die but

with provision for reassembly of the first session and with

the certainty of reassembly for the second session of the

instant Congress. Thus, each body was in a position to

reconsider the vetoed measure in light of your objections,

either in the second session or even in the first session.

The circumstances surrounding the presentment and return of

House Joint Resolution 64 and the readiness of Congress to

reconsider the joint resolution in light of Presidential

objections compel us to question the assertion that a pocket

veto did or could have occurred. We think you agree that the

pocket veto and the return veto are available on mutually

exclusive bases and, therefore, during mutually exclusive

periods. We think you also should agree that the

constitutional concern that a measure not become law without

the President's signature when an adjournment prevents a

return veto does not arise when the President is able to

return the parchment to the originating House with a

statement of his objections. Accordingly, we believe that

your return of House Joint Resolution 64 with your objections

is absolutely inconsistent with this most essential

characteristic of a pocket veto, to wit: retention of the

parchment by the President for lack of a legislative body to

whom he might return it with his objections. Your successful

return of House Joint Resolution 64 establishes that you were

not prevented from returning it.

After an enrolled measure is presented for Presidential

approval, the parchment ultimately meets one of four ends. It

might be tendered to the Archivist by the President because

he signed it or allowed it to become law without his

signature. It might be referred to committee by the first

house to sustain a veto. It might be tendered to the

Archivist by the second house to override a veto. Or it might

be retained by the President because he ``pocketed'' it. If

the President returns a parchment to the Congress, then he

has not pocketed it, and it therefore is subject to

reconsideration. Either the Congress has prevented the

President from returning the parchment with a statement of

his objections or it has not. By returning the parchment a

President is admitting that he is not prevented from

returning it.

The House has treated your message of December 30, 2009, on

House Joint Resolution 64 as a return veto. On January 12,

2010, the message--comprising the parchment and your

memorandum of disapproval--was laid before the House. After

the memorandum was read, your objections were entered in the

Journal and the House obeyed the command of the Constitution

to ``proceed to reconsider'' the joint resolution. Rather

than immediately considering the ultimate question of

overriding or sustaining the veto, the House chose as its

first mode of reconsideration a postponement until January

13, 2010. On that day the House reconsidered the joint

resolution in light of your objections and voted by the yeas

and nays on the question of overriding or sustaining the

veto. The House sustained your return veto.

We enclose for your consideration copies of previous

letters to President George H. W. Bush, to President Clinton,

and to President George W. Bush, respectively dated November

21, 1989, September 7, 2000, and April 14, 2008. Those

letters from Speaker Foley and Leader Michel, from Speaker

Hastert and Leader Gephardt, and from the two undersigned,

respectively, expressed the profound concern of the

bipartisan leaderships over similar assertions of pocket

vetoes. We echo those concerns and urge you to give

appropriate deference to such judicial resolutions of this

question as have been possible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House.

John A. Boehner,

Republican Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend several votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 4810 and ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 4667.