To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving spouses with certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosures, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I think the whole committee, and certainly the chairman and I, agree that putting veterans to work, especially at a time of high unemployment in general, should be one of the chief goals not only of this committee but of the entire Congress and our Nation. And when we may have, for example, double or even triple the already tragic unemployment rate for veterans, it becomes that much more important.

Now I've heard descriptions of this bill as comprehensive and as meaningful. And I was looking forward to this VOW bill, the Veterans Opportunity to Work. I was hoping it would be a WOW bill--that is, a wonderful opportunity to work--but it seems it has become, and remains so, the HOW bill--how are we going to put anybody to work with this bill?

Let me try to make that clear, Madam Speaker. Throughout the whole committee process that this bill went through, I described it as one that did not create jobs, but actually taxed veterans. Taxed veterans. Remember that, Madam Speaker. You took a pledge not to vote for anything that taxed anybody. This bill does. It actually taxes one group of veterans to help some other group of veterans. And I still feel the same way about the bill as it came through the process. Now I support all programs that will help veterans and improve their lives, and I know this bill is called a jobs bill. But, it is merely a retraining bill. Retraining.

Now, we all want retraining, and we all know it's important. But I want to get people a job. I don't just want to retrain them and call this some great bill. My concern is that this bill will not get veterans hired at all. It may retrain them, who knows, but they'll have no place to get a job. And we'll have taxed one set of veterans to pay for their retraining--an increased tax, for all of you who took the pledge not to increase taxes.

Now I think we have to support the spirit of the bill of retraining and try to find proper funding in a bipartisan way, and I hope that working with our Senate counterparts we can do that. We need proper funding for all of these programs that are so good. But the gentleman and his party don't want to ask for more money from anybody, even our millionaires. They want to tax one group of veterans who are trying to buy homes, and so they'll train this group of veterans and claim they're creating jobs. Now, that's not what we should be doing here in this Congress.

This bill will actually diminish services to our veterans. I know that my counterparts, for example, want the so-called TAP classes, the Transition Assistance Program classes, contracted out. But I don't think the time is right to do that. So how do we pay for this bill for retraining, this VOW bill that should've been a WOW bill but is only a HOW bill? It says to those who want to buy a home through the VA housing program that your fees, which were scheduled to go down, will not now go down. They're going to be kept high. This refusal to extend a tax decrease has always been described by the party over there as a tax increase, so I will keep your language. You are increasing the taxes on one group of veterans who want to buy homes to pay for this retraining bill which may not get anybody a job.

Now, I know, Madam Speaker, you're going to tell Grover Norquist what's going on here, get hold of him right away, because this is a violation of the pledge that he is requiring of all of the Republicans: don't raise taxes. And in his definition of raising taxes, it's extending fees that were going to go down that now don't go down. So that's an increase in taxes.

So let's remember this when we think about the VOW bill. Let's vow to say we want to put people to work, we don't want to raise taxes. But this bill does neither. It not only doesn't put people to work, it raises taxes. So I cannot support the bill, Madam Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for the description of Dr. Seuss. He's a great citizen of the city of San Diego, and a great hero to all of us in San Diego. So we always quote Dr. Seuss. I understand your appreciation, and I'm thrilled by it.

You are not quite as accurate, though, when you say where we got the money for the Filipino veterans bill. In fact, we got it from a completely different source. You may or may not be accurate on my previous votes, but I never took the pledge that you have taken, Mr. Chairman. I never took the pledge that all of you have taken about not allowing the lowering of fees as a new tax.

I will yield when I'm finished. You have a lot of time left.

We're coming from wholly different places. I believe in the jobs bill that is being voted on in the Senate, that we should actually in fact not only cut programs but increase our revenue from a surtax on the millionaires in our society. So I'm there when I say we need new funds. You're the ones who keep saying, Don't do anything; Don't do anything; Don't increase anything; Don't extend this, don't extend that. You're the guys who are the hypocrites here. So don't confuse my past votes with hypocrisy.

In addition, there are bills before our committee, Mr. Chairman, and you know it, that actually increase the jobs that are available for veterans. They actually take steps to increase the ability for our veterans who are defending our Nation, who we owe so much to, to get the jobs.

Besides, as you know, we have goals all over the government to hire veterans and to hire disabled veterans. Those goals are not enforced. What if we enforced those goals? We could hire thousands of veterans, because it is the intent of Congress and the intent of this Nation that they be given priority in the hiring process, especially with public jobs. Yet we do not enforce those goals.

So let's not say that this is the only way to increase jobs. There are dozens of way, and they're in front of our committee.

Let's go for a WOW bill; a wonderful opportunity to work for our veterans. Let's move off the VOW. Let's move off the taxing of one part of veterans to pay for the other. Let's really create jobs for those who have done so much for our Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I appreciate the provision you put in. But do you know that the other provision increases the fees for veterans to buy their homes, that you are extending a higher fee and paying for this whole thing by taxing these veterans at a higher rate? Do you realize that that's what you're voting for, in violation of your pledge to Grover Norquist?

I asked you. I didn't yield to him. I yielded to you, Ms. Foxx. Do you know that you're voting on an extension of taxes, in violation of your pledge to Grover Norquist?

I don't yield to the chair. I yielded only to you.

For the record, I guess you don't know what you're voting on, or you're voting against what your pledge was.

Madam Speaker, the gentlelady from North Carolina did not answer my question. I guess she either doesn't know what's in the bill, or she's violating her pledge. I'll leave it at that.

Once again, we need jobs for veterans in this country. There is no debate about that. And there's no debate that retraining is okay. What we are debating here is whether this is an effective way to use the floor of this House to bring up a bill which will be presented as something that did jobs, and does nothing, and shows the hypocrisy of these pledges that they're voting to extend the increase----

I'm not yielding.

I will not even yield to my good friend. Even if you were my best friend, I wouldn't yield to you.

The hypocrisy of saying, we can't tax anything, we can't tax anything but when it comes to veterans who want to buy a home, their fees are going to be increased because of this bill.

Now, that ought to be known to the American people that we're going to vote against a 5 percent surcharge on millionaires, but we're going to go after these folks who are trying to buy their first home and have to pay higher fees.

This Republican party is going to protect the millionaires but go after the veterans who can't afford a home. That's what this argument is about right now, under the guise of helping our veterans find jobs. Let's show the American people where reality is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Tell me what the question is.

Will the gentleman yield?

No, I don't support it because it has the same funding thing. And I don't support the hypocrisy of the Republican Party, which says it's against a 5 percent surtax on millionaires but will tax veterans who are trying to buy their first home.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Thank you.

Let me just correct again my friend, the chairman. I didn't call Chairman Murray a hypocrite. I called those of the Republican Party who have taken a pledge of no taxation and voting for taxes here, hypocrites. Let's be clear about whom I'm calling hypocrite. Let's be clear about that.

Second, there are a hundred different ways to have a better bill here. I would support it with all my heart. There are bills before the committee. There are concepts that have been brought up by me and others. Let's bring a real jobs bill to the floor and I'll be happy to support it.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me first say I do appreciate the efforts that you have made, very aggressively, to keep a bipartisan aura on this committee. And I think you and I have taken a whole new position than the past. We have met regularly for breakfast and for lunch. We have even paid for each other--without taxing others.

But you know as well as I do, there are other bills that should have been brought to this floor. You wouldn't bring them up. Sanford Bishop's bill, for example, which came to the committee. I endorsed it. I don't see it anywhere. You wouldn't take it up.

You know we can't get any amendments through your committee when you tell them not to vote for them. So, come on, you know the process. You decided that this is the bill that's going to happen.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I will say through the Chair that the chairman knows very well how the process works. He knows that we can't get amendments passed. He knows there are other bills--mainly Democratic bills--that are before the committee; some have had a hearing, some haven't, but they haven't been brought to the floor. We get a ``vow'' act, we don't get a ``wow'' act, we get a ``how'' act. That's what has been brought by the leadership of the committee to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, you have yielded to me; I will yield back here. Why won't you support mandatory goals for veterans or disabled veterans, as they are in legislation as goals--3 percent sometimes--for hiring? Let's make them mandatory. Do you agree to that? You asked me a question. Do you agree to mandatory goals for disabled veterans for hiring in public projects?

You don't support mandatory goals.

Do you support mandatory?

You asked me yes or no, and now you won't say ``yes'' or ``no.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I wish you would remind the chair that he asked me a yes or no. I just asked him a yes or no, and he's playing games with words.

I guess it's his time, but I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Speaker, and I thank the chairman.

We are good friends, and we have tried to maintain a bipartisan stance, but I disagree with the way this bill is brought forth. We have so many opportunities to increase the jobs for veterans and we're just not taking them. That saddens me. It's not partisan. We can do better. We can do better than this, and we're not taking the opportunity.

And we get all this rhetoric over the taxes, that if you don't extend the Bush tax cuts, that's raising taxes; if you don't extend the lowering of fees, that's a tax increase. Well, here the same thing is being done to a small group of veterans who can't afford it.

I'm sick of this rhetoric, Madam Speaker, that says we can't do any of this, we can't do any of this, we can't do this, we can't tax millionaires, we can't have a balanced approach to balancing the budget, but then we take on veterans who can't afford a home and increase their fees. That, for me, is the definition of hypocrisy, and that's why I'm against the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, sometimes when my constituents come to Washington I tell them: Welcome to the District of Columbia, 68 square miles of logic-free environment, where perception is reality.

I can't think of anything more surreal than the situation we find ourselves in with the House of Representatives having passed an appropriations bill that would keep the government open while negotiations continue and would fund our men and women fighting now three wars around the world to make sure they get paid.

I have also had occasion to tell my constituents that Washington, DC, is a lot like Disneyland. It is a fun place to visit, but it is not real. When we get in trouble, when Members of Congress get in trouble is when they think Washington is real because it is not. What is real is what is back home, where people have common sense, try to solve problems working together, rather than play endless political games.

I find it outrageous that Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the President of the United States would refuse to fund pay to the men and women in uniform by threatening a veto to the House bill sent over here. We know that unless Senator Reid and the President agree to keep the government open, they will be responsible for the shutdown of the Federal Government and all the disruption that goes along with it.

After the government shuts down, we are still going to have to pass an appropriations bill at some level to keep the government functioning. A shutdown doesn't solve anything, except cause disruption, concern, and heartburn among a lot of good people about whether they will get paid. First and foremost among those are our men and women in uniform.

The President has threatened to veto the troop funding bill, which is H.R. 1263, by saying: ``This bill is a distraction.'' That is according to the President's own Statement of Administration Policy issued by the White House earlier today--``a distraction.'' An attempt by the U.S. House of Representatives to make sure our men and women in uniform are being paid while they are fighting three wars around the world is a distraction to the President of the United States. That is outrageous. That is irresponsible. That is an abdication of Presidential leadership, and I hope the President will reconsider because funding our troops is not a distraction, it is a responsibility. A veto threat is not what they deserve nor what they should be hearing from the Commander in Chief.

About 1 in 10 people who wear the uniform of the U.S. military calls Texas home. Those Texans are among the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Afghanistan, many of whom are serving multiple deployments away from home and away from their families. Some of them are, for example, members of the Texas Army National Guard's 176th Engineer Brigade headquarters that is currently handling engineering projects for about one-half of the country. Other Texans are among the roughly 40,000 troops still deployed in Iraq. Some of these are members of the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division

headquarters that is currently providing command and control for about one-third of that country.

Texans are also supporting the mission in Libya, although many are perhaps unclear about what the mission is. Texans are onboard more than a dozen Navy vessels currently providing humanitarian assistance off the coast of Japan.

The President's threat to veto funding for these troops is irresponsible and shows his willingness to risk a shutdown of the government and deny them the pay they are entitled to rather than to accept responsibility and to face the fiscal facts.

For nearly 200 days, our Federal Government has operated without a budget because of an irresponsible approach to one of the most basic functions of the Federal Government: to keep the lights on, to keep the government operating, and to accept responsibility for those decisions.

We know Democrats, while they controlled the White House and both branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, failed to pass even a budget last year--even a budget. Every family in America, every small business, everyone other than the Federal Government and Congress has to operate on a budget, but only Washington could continue to spend money it does not have--about 40 cents on every dollar. Yet I would say the President remains either oblivious to that fact or, I think probably more accurately, in denial about the fiscal crisis that is impending and is apparently unwilling to try to work across the aisle to try to address it.

I think it is imperative that the majority leader allow the Senate to vote on the House-passed measure, which we could do by unanimous consent if not today then tomorrow before the looming shutdown tomorrow night. It is clearly in Majority Leader Reid's hands, and it is in the hands of the President of the United States if he would withhold his veto, allow negotiations to continue, and to make sure our troops were funded as they should be.

The troop funding bill would fund the Department of Defense through the end of the fiscal year, and it represents a bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was reached last December on funding of the Department of Defense. It is past time for this legislation to be enacted, particularly given that in the months that have passed since December, America now finds itself engaged in a third war--entered into without congressional authorization, without any clear mission and, frankly, only 21 percent, according to a recent poll I saw, actually believe the mission is clear. Well, I am with the other 79 percent. I do not know what the mission is.

The President said it was a humanitarian mission, although when he obligated the U.S. military to go in he immediately outsourced the responsibility for it to NATO, which did not have the assets and the resources in order to protect the rebel forces who continue to be killed by Qadhafi's troops.

The President said Qadhafi must go. Yet he is doing nothing from a military perspective to accomplish that goal. What does that do to America's stature and reputation in the world community? What other tyrants are watching this President say Qadhafi must go, and yet have this President unwilling to do what is necessary to remove him from his office?

Well, I think it not only damages American prestige, it emboldens other tyrants like Qadhafi, and it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in Libya.

Well, some have said--and the majority whip was here talking about so-called riders that accompany this piece of legislation, but let me first say what this troop funding bill also does. It cuts $12 billion in additional spending. When 40 cents out of every dollar the Federal Government has spent is borrowed money, and we are spending money we do not have, doesn't it make sense to cut Federal spending? Well, I think it does. I think anybody who thinks we can continue business as usual is just deluding themselves, living in a la-la land that has no bearing, has no semblance with reality.

This bill would also keep the government operating for another week. This would avoid the shutdown that would occur tomorrow night, and it would allow for more time for bipartisan negotiations to occur.

So far as the so-called policy riders go, prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, well, that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past. President Clinton signed similar legislation six times. Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Harry Reid have voted for it many times; and President Obama himself signed this same provision into law in 2009.

This troop funding bill also prevents Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred to the continental United States. I think if there ought to be a consensus about anything, it is that we do not want dangerous terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, transferred to the United States. This bill prevents that.

This language is virtually identical to existing law that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill also includes full funding for our commitment to the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding for fiscal year 2011 and was passed Thursday afternoon, this bill, by a vote of 247 to 181 in the House of Representatives.

I do not know what could be any clearer than if President Obama were to veto this legislation--after it was passed by the Senate--that closing the government would be on their hands.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

So this bill has been passed by a substantial majority in the House of Representatives. For Senator Reid to say he will refuse to take this up or President Obama to say--if it were passed in the Senate--that he would veto it is irresponsible, and the shutdown of the government would clearly be on their hands.

This demonstrates a very disconcerting trend that we are seeing of a failure of leadership at the highest office in the land; that is, the President of the United States--a President who goes to Brazil and talks about, well, I am for free trade, yet has been sitting on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Panama Free Trade Agreement since he entered office, a President who says he is for bringing down the price of gasoline, for making America less dependent on imported energy from abroad, and goes to-- believe it or not--Brazil and says: It is great you are going to be drilling for more oil offshore in Brazil. And do you know what. We are going to be one of your best customers--in other words, saying one thing in America and doing another thing abroad.

This is the same President who appointed a fiscal commission that reported in December of 2010, which documents the sobering reality of the debt crisis we are facing in this country and what we must do responsibly to deal with it on a bipartisan basis, but in his State of the Union Message, in his budget he has presented, it is not even mentioned.

We know we have important issues to deal with. This is the most immediate one ahead of us. But this is small compared to the bigger issues we are going to have to deal with in just a month or two, which is the debt ceiling. America has maxed out its credit card, and the President is asking us, the Treasury Secretary is asking us to raise the credit limit to allow us to continue to borrow more money.

We know that is an unsustainable path. We know the American people are sick and tired of the typical gamesmanship and the ``gotcha'' politics in Washington, DC. What they want, I truly believe, is for us to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve the problems in front of us and not to kick the can down the road, not play a game of ``gotcha,'' setting up our political adversaries for the next election in 2012. That is what this smells like. That is what this looks like.

This is irresponsible on the part of the President. It is irresponsible on the part of the majority leader to fail to take up this bill and to allow us to vote on it tomorrow to prevent the shutdown of the government. It is irresponsible to threaten our men and women in uniform, fighting three wars across

the globe, with being deprived of their paycheck by our failure to act, by the President's commitment to veto any legislation that were to be passed on a temporary basis to stop this government shutdown.

I hope the American people will call, write, e-mail, I hope they will let their representatives know that is unacceptable and that Congress must act tomorrow in advance of the deadline; and if the Senate does pass the bill, that they communicate to the White House, by every means necessary, that, Mr. President, you shall not veto pay to our troops while we are fighting three wars. To do so not only is an abdication of your responsibility as Commander in Chief, but it is an abdication of the leadership people expect from the President of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2433) to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the laws relating to the employment and training of veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2433, as amended, the Veterans Opportunity to Work, or the VOW Act. The objective of H.R. 2433, as amended, is to use an approach that is comprehensive and is fiscally and programmatically sound to help a broad cross-section of

veterans obtain or retain meaningful employment.

Foremost among the provisions of the VOW Act is title I of the original legislation that I was proud to introduce to help put our unemployed veterans back to work. Title I targets retraining assistance to 100,000 unemployed veterans of past wars by temporarily extending their eligibility for the Montgomery GI bill. The advantage of this approach is that we are providing a reasonably robust yet affordable benefit without creating a new program. Other provisions in this bill continue the comprehensive approach by mandating, with a few exceptions, that separating servicemembers participate in transition assistance program classes.

Yet other provisions facilitate the alignment of State licensing and credentialing standards with the skills servicemembers learned during their military service to our country, and strengthening the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act provisions. The bill also incorporates a bill authored by the vice chairman of our committee, my good friend Gus Bilirakis from Florida, to direct the VA to collect data to determine the number of credit hours, the degrees, and the certificates earned by those attending courses under the GI bill.

Most importantly, the data collected will help us to learn how well the GI bill benefits are positioning veterans to get jobs in today's economy and market.

Provisions from H.R. 120, authored by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), are also a part of this legislation. These provisions would extend the VA's home loan guaranty program to certain surviving spouses of chronically and severely disabled veterans. I thank Ms. Foxx for her continued advocacy on behalf of those whose support and loyalty was so important to their veteran spouses.

And finally, I should point out that the mandatory and discretionary costs of the bill before us today are fully covered and are compliant with the budget rules of this House, according to CBO. Mandatory offsets are covered by extending at their present rate funding fees paid by veterans using their home loan guaranty benefit and by limiting pension payments to veterans receiving care in Medicaid-funded nursing homes. These are both offsets that the committee has used extensively in the past, and most importantly, in passing a fix to the post-9/11 GI bill by a vote of 424-0 in this House.

The discretionary costs of the bill are covered by two additional provisions. The first eliminates the overcharging of VA by ambulance providers for transporting certain veterans. And the second holds VA employee travel, printing, and vehicle fleet costs at 2011 levels.

To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I say that this is in fact a good bill that addresses a major issue confronting the Nation in a comprehensive and fiscally responsible manner with the support of the veterans service organizations.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2433, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I did not know that we were here today to hear a recitation of Dr. Seuss, but apparently we are.

What's interesting to note is that the gentleman from California has supported over and over and over again reaching into fee payments to pay for funding of other programs which he supported, like the Filipino Veterans Act, which I supported. And, in fact, I was a cosponsor of that piece of legislation. And I find that it's interesting that in 2010, Mr. Filner proposed nearly $1 billion in cuts to old age pension and aid, and attendants payments to the elderly, the poor, and the disabled wartime American veterans in an attempt to provide generous payments to noncitizen Filipino veterans of the Second World War.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, the vice chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Bilirakis.

Will the gentleman yield?

Since the gentleman, my good friend, forgot to yield to me during that discussion, I just want to set the record straight that H.R. 2297, on December 16, 2003, of which Mr. Filner was a cosponsor, increased--it didn't just extend--it increased fees on original and subsequent use loans, which was done to finance veterans benefits in the bill, including the burial of Philippine veterans. In the House he enthusiastically endorsed the bill reported out of committee and again endorsed a negotiated version with the Senate.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Will my good friend yield?

I would ask my good friend, the ranking member, if he would respond to a question.

Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman from California supports Senator Murray's piece of legislation--which I believe there is almost an identical piece filed in the House by Mr. Bishop--does he support, yes or no, that piece of legislation?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the gentleman from California has just called the Senator, who is the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, a hypocrite, which I do not believe is appropriate.

I believe that there are nuances and differences which we will be able to work out, hopefully, in conference when we bring these bills together. I hope that the minority will, in fact, engage in the conference portion of this piece of legislation because we have tried to engage them over and over outside of the committee structure to be able to give them an opportunity to give us another offset, another way to fund this particular piece of legislation, and they have not brought anything to us. So, to me, it's a problem we are trying to solve. We have different ways in which we are trying to accomplish goals.

And I want to put veterans back to work, helping to retrain those, in particular those that are unemployed in this very, very difficult economic time. The overall veterans' unemployment numbers are around 8.1 percent, and we know that the numbers with the OEF/OIF returning veterans are significantly higher.

I don't believe I have any more speakers on this particular piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, and I would reserve the balance of my time.

If there are a hundred ways to perfect the piece of legislation, why have you and the minority party not offered one, not one time in our committee? And you and I have tried very diligently during the preceding months in this Congress to try to be able to keep as nonpartisan as we possibly can, but not one time have you offered anything other than rhetoric to attempt to perfect this bill. Why haven't you offered any amendments?

I do support goals.

I support creating jobs.

We continue to have no more speakers and would reserve the balance of our time until such time as the minority wishes to close.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for the lively debate.

I would remind my colleagues that this piece of legislation did pass out of our committee with bipartisan support, 17-5.

I would like to enter into the Record the following letters of support from various organizations:

Military Officers Association

of America,

Alexandria, VA, July 14, 2011.

Hon. Jeff Miller,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Miller: On behalf of the 370,000 members of

the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am

writing to thank you for your leadership in introducing H.R.

2433, The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act.

H.R. 2433 would re-open Vietnam Era GI Bill educational

benefits to certain veterans who have been chronically

unemployed, mandate attendance in the Transition Assistance

Program (TAP), require the Defense and Departments of Labor

to track outcome measures for TAP participants, re-authorize

a pilot program to link military acquired skills to civilian

jobs through licensing and certification, and for other

purposes.

MOAA recommends including a provision in the bill to

require outreach by the VA to unemployed veterans who may be

eligible for the GI Bill benefits authorized in Title I of

the legislation. We would also recommend adoption of

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VRE) program

adjustments and other employment-related features in the

Hiring Heroes Act of 2011, H.R. 1941.

MOAA pledges its full support for early enactment of H.R.

1941 and respectfully requests including this letter in the

record of any hearing to consider or mark-up this important

legislation.

Sincerely,

Norb Ryan.

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2433, as amended.

I once again encourage all Members to support this

legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, like the majority leader, I was here the last time there was a government shutdown. I never believed it would reach that point. I certainly didn't believe it would be a long shutdown, but it turned out to be over 2 weeks before it was over. It was a period of profound embarrassment for all of both political parties who served in Congress that it had reached a point where our efforts to find common ground had failed, and we had basically failed by closing down the government and calling an end to basic government services.

The Senator from Florida went through a partial list. The list could go on and on. What about the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Men and women who risk their lives every day guarding the most dangerous people, what is to happen to them as we shut down the government? He raised questions about our efforts to monitor terrorist activities. Those efforts are not only exclusively among the military. He mentioned the intelligence-gathering operations of the United States. I don't think most people outside our walk of life have any idea how many men and women get up every single morning, monitoring transmissions of information, monitoring activity all around the world, looking for that one shred of evidence that there is something dangerous about to occur. These are Federal Government employees, subject in many respects, many of them, to a government shutdown.

In the Department of the Treasury is a foreign assets desk that monitors every single day the movement of money, looking for evidence of drug cartels and terrorist activities and criminal activity in the United States and around the world. They share that information with law enforcement at every level--State, local, and international--to keep us safe. These are Federal employees affected by a government shutdown. We just learned our Secretary of State is canceling a major conference on Tuesday, bringing in leaders from around Washington and the world to talk about critical issues, because of her fear that the Department of State will be shut down on Tuesday. We also know, in embassies all around the world, men and women literally risk their lives to be there representing the United States, offering their services for Americans and others in terrible circumstances, and they are going to be subject to a shutdown, skeleton crews.

We ask ourselves: Is this necessary? Have we reached a point where there is no alternative? The answer is there is an alternative. The alternative is for people of good will to come together and find common ground.

I am closer to the position of Senator Reid because I know, I have followed his conversations, his reports on the negotiations. I am certain of what I say. When it comes to the dollar amount for budget deficit reduction, we are virtually in agreement. The differences are minuscule. We have agreed on the amount of spending to be cut. That is no longer a matter of debate.

What happened in the last 24 hours is a dramatic shift away from the budget deficit discussion. Now Speaker John Boehner, who is my friend, on behalf of his caucus, is arguing it is no longer about the budget. It is no longer about the deficit. It is no longer about cutting spending. It is about a social agenda, some issues.

No. 1, Speaker Boehner insists we have to accept language from the House which says the Environmental Protection Agency will basically shut down its operations when it comes to certain environmental hazards such as greenhouse gas emissions. Some of us think that is a catastrophic decision, a disastrous decision. The House Republican caucus voted for it, the Republican majority. Now they are saying to us: Accept it.

Yesterday, we debated that issue. We debated it in the Senate for many hours. The Senator from Florida was here. We had four separate votes on the issue of taking the power away from the EPA. The first amendment offered received seven votes in the affirmative. The second one received seven votes in the affirmative. The third one received 12 votes in the affirmative. The fourth

one failed with a 50-50 rollcall vote, offered by the Republican leader. Has the Senate spoken on this issue? It has. If I remember correctly, under the Constitution that both House and Senate Members are sworn to uphold, there are two Chambers. We disagree profoundly with the House Republican position. For Speaker Boehner to now insist that despite all the debate and activity, it is a ``take it or leave it'' on taking away the powers of the EPA is not only unreasonable, it is unfair and totally unrelated to the issue of budget deficit reduction.

But there is a second issue. The second issue, which I find hard to believe they are now making the fulcrum of the decision on whether we shut down the government, is whether we should shut down the access of people across America, particularly poor women and children, to primary health care in clinics. They have an amendment under title X which would basically stop the funding for access to private health clinics funded by that program. What kind of services do these clinics offer? They offer cancer screening, breast cancer screening, screening for infectious diseases. The basic care we provide to women and families across the country would be shut down by the provision the Republicans in the House insist we agree on if we want the government to stay open and do business. Is that what the last election was about? I missed that part. I missed the part where the tea party stood and said: We are for fiscal sanity, and we want to close down the access of women to basic health services. I don't remember that at all.

I welcome that debate. In the next hour or two or perhaps tomorrow morning, we are going to offer to the Republicans, if they want to debate on the floor that rider that is in the House approach, let's have the debate. Let's have the vote. It isn't as if we are ignoring it. We are prepared to face it and vote on it. I know what the outcome will be, and I think the Speaker knows as well. He is going to lose. So why are we allowing this ship of state to founder over two social issues, closing down the EPA's function and closing down women's access to health care?

That is where they are. It is no longer about the deficit. All the deficit hawks and all the speeches we have heard, that is over. I find it hard to believe there are actually people who think a government shutdown is a good thing politically. There was a statement printed in the Washington Post this week on April 5:

Republicans gave the speaker an ovation when he informed

them . . . to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.

An ovation? So some people in that caucus apparently believe a government shutdown is a good thing. Some of them, Congressman Pence of Indiana, has been forthright and direct. Let's shut it down, he says.

How do we answer the basic question posed so many times: What does that do to the reputation of the United States around the world, that our government is going to shut down? What does it do in terms of the state of our economy which is coming out of a recession, trying to put people back to work? We know what the predictions are. Any government shutdown will reduce economic growth at a time when we desperately need more economic growth and more jobs. The longer the shutdown goes on, the worse it is in terms of unemployment and economic growth. We also know that even though some Republicans in their caucus were cheering on the idea of a shutdown, basic services essential to the operation of this government and the safety of our Nation will be in peril and danger. People who literally give their lives in service to the country will be wondering from day to day and hour to hour whether we will continue to finance the government.

The clock runs out at midnight tomorrow night. Between now and then, I hope Speaker Boehner comes to his senses and appeals to his Republican caucus and tells them we cannot have everything. Take what we have, this cut in spending, this reduction in spending, which is a step in the right direction. I hope he will say it to even those who are cheering the idea of a government shutdown. It is not the right thing for America.

It is time for men and women of both political parties to stand and to represent the best in this country, to make the concessions that keep us moving forward. We have plenty of work to do beyond this. I am leaving here to go to a meeting to discuss a bipartisan approach to dealing with our budget problems way beyond the next 6 months. If we are going to create an environment for bipartisan cooperation, it does not start with a government shutdown. If there are any Republicans who believe this is a sound strategy, that somehow this will endear them to the American people, I think they are making a mistake. A shutdown could cost the government dearly, and it could certainly cost the United States in its reputation around the world. I don't want to see that occur.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to speak in support of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.

I thank my colleagues from the Veterans' Committee for their continuous support of our Nation's veterans--especially my ranking member Senator

Burr of North Carolina, for his steadfast advocacy of the government's responsibility to provide health care for the veterans and family members stationed at Camp Lejeune.

In addition, I thank Representatives Jeff Miller and Bob Filner, the chairman and ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for their hard work in developing this bipartisan, bicameral, and fully paid-for legislation.

With the passage of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, military families affected by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, NC, would have the health care they need.

These families have waited for decades to get the assistance they need, and they should not be forced to wait any longer.

The legislation would also allow the VA to continue a number of programs that are so critical to helping veterans who have no place to call home.

Currently, the VA can only provide emergency shelter to veterans who are diagnosed with a serious mental illness. But we all know not all homeless veterans are mentally ill. Yet the VA is currently prevented from offering these critical services to all our veterans.

The Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 would also make much needed improvements to the VA's housing programs by expanding the eligibility for the VA's specially adapted housing assistance grants.

These are some of the most disabled veterans in our Nation, and they deserve to be able to move about in their homes freely and safely.

This bill will also help more veterans use telehealth and telemedicine and allow veterans to receive travel assistance for visits to our vet centers. These provisions will especially help our veterans in rural and highly rural areas to access care from the VA.

It will also improve the way the VA reimburses State veterans homes for the care of elderly, seriously disabled veterans.

I know every Member of the Senate has at least one State veterans home in their State. Without this change, some of these homes may have to lay off staffers or be unable to accept more veterans, so it is a very important provision of the bill.

This legislation will also require important policy changes to protect veterans from sexual assault and other threats in the VA's inpatient mental health units and homeless programs.

Finally, we all know veterans continue to find themselves waiting entirely too long for a decision on their claims. This legislation will address the claims backlog by providing the VA with the ability to process appeals much more quickly and by supporting the VA's transformation to a paperless system. It will also make other needed improvements to the claims system, such as ensuring surviving spouses receive proper and timely benefit payments.

Above all, this bill fulfill's the responsibility this Nation has to provide care and service to our veterans and their families. In the case of those families who spent time at Camp Lejeune, this bill gives sick veterans and their families the benefit of the doubt their illness or condition was caused by the water at Camp Lejeune so they can finally get the health care they need.

This is something Congress has done before. When an illness or condition comes about after a veteran's service and any relationship between the veteran's current illness and their service is not readily apparent, the burden of proving the illness is a result of one's service can be insurmountable. In such circumstances, we have presumed a veteran's exposure caused their current condition and got them the help they needed. We have lived up to the responsibility we owed them, which is in the core of this bill.

Many veterans and their families are waiting for the passage of this bill. Our House colleagues are ready and willing to move this forward quickly as well. We did have one concern from the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint. We had a very productive conversation, and we now have that language resolved and have had a gentleman's agreement to move the bill forward today.

I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for his work and effort to get this bill passed. I know our veterans and families across the Nation are waiting.

I thank all our colleagues who have worked so hard on this very critical piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Joint Explanatory Statement in relation to this bill.