SAVINGS Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, opposition to this bill.

For that very moment, the chairman compliments the gentlelady for having legislation immediately upon a concern. It is so much like an American. We don't even have the patience to figure out where the problem is but let me tell you about our solution.

Now, what we're supposed to do around this place is do a little homework, do a little investigation, find out what's going on, have the distillation of the facts, find out what the facts are in the first place. Oh, no, no, no. Let's run out there and act like we are ``doing something'' when we don't even know what the heck we're doing. It's the reason the American people get upset with us and they get upset with this institution; especially now, when you get so close to an election, you have to protect and guard yourself against politics over substance.

This bill, by forcing it onto the floor at this moment in time, is exactly that. This bill condones a controversial practice the VA called retained asset, or alliance accounts, for paying Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, proceeds to the families of deceased servicemembers. Now, we all thought that the statute was being followed. It wasn't. Someone years ago down at the VA changed it.

In the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we have not had adequate time to address the issues on this bill. There's no record on which we base and form policy decision or evaluate the views of the life insurance experts. None of us had the opportunity to do that.

One of the executives from Prudential came by the office. We had a very good discussion about relevant concerns I can address a little bit later. The use of these accounts in place of the SGLI lump sum payment called for in the Federal statute is currently the subject of a Federal fraud lawsuit in Boston by five plaintiffs against the Prudential Life Insurance Company. Prudential is the VA's contractor managing the SGLI program and making the payments. New York's attorney general has launched an investigation of Prudential as well.

My colleagues on the committee know next to nothing about a very complex issue, its history, the controversy surrounding it. Indeed, I would like to know more about it myself before having to even vote on it. I'm learning something new almost every day I deal with this issue. The issue requires careful deliberation by the committee. We should not have to base decisions on media reports in Bloomberg or The Washington Post.

I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, when we marked up the bill in the committee, I raised very pertinent issues. I sought to work with the author of the bill. She had no interest in working out an amendment on the language. I thought what would happen is, well, I won't offer the amendment in the committee. We'll work this matter out as we learn more.

The chairman even spoke about this week we were to have done a hearing on this bill. We get notice on Friday that they want to bring it to the floor. We're supposed to be doing a hearing on the bill this week before we bring it to the floor. But what's happening is is this body, called Congress, is in a panic.

I yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, the challenge before the body is we now have legislation before us which is on an issue which is now being thrown into the courts, and we've got a statute that's not being followed by the executive branch; and it is completely within the rights of Congress to speak, but we've got to be very careful. Do we understand the scope and issues at hand? I submit we do not, and we are eagerly rushing something onto the floor. Let me go a little bit further.

My colleague Mrs. Halvorson argues that this bill does not change the existing payment authority and does not address the legality of retained asset accounts for SGLI purposes, but I'm also a lawyer, and I respectfully suggest that it may do just that. I am not alone in my view with regard to this concern because I have been talking with other lawyers about my legal analysis of this present challenge.

After the markup, one of the representatives of one of the veterans service organizations, of whom I've had disagreements with over the years, came up to me and told me that he agreed with the concerns. Members of the committee actually regret that I didn't offer the amendment to actually strip the bill, and I guess I never thought that this would actually come to the floor until these matters got addressed.

It's laudable to require the VA to counsel SGLI beneficiaries on their benefits, the payment methods available to them. It's very clear in the statute, very clear already in the statute, but this bill goes a lot further and specifically requires counseling about something the bill euphemistically terms, quote, maintaining the payment, end quote. Now, what is that? What do you mean ``maintaining the payment''? The statute is already very clear what you're to do with the money when it comes to widows and orphans or other beneficiaries. This is a reference to the retained asset account payment method without calling it that.

I think it is reasonable to ask how Congress can tell the VA to counsel anyone about Prudential's practice that may be illegal without well informing them of what Prudential is doing may be illegal and is being challenged in a Federal class action today unless, of course, we change the law and expressly make the practice legal, which Mrs. Halvorson maintains she's not doing. But somehow, I don't think that full disclosure is going to occur.

I completely understand how my colleagues might find all this rather confusing, and I don't find it funny either.

I'm also confused by Mr. Chairman's report statement after the Bloomberg article was released that he was outraged, and the VA should demand answers. Did we get answers, and now everything is all right? Did the VA's self-investigation resolve everything?

The White House has also made a statement, calling this an unacceptable business practice. Have the unacceptable business practices been identified? Have they been stopped? Has something changed, and now Congress should mandate that the VA give specific counseling on the ``outrageous'' and the ``unacceptable'' business practice? That's what this legislation does.

Mr. Speaker, this complex issue is directly before Congress in the form of H.R. 5993, as amended. We should not be effectively ratifying this practice by requiring the VA to counsel beneficiaries about it. Instead, we should give careful scrutiny and make sure we understand it sufficiently to decide whether to expressly authorize it in the law for the future. Our servicemembers and veterans and their families in the VA, Prudential, and life insurance experts should all have an opportunity to weigh in on the record. I want to make sure that it's clear and that I'm not taking a position for or against the practice of retained asset accounts.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the retained asset accounts now, as they have been questioned, are receiving scrutiny and appear not to match the payment authorized in the United States Code. So when you pull out the United States Code--and we're talking about the present statute--so you turn to title 38, section 1790, and then you turn to (d). It says: ``The member may elect settlement of an insurance under this subchapter either in lump sum or in 36 equal monthly installments.'' It doesn't say anything in the statute about retained asset accounts. Now, why is that? Go back to legislative history. When this statute was written back in the mid-1960s, there as no such thing as a retained asset account.

So what has changed? There is a commonly accepted business practice in America with regard to retained asset accounts. Now, in the latter part of the 1990s, the VA struck an agreement with Prudential then to adopt that business practice. But what they did is they adopted a business practice that is contradictory to the United States Code, the statute. So this bill before us is about to say, the VA should provide counsel to the beneficiaries about a business practice that is not even legal. That's like saying,

Okay, in title 10, it is illegal to smoke marijuana, but in another statute Congress is going to provide counseling on the proper use of an illegal substance. And you say, Steve that's crazy. You are absolutely right, that's crazy, and that's why this legislation before us today is crazy. We should not be saying we're going to provide counseling with regard to some agreement that the executive branch struck that's in contradiction to the statute.

Now, you've got the VA and Prudential. Immediately they do a powwow. Oh, my gosh, we've got a problem. We've got to try to define this. The White House has made a statement. Ooh, it says ``unacceptable.'' We've got to figure out--come together and strike an agreement.

This is Groundhog Day, Mr. Speaker. The agreement that the executive branch struck with an insurance company back in the latter part of the 1990s was not authorized for them to do because the statute says how SGLI payments are to go directly to beneficiaries. It doesn't say you can do three or four other types of payment schedules. It only says two of them. You either give them a lump sum or you do 36 monthly installments. It's very clear.

So this agreement is just as worthless as the agreement they struck in the 1990s when it comes to the law. I guess maybe it makes them feel better. Maybe they hope that it takes the heat off. This thing, this agreement is about politics, it is about substance and legality, and it is about public relations. But if you really want it to be about the law, then what we should do is look at the law; and we need to say, Okay, then maybe you need to amend the Code. If you have to amend the Code to say, We want to permit retained asset accounts, then that is, in fact, what we should be doing.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FACT SHEET

Actions for Improving the Alliance Account Program, September 13, 2010

VA takes seriously the concerns raised regarding the

Alliance Accounts (AA) and has reviewed the program to ensure

that beneficiaries are protected, being treated fairly, and

accorded the utmost care and respect. A full explanation of

terms up-front, education about options, and financial

counseling to assist in decision making will provide the

transparency that will continue to ensure confidence in this

important program.

By the end of October, 2010, VA will make the following

modifications to ensure:

All benefits due under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance

(SGLI) or Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policies are

received by the beneficiaries in a secure, timely manner.

Beneficiaries are enabled in making deliberate and

responsible decisions with the assets they receive.

Beneficiaries making financial decisions have been educated

and assisted in understanding the complex issues before them.

They will be made comfortable in competently managing

benefits in accordance with their own time lines.

Options available to the beneficiaries will be clear,

competitive, and at no cost to the beneficiary.

The entire settlement process is dignified and respectful

of the individuals involved.

The specific approaches that VA, working in consultation

with other Agencies, has determined it will pursue in the

near term are:

VA will provide better clarity of payment options by using

a new Claim Form that requires the beneficiary to

affirmatively choose one of three clear payment options:

Lump Sum Alliance Account (Retained Asset Account).

Lump Sum Payment--Paid out in full via a check sent to the

beneficiary. VA is exploring Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

36 Monthly Installments--Paid out in full via monthly

installments, as mandated by law, sent to the beneficiary

(this three year payout option has always been available to

beneficiaries).

If the beneficiary does not select an option, the SGLI

Program will utilize the AA. The AA provides immediate access

to funds, while permitting beneficiaries the time necessary

to study their options and make deliberate, responsible

financial decisions.

In addition: A VA-supplied letter will be enclosed with

every Claim Form and every AA Kit that will explain in a

clear and complete manner:

That the insurance proceeds have been deposited into an

interest bearing account at rates competitive with similar

types of ``demand accounts'' (e.g., checking, money market,

etc.).

The current interest rate and the fact that the interest

rate may vary over time.

That the beneficiary can immediately write a ``check'' for

the entire payment or any lesser amount.

That AA funds are retained by Prudential until paid out.

That while AA is not FDIC insured; it is backed by

Prudential and State Guaranty Associations. The National

Association of Insurance Commissioners has established the

following Web site for additional consumer information:

http://www.naic.org/consumer_

military insurance.htm

That free, professional independent financial counseling is

available to all beneficiaries for a period of two years or

as long as they have funds remaining in their AA.

VA will also take the following actions:

VA will require Prudential to conduct a follow up contact

with beneficiaries whose accounts remain open after six

months to confirm beneficiary understands the terms of the

account.

All SGLI/VGLI related information, including FAQ's, Web

site information, handbooks, etc. will be modified to clearly

and completely explain all aspects of the AA and all options

available to the beneficiary.

VA will clearly designate the source of correspondence by

removing the SGLI seal from all ``checks'', forms, and

correspondence and replacing it to show that it is from

Prudential, with the subtitle of ``Office of Servicemembers'

Group Life Insurance''.

VA will identify additional opportunities to encourage

beneficiaries to use the free financial counseling service.

VA will, in coordination with DoD, improve support to

Casualty Assistant Officers and Transition Assistance Program

(TAP) Personnel by helping to prepare additional training

materials and instruction.

VA continues to carefully monitor this program and remains

committed to making any improvements necessary to ensure that

Servicemember and Veteran beneficiaries are well-protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

September 13, 2010.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here is our challenge. I don't know what about these other groups, Mr. Chairman, that you have had a chance to talk to. I just spoke to the new chairman of the American Legion.

I am going to take all of it. I will even take your time, if you will give it to me.

You know, you can stand up and say, Well, this veterans group supports it, and this one doesn't. You cited the American Legion. I just spoke to a brand-new commander of the American Legion who supports my position, so I don't know what the disconnect is.

I can assure you, now that I am speaking about the fact that there is a legal problem, the fact that I informed the executive of Prudential with regard to this way forward that you have signed with the VA does not get you out of the hot water that you are in. There is a legal problem here. And the four corners of the document that we have before us is actually legislation that uses this clever and artful language about maintaining the lump sum

payment. What do you mean, ``maintaining the lump sum payment''? It's almost like a code word for saying, We want to maintain our current business practice of the retained asset account because that's what the way forward agreement is. It's very clever. This is very wrong.

Here is what we ought to do, Mr. Speaker. I have never done this before on the House floor with anyone in my 18 years, but I am going to ask this of Chairman Filner: Would the gentleman ask that this legislation be pulled from the floor at this time so we may work out the details rather than having this heated debate? You said that you would have a hearing on it. Let's go have a hearing. Let's work this out with our leading experts, and let's bring a work product to the floor that we can be proud of. And I want to ask the gentleman if he would withdraw this legislation.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, all right. Reclaiming my time, this was a very good moment for bipartisanship, to actually bring a work product to the floor that we could all agree on. And I am greatly disappointed, Bob, that you made that judgment call. But this is not right. This isn't right at all.

The suspension calendar, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to be for legislation that is noncontroversial. It is supposed to be for legislation that the parties have worked out in a collegial manner, not to take something for which there is utter and complete disagreement, not to take something that there have been no hearings on, not to take an issue that it now finds itself in attorney generals' investigations and class action lawsuits, and we are just going to, like, bring it to the floor, even though we are going to pass a statute that is in complete contradiction of an existing statute. What are we doing?

I mean, this is really a time-out moment here. This is a time-out moment, Mr. Speaker. And it is very, very bothersome to me that something like this would be placed on the suspension calendar, especially when this was the week in which we were supposed to be holding hearings on it.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are anxious to get out of here and you want us to adjourn for an election, but don't take legislation to the floor that is not properly prepared for the floor. And you have permitted that to occur, and that is not right. It is wrong, in my book.

But you are the majority, and you have actually been able to show that you can do as you please, and the rules don't always matter, I guess, around here.

But I want the Record to reflect my views on what is happening here. Also, I will file additional views with the bill and the report to explain in greater detail the legality of what I feel that we are facing, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this bill does not become law until it is fixed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5993) to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that beneficiaries of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance receive financial counseling and disclosure information regarding life insurance payments, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5993, as amended.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5993, the Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals, or SAVINGS, Act.

This bill was sponsored by one of our esteemed colleagues, Representative Debbie Halvorson of Illinois, to ensure that beneficiaries of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, receive financial counseling, greater disclosure information and other needed support concerning the proceeds of their SGLI life insurance benefits. Mrs. Halvorson acted very quickly in response to some of the publicity on this and to some of the pain felt by the survivors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I guess I thank the gentlelady. Within a day of the publicity that surrounded Prudential apparently not giving sufficient information, you had this bill. You moved very quickly and very decisively, and it is going to help all of the survivors and their families. Thank you so much for your quick action.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

By the way, I didn't see a copy of the agreement. What is the date of that agreement, Mr. Buyer?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

The ranking member and I have no disagreement that this law before us is not about substance. There is an investigation ongoing. Our committee is investigating. We will have hearings on this. But it's not politics over substance. It's accountability transparency over substance. And all of the leading organizations which have to deal with the beneficiaries, with the survivors of those killed in action support this bill. The National Military Family Association, the Gold Star Wives, amongst others.

So this legislation is about transparency. It's about accountability. It's about disclosure. It's about people understanding the process. This bill doesn't condone anything. It just says that those grief- stricken survivors know what's happening to them under the procedure that we have. Whether it's a proper procedure, whether it's based on an illegal account is something that the courts are working out and we're investigating.

Right now everybody just wants to know what is going on and to have the insurance company, Prudential, disclose everything in advance so a decision can be made by the grief-stricken survivors. That is all we are doing in this bill, and it is needed. It is, in fact, demanded by those who represent the survivors that we act quickly to give some measure of accountability and disclosure to those beneficiaries. We need this bill, and we need it now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

The gentleman stands behind Mrs. Halvorson's bill, and we will not withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, we had a little lecture on the suspension calendar, which is supposed to be items of consensus. This item was discussed and voted on by our committee. If I recall, there was one ``no,'' the ranking member. There were no other ``no'' votes. The ranking member confuses his singular and personal opposition to the fact that, oh, I guess everybody disagrees with it. No, this came out of our committee with one ``no'' vote. So the gentleman just doesn't understand what consensus means. He thinks if he alone is against it-- as I recall, he was the only one in this whole body that voted against a truly interesting new way to approach financing, and that was advanced appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman gave us a lecture on suspension calendar and consensus. He was the only ``no'' vote. He was the only ``no'' vote when we had advance appropriations. Everybody else is wrong but the gentleman.

This bill, as I said before, and as Mrs. Halvorson said very distinctly and very eloquently, is about disclosure, accountability, transparency. The survivors need to know what is going on.

We will, as the gentleman requested, have and are pursuing the investigation. We are pursuing whether the so-called retained asset account is the legal structure that should happen. The VA is pursuing that. And we will get to that.

But right now, right now, as men and women are dying in action, their survivors need to know what is going on. We can't wait for this process to go on and on and on and on, especially when they face a huge insurance company.

The gentleman asked what organizations support us. The American Legion has a letter supporting us. I didn't hear any letter that the gentleman had. As Mrs. Halvorson read, the National Military Families Association supports this bill. And the Gold Star Wives of America, the preeminent group that works for the benefit of survivors of those who are killed in action, has sent us the following letter:

``In light of the recent news that insurance companies could potentially use group life insurance policies to profit from accounts it maintains for families of fallen soldiers, Gold Star Wives of America supports H.R. 5993. It would ensure that insurance companies authorized by VA to administer the SGLI accounts are fully open and honest about its practices for those policies on which so many servicemembers rely to ensure financial security for their families.

``The bill, the SAVINGS Act introduced by Representative Debbie Halvorson of Illinois, would mandate that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs require insurance companies that provide coverage through this program to offer financial counseling and improved disclosure of information to family members and survivors.

``It is critical that the options and information available for survivors offered under the SGLI program involve more disclosure and greater transparency. H.R. 5993 would do that by guaranteeing that survivors of our fallen heroes have access to oral and written financial counseling. These greater disclosure requirements and counseling would better help survivors to understand their options so that they make sound decisions during a stressful and sorrowful time.

``Gold Star Wives of America supports H.R. 5993 so that we can do everything in our power to protect the families and survivors of our fallen soldiers. Their loved ones have answered the call and their survivors deserve these protections.''

Gold Star Wives of

America, Inc.,

Bellevue, NE, September 26, 2010.

Chairman Bob Filner,

Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

In light of recent news that insurance companies could

potentially use group life insurance policies to profit from

accounts it maintains for the families of fallen soldiers,

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc supports H.R. 5993. H.R. 5993

would ensure that insurance companies authorized by VA to

administer SGLI accounts are fully open and honest about its

practices for these policies on which so many servicemembers

rely to ensure financial security for their families.

H.R. 5993, the Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs

and Goals (SAVINGS) Act of 2010, introduced by Representative

Debbie Halvorson, would mandate that the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs require insurance companies that provide

coverage through the Sevicemembers' Group Life Insurance

(SGLI) program, to offer financial counseling and improved

disclosure information to family members and survivors of

fallen soldiers. It would also require an annual report to

Congress by VA to ensure that insurance companies are being

responsive to military families and survivors and that the

Office of Survivors Assistance will be a greater resource in

this effort.

It is critical that the options and information available

for survivors offered under the SGLI program involve more

disclosure and greater transparency. H.R. 5993 would do that

by guaranteeing that survivors of our fallen heroes have

access to oral and written financial counseling. This greater

disclosure requirements and counseling would better help

survivors to understand their options so that they can make

sound decisions during a stressful and sorrowful time.

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc supports H.R. 5993 so that

we can do everything in our power to protect the families and

survivors of our fallen soldiers. Their loved ones have

answered the call and their survivors deserve these

protections.

Respectfully,

Martha M. Didamo,

Board Chair,

Mr. Speaker, in support of H.R. 5993, as amended, I am submitting letters of support from The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., and the National Military Family Association.

The American Legion,

Office of the National Commander,

Washington, DC, September 27, 2010.

Hon. Debbie Halvorson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Halvorson: In light of recent news that

insurance companies contracted by the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) to administer the Servicemembers' Group Life

Insurance program (SGLI) could potentially use group life

insurance policies to obtain profits from the families of

fallen soldiers, The American Legion supports proposed

legislation which seeks to ensure that insurance companies

are open and honest about the policies on which so many

military families rely.

The legislation you recently introduced, H.R. 5993,

Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals

(SAVINGS) Act, would mandate the VA Secretary to require

those insurance companies offering coverage through the SGLI

program to provide the beneficiaries of fallen soldiers with

financial counseling and disclosure information. In addition,

this Act would obligate the VA to provide a report to

Congress annually to ensure that those insurance companies

are being responsive to military families.

It is critical to insure complete transparency, full

disclosure, and increased information be afforded to military

families on insurance matters. This legislation would

guarantee the families of our fallen heroes have access to

oral and written financial counseling. This counseling would

better help family members understand their options so that

they can make sound fiscal decisions during a stressful and

harrowing period.

The American Legion supports H.R. 5993 as introduced so

that we can protect the military families of our fallen

soldiers. However, The American Legion has additional

concerns not addressed in the original bill which are equally

as important.

This legislation does not address Retained Asset Accounts

(RAA) for disbursement of benefits. This is a common practice

used by many insurers for distribution of benefits. However,

The American Legion is concerned this method of disbursement

may be a violation of Title 38 USC Sec. 1970(d) which

requires payments be in 36 monthly installments or one lump

sum. The practice should be either stopped or the law needs

to be changed. Of further concern to The American Legion is

that this legislation does not address the practice of the

insurance company executing the program making a profit on

the account after the death of a service member and actually

misrepresenting or over representing the ``interest bearing

account,'' benefit of the program to a payee.

It is standard policy of the insurance industry to reinvest

the money not withdrawn by the payee and to collect interest

on that money. The insurer then passes on to the payee a

small amount of the interest. While legal and a common

industry practice, it should be forbidden by law in the case

of military members who have given their lives for the

Nation. Precedence has been made in setting aside veterans

and military in the case of health care insurance and other

entitlements due to military service. The American Legion

feels that ALL interest received on investments after

servicemember's death should be passed on to the payees of

the policy.

Sincerely,

Jimmie L. Foster,

National Commander.L

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of military families and the surviving family members of our men and women who were killed in battle as they fought to defend our freedom.

H.R. 5993 will help ensure that the families of our soldiers killed in action fully understand the benefits that they are entitled to, and it will help them comprehend the financial products they are using.

As many of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, many of our soldiers participate in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program, or the SGLI, as they fight overseas. The SGLI is intended to provide our servicemembers and their families with low-cost life insurance under circumstances in which most insurance companies would not take the risk of providing life insurance coverage. In the tragic circumstance that a soldier is killed in action, the surviving family member is then entitled to a policy that helps ease some of the financial burdens left behind.

Currently, the beneficiary may receive the payment in the form of what is called a ``Retained Asset Account,'' which is administered by the insurance company. These financial products are similar to a checking account in that they allow the beneficiary the ability to draw down the funds in increments until exhausted.

Unfortunately, there have been recent media reports highlighting that some beneficiaries did not fully understand that their money was being held in these accounts. I know I was outraged, as many of my colleagues were, to hear about the lack of disclosure and transparency, which is what we are fixing today--addressing disclosure, transparency and accountability so that our families know exactly what they have coming to them. They didn't understand what these accounts were, what was happening to their money when it was sitting in these accounts and, three, that these accounts were not FDIC-insured. This left the beneficiaries feeling as though they were being taken advantage of and that they were part of a financial scheme buried in the fine print of their policies.

The surviving family members of our fallen soldiers should never feel that way. It is our responsibility to make sure that they don't ever feel that way again. We need to make sure that 100 percent of these survivors feel protected and safe.

My bill is endorsed by the American Legion, the National Military Family Association, the Military Officers Association of America, the Gold Star Wives of America, and on and on and on. I have letters from all of them that I would like to include in the Record. However, I want to read an excerpt from the National Military Family Association.

It reads: ``Dear Representative Halvorson, the National Military Family Association has long been an advocate for improving the quality of life of our military family members who have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. We are writing today in support of H.R. 5993, which seeks to ensure that insurance companies provide appropriate information and financial counseling to survivors who receive payments from the SGLI groups.

``H.R. 5993, the Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals, which is called the SAVINGS Act, which you have introduced, would mandate that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs require insurance companies providing coverage through these programs to only provide counseling and disclosure information to family members of fallen soldiers.

``The National Military Family Association is the leading nonprofit organization committed to improving the lives of military families. Our over 40 years of service and accomplishments have made us a trusted resource for families and the Nation's leaders. As the only nonprofit organization that represents the families of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the association protects benefits vital to all families, including those of the deployed, wounded, and fallen.''

So as you can see, this is something that is badly needed so that the families know exactly what they have available to them so that they can make the best decision with those benefits. It focuses on making Congress also better aware of what these SGLI programs are about.

Again, let me be perfectly clear. Today we are strictly focused on disclosure, transparency, financial counseling, and oversight. And make no mistake, we need to do more work on improving the SGLI program. I think we are all committed to doing that, and that is being done through investigations, through the VA, and through other committees of jurisdiction, but we can't wait. Our military families can't wait. The families of our fallen soldiers cannot wait.

Today, we have the opportunity to move forward on an important protection for our military families, and this

is an urgent issue, and it absolutely needs to be our main focus. It is our responsibility to go above and beyond the call of duty. They sure have, and we need to protect these widows and orphans. This is one of the most important and solemn duties that we have as Members of Congress. H.R. 5993 will help us fulfill that responsibility in a reasonable and effective manner.

Before I close, I would like to thank Chairman Filner, Chairman Hall, as well as all of our committee staff who have worked so hard to move this legislation along, and we have all worked hard on this bill.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me--protect the families of our fallen soldiers--by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 5993.

Gold Star Wives

of America, Inc.,

September 26, 2010.

Chairman Bob Filner,

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Cannon House Office

Building,

Washington, DC.

In light of recent news that insurance companies could

potentially use group life insurance policies to profit from

accounts it maintains for the families of fallen soldiers,

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. supports H.R. 5993. H.R.

5993 would ensure that insurance companies authorized by VA

to administer SGLI accounts are fully open and honest about

its practices for these policies on which so many

servicemembers rely to ensure financial security for their

families.

H.R. 5993, the Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs

and Goals (SAVINGS) Act of 2010, introduced by Representative

Debbie Halvorson, would mandate that the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs require insurance companies that provide

coverage through the Sevicemembers' Group Life Insurance

(SGLI) program, to offer financial counseling and improved

disclosure information to family members and survivors of

fallen soldiers. It would also require an annual report to

Congress by VA to ensure that insurance companies are being

responsive to military families and survivors and that the

Office of Survivors Assistance will be a greater resource in

this effort.

It is critical that the options and information available

for survivors offered under the SGLI program involve more

disclosure and greater transparency. H.R. 5993 would do that

by guaranteeing that survivors of our fallen heroes have

access to oral and written financial counseling. This greater

disclosure requirements and counseling would better help

survivors to understand their options so that they can make

sound decisions during a stressful and sorrowful time.

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. supports H.R. 5993 so that

we can do everything in our power to protect the families and

survivors of our fallen soldiers. Their loved ones have

answered the call and their survivors deserve these

protections.

Respectfully,

Martha M. Didamo,

Board Chair, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber salutes the heroic actions of those countless brave Americans, both first responders and ordinary citizens, who put sacrifice over self in responding to the tragic events of 9/11. In the wake of unspeakable tragedy in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, we also saw America at its best.

Now, we have already heard considerable debate today, passionate debate, about the new health care entitlement this bill would create, and I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that program, that particular entitlement is appropriate. But I want to focus my remarks on the other part of this bill and on the unfortunate decision of our friends in the majority to pay for this legislation with a highly controversial tax increase on employers that our economy and our workforce simply cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would impose a $7.4 billion tax hike on U.S. businesses that happen to be headquartered overseas but that create good, high-paying American jobs right here at home in communities across this great country. These ``insourcing'' companies provide significant employment in the United States, with many of these jobs in the manufacturing sector.

This tax increase will make it less attractive for many of these insourcing companies to initiate or expand operations here in the United States, potentially encouraging them to ship these jobs overseas. With the unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent

and businesses across the country continuing to struggle to meet payroll, now is the worst possible time for a tax hike on employers that will cost us more jobs.

This is not the first time House Democrats have tried to enact this particular tax hike, and it probably won't be the last. That is because even the Senate, Senate Democrats, continue to reject it, since it would not only cost jobs, but also violate our international treaty obligations. Even the Obama administration's own Treasury Department has testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that it ``has concerns about the specifics of this provision and whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.''

Mr. Speaker, all of us, all of us in this Chamber recognize the hardships experienced by those brave Americans who responded to the events of 9/11. But a tax increase on employers that will cost other Americans their jobs is not the answer. We could have done this in a bipartisan way, but it is unfortunate we are not there today. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful, misguided tax increase.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am from Louisiana and we are no stranger to tragedies, but this is being presented on the other side as an either/or proposition. The bottom line is we could have actually done better, we could have done better, and I am deeply concerned about those who will lose their jobs as a result of these tax provisions. It is important to recognize that.

Don't just take my word for it. I have three letters here that I want to enter into the Record. These were addressed to the House Ways and Means Committee leadership. One is from the Organization For International Investment, a second from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a third from the National Foreign Trade Council, all of which highlight the potential for significant job loss.

As a physician I can say one of the first maxims I have always followed is first do no harm. We could have done better, Mr. Speaker.

Organization for

International Investment,

September 29, 2010.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp: On behalf of

the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am

writing to express continued concern with section 301 of the

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (H.R. 847).

While we recognize the need for revenue, we must oppose this

provision as an offset because it represents a clear and

harmful override of our existing U.S. income tax treaties.

Although positive changes were made to this proposal since it

was originally introduced as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill

(H.R. 2419), OFII remains opposed because it still uniquely

discriminates against U.S. subsidiaries of companies

headquartered abroad and clearly violates many of our

international agreements.

OFII is the largest association of U.S. subsidiaries of

companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an

important role in the growth and vitality of the U.S.

economy. They provide high-paying jobs for over five million

Americans and account for almost one-fifth of all U.S.

exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative

signal to international investors and may dissuade these

companies from choosing the United States as a location for

job creating investment.

As drafted, this proposal would unilaterally override many

of our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to

retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our

treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting

international business transactions. The Senate has opposed

this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for

these reasons.

Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue

and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address

any perceived concerns. In this regard, there is no evidence

that existing safeguards, including the substantial and

restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called

``Limitation on Benefits'' (LOB) provisions) contained in

most of our current U.S. income tax treaties, are

ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident,

the Treasury could implement changes to the U.S. Model Tax

Treaty that would avoid the negative consequences of

violating our international agreements.

Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the

Treasury has taken great strides to update the three

bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland,

Hungary, Poland).

A protocol adding an LOB provision to the Iceland treaty

was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the Senate in

2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been negotiated and

initialed and could be ratified this year. Treasury is

expected to pursue a similar amendment to the treaty with

Poland during 2010-2011.

Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that

was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse

of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of

existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more

appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this

provision and we urge you to oppose including this provision

in the final version 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. We

would be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in

greater detail.

Sincerely,

Nancy L. McLernon,

President & CEO.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1674, I call up the bill (H.R. 847) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and improve protections and services to individuals directly impacted by the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, killing almost 3,000 people and wounding thousands more. The attacks created an environmental nightmare as hundreds of tons of every contaminant known to man and woman came into the streets and the canyons of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

You can see pictures of this in front of us. Into this toxic crowd ran firefighters and police and other first responders. First responders came from all 50 States to aid in the rescue and cleanup of the subsequent days. The Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, despite ample evidence to the contrary, kept falsely proclaiming that the air was safe to breathe. It wasn't. The terrorists caused the environmental catastrophe, but the Federal Government compounded the damage by telling people that the environment was safe when it wasn't, and now thousands of people are sick and in need of special care.

We have a moral obligation to treat those who became ill, and that is what this bill is all about. For 8 years, Representative Maloney and I, supported in a bipartisan basis by the New York delegation and others, have worked to bring this bill to the floor. Now it is finally time to pass it.

Time and again as we moved this bill through the legislative process, we have adjusted it, reduced its size and scope, limited its cost, and made concessions to broaden the coalition and lower the cost to the taxpayers. We worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reopen the Victim Compensation Fund in a responsible way in order to protect contractors from liability so they would not find they sacrificed their businesses to serve their country. We even agreed to cap attorney's fees.

On the Victim Compensation Fund, this House, indeed this Congress, passed the Victim Compensation Fund almost unanimously a week or two after 9/11. Unfortunately, people who should have been compensated by that fund could not be because their sicknesses did not become evident until after the fund closed.

Had we known that they would become ill, we certainly would have included them unanimously. That is why Ken Feinberg, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, urged us to reopen the fund, which is one-half of this bill.

Feinberg said in March of last year, ``It is truly ironic that many of these very individuals who have filed lawsuits seeking compensation are the same type of individuals who received payments from the 9/11 fund. Had these individuals manifested a physical injury before the 9/ 11 fund expired, they too would have received compensation without litigating.''

He went on to say, ``Reenacting the law establishing the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for an additional period of years in order to provide the same public compensation to eligible physical claimants could be justified on grounds of basic fairness.'' Now is our chance to right that wrong and provide that basic fairness of which he speaks.

I know that some Members are concerned about the cost of providing the Victim Compensation Fund assistance and the health care for the survivors and first responders. Let me emphasize: This bill is fiscally responsible and balances the needs of our 9/11 heroes with fiscal restraints.

It is completely paid for. We have achieved this by closing a tax loophole which allows foreign companies to evade U.S. taxes. Second, we have capped the funding level, capped the number of people who can participate, and capped the number of years the program can continue. We have consistently worked to reduce its cost, and in the month of July alone we brought the cost of this bill down an additional $3 billion.

Now let me appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some may have a problem with the offset, even though it is not aimed at U.S. companies and is simply designed to improve withholding of taxes that are legally due. I understand.

But I have to ask this: Just consider for a moment what we are talking about. Balance that tax rate against the needs of our 9/11 heroes, needs that are so great, so raw, and so obvious, and let our moral obligation to the heroes of 9/11, our obligation, as Lincoln said, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle,'' prevail. Let us do the honorable thing and vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple. I will be voting today for the firefighters, for the police, for the first responders, for the survivors of the attacks. I urge every Member of the house to do the same.

I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman King, the New York delegation, the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairmen of the various committees, subcommittee chairs Pallone and Lofgren, and all the organizations like the State AFL-CIO from New York, the International Association of Firefighters, and the National Association of Police Organizations for their invaluable support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, do the right thing. Do the moral thing. Do the only moral thing. Vote for this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairperson of the House Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I then yield the balance of my time to my partner for the last 6 years on this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).