Veterans' Benefits Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1627) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for certain requirements for the placement of monuments in Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members would have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material on the bill under consideration

As the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1627. This is a comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral legislative package to provide for the needs of veterans, their families and survivors through improved health care, housing, education, and memorial services.

In addition, the Senate amendments to H.R. 1627 would improve the accountability and transparency of the Department of Veterans Affairs, ensuring that VA is responsible to those it serves, our American veterans.

As the title of this bill implies, this legislation would authorize VA health care services for veterans and their families for certain illnesses that manifested as a result of exposure to water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, during a 30-year span that ended in 1987.

I want to specifically acknowledge the efforts of retired Marine Master Sergeant Jerry Ensminger, whose dogged efforts to seek answers from the government and justice for the victims of the water contamination inspired this bill. In honor of Jerry's daughter, Janey, who died of leukemia at the age of 9 after time spent at Camp Lejeune when the water was contaminated, title I of this bill bears her name.

Finally, I thank Representative Brad Miller and Senator Richard Burr, the original sponsors of the Camp Lejeune legislation in the House and the Senate, for their leadership. And although this legislation represents a hard-fought victory, we must not forget those who are no longer with us to see it become law.

I think when Senator Burr said this, he said it best:

Unfortunately, many who were exposed have died as a result

and are not here to receive the care this bill can provide.

While I wish we could have accomplished this years ago, we

now have the opportunity to do the right thing for thousands

who were harmed during their service to our country.

And I couldn't agree more.

In addition to the veterans of Camp Lejeune, section 106 of this bill contains legislation the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health, Ms. Buerkle, introduced, H.R. 2074, the Veterans Sexual Assault Prevention Act. The section and her bill, which passed the House last year, would address the serious failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to prevent and report sexual assault incidents and corresponding flaws in the security of their facilities. It creates a fundamentally safer environment for our veterans and VA employees by requiring an accountable and comprehensive oversight system.

I want to express my personal appreciation to Ms. Buerkle for her advocacy on behalf of women and all of our veterans. In just 2 short years, she has proven herself to be a committed and strong voice for servicemembers and veterans, not only in the State of New York, but across this country.

Her considerable expertise as a nurse, a lawyer, and a mother of six was the reason I chose her to be the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health, and I can tell you that in the roll that she has played, she has never wavered from doing what is right for all of our veterans.

The bill also includes several worthy legislative proposals to improve health care services brought forth from our Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers, the House and in the Senate.

This bill also addresses several other areas where we will be able to expand and improve health care for veterans. It would allow for greater flexibility in VA payments to State veterans homes, break down barriers to care for veterans with traumatic brain injury, clarify the access rights of service dogs on VA property, and improve care for rural elderly and homeless veterans.

This bill also addresses several important matters related to veterans' housing. Because many of our returning wounded warriors need assistance modifying their residences to meet their needs, this bill would reauthorize and expand several provisions relating to the Specially Adapted Housing Grant Program.

These grants provide funding to eligible disabled veterans and servicemembers who adapt homes that they own or homes that they are currently living in to meet their daily needs. Adaptations can include grab bars in bathrooms, widening doorways for wheelchairs, or constructing a wheelchair ramp. These grants are imperative to affording veterans the level of independent living that they were accustomed to prior to their injury and that they may not be able to otherwise enjoy.

As many of us are aware, far too many of our veterans have found themselves on hard times and are homeless or are at risk for homelessness. To combat this problem, this bill would authorize funding for additional housing options for homeless veterans to help them gain stability and obtain access to other treatment and services that they may need from VA.

The next area of the bill would be in addressing education. We all know that we have provided a very generous benefit to the veterans in the post-9/11 GI Bill. The problem is that we have never really tracked the performance of the bill or if the benefits are effective in training veterans to be leaders of tomorrow. Therefore, this legislation would increase our oversight of post-9/11 educational benefits by requiring annual reports to Congress on the effectiveness of these benefits and how they're being utilized.

I want to thank my friend, Congressman Gus Bilirakis, for introducing this provision in H.R. 2274 and for his leadership on improving transparency for the post-9/11 GI Bill.

Another critical area addressed by this legislation is that of veteran benefits. Over the last 3 years, we've seen the disability claims backlog grow exponentially, with more than 900,000 claims now awaiting decisions. Fifty percent of those have been pending for a period of 125 days or more. Despite repeated promises from VA to break the backlog, it continues to grow.

Therefore, the provisions of this bill that address benefit matters will assist in processing claims more efficiently:

First, it would allow veterans to automatically waive regional office review of evidence submitted directly to the Board of Veterans Appeals for claims in appellate status;

Second, it would allow veterans in need of assistance with claims to have a signatory on their behalf assist them with the claims process;

Third, it would modernize VA's statutory duty to assist by authorizing electronic communications, potentially saving weeks in a claim's processing time;

Fourth, to alleviate the burdens of redundant paperwork, veterans would now be able to file jointly for Social Security and indemnity compensation;

Finally, to promote accountability of individual claims processors, VA would be required to present a plan in 6 months on how it will take corrective action when their employees need training to do their jobs well.

I want to thank my friend Mr. Runyan from New Jersey, the chairman of

the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, for his dedication to our Nation's veterans and for his focus on advancing legislation such as H.R. 2349, which will achieve measurable results in alleviating the backlog of claims.

While many of these provisions that I have discussed thus far have focused on our efforts to honor our commitment to the brave men and women who serve our Nation, including those transitioning from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must also continue our commitment to our fallen heroes. Accordingly, this bill also sets out specific criteria that prohibit disruptions and protests of funerals of members of the Armed Forces at VA national cemeteries and at Arlington National Cemetery, including the imposition of criminal and civil liability for violations of these restrictions.

In addition, given the sacred nature of Arlington National Cemetery, a name synonymous with honoring American freedom, this legislation would codify a prohibition on the reservation of grave sites at Arlington National Cemetery, with very limited exceptions. I worked closely with Mr. Runyan on this prohibition to ensure that many future generations of American heroes will be buried and honored at Arlington National Cemetery. I want to thank him again for his leadership on this issue and for originally introducing H.R. 1484.

Similarly, I introduced the original measure on H.R. 1627, which would place restrictions on the type and placement of monuments at Arlington National Cemetery due to the fact that the cemetery, itself, is a monument. Arlington National Cemetery is a unique national treasure. It is for this reason that this legislation is necessary to ensure that the integrity of the cemetery is preserved both in its utilization of land with the placement of monuments and with its allocation of grave sites.

Finally, this comprehensive legislative package also contains several miscellaneous provisions affecting our Nation's veterans. Although these areas may not receive as much attention, such as health care or benefits, they are no less important to improving the lives of the veterans of this country.

I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Filner, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Murray and Senator Burr, for their insight and cooperation on advancing this compromise bill today.

I want to reiterate that this bill is paid for both in its mandatory and discretionary costs via offsets that have been used many times by this committee and that have historically been supported by both sides of the aisle.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a floor colloquy between me and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Once again, I thank all of the members of the committee, as well as the staffs of the House and the Senate on Veterans' Affairs, for their work on this bill, and I urge all Members to support the Senate amendments to H.R. 1627.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Committees have prepared an explanation of certain provisions contained in the amendment to H.R. 1627, as amended, to reflect a Compromise Agreement between the Committees. Differences between the provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions of the House Bills and the Senate Bills are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying changes. This Explanatory Statement is contained in the Congressional Record of July 18, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Mr. Stutzman, from the great State of Indiana.

If I might inquire how many further requests for time the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) has.

I will reserve the balance of my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker that had a late train that I was trying to wait on, but apparently he is not going to be able to make it. So I am prepared to close after Mr. Michaud closes.

Mr. Speaker, if we could go ahead and do the colloquy at this time, that way we'll make sure it's in the Record.

I thank the gentleman for the question. It allows me to reassure those veterans and family members in the strongest terms possible that this language, which does

appear in section 1787(b)(3) of title 38 of the U.S. Code, absolutely does not--does not--require that any suit be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act in order to secure this medical care as long as they meet the other requirements of the bill.

As you have noticed, that provision only requires exhaustion of ``reasonably available'' remedies. In the legislation, we are explicit that we want this care to be provided for family members even though at the present time, there is insufficient medical evidence to conclude that the illnesses or conditions listed in the bill are attributable to those exposures.

For this and other reasons surrounding litigation under the Federal Tort Claims Act, such an FTCA remedy can't be considered to be ``reasonably available.'' To require exhaustion under the Federal Tort Claims Act would go completely against the intent of this piece of legislation to make this medical care available to these family members for these conditions so long as VA is considered the final payer as far as other third-party health plans.

Mr. Speaker, I once again encourage all Members to support the Senate amendments to H.R. 1627, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1627, as amended, the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012. This bill represents the hard work of both Chambers and of both sides of the aisle.

I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner, as well as Senator Murray and Senator Burr and all of my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committees in both Chambers, for all of the work that went into crafting this legislation.

This bill provides health care benefits to veterans and family members who have suffered illnesses due to exposure to harmful chemicals through drinking contaminated water while stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

This bill also provides important improvements to enable the VA to better care for veterans living in rural areas. These veterans constitute 40 percent of the veterans who seek care at VA. These improvements include: waiving the collections of copayments for veterans who use telehealth or telemedicine services; authorizing VA to pay travel benefits to veterans seeking care at vet centers; requiring VA to establish and operate Centers of Excellence for rural health research, education, and clinical activities; finally, requiring VA to create a system for the consultation and assessment of mental health, traumatic brain injury, and other conditions through teleconsultation.

A provision I am particularly proud of will improve the care provided to our elderly veterans and to those who are 70-percent disabled or higher in our State veterans' nursing homes.

This bill makes improvements in the area of veterans' benefits and the claims process. One such improvement, a provision based on a measure introduced by Ranking Member Filner, enables a veteran or a family member, on an appeal, to waive the current requirement that new evidence be first considered by the VA. This provision would enable the Board of Veterans' Appeals to review evidence submitted directly to it instead of waiting for a redecision at the agency level.

This bill includes important housing provisions as well. One provision would help veterans with vision impairments and veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member by aligning VA's definition of ``blindness'' with the definition of ``blindness'' under existing Federal laws.

This bill provides that the amount made available to veterans who receive a temporary residence adaptation grant is not counted against the maximum allowable under the Specially Adapted Housing program. Also, this bill makes permanent the authority of VA to guarantee adjustable rate and hybrid rate mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, I have only highlighted a few of the important parts of this bill that were found in H.R. 1627, as amended. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important veterans' measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

I have one further request for time, and then I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased with this package because it also includes legislation that I have been working on for well over 2 years that will ensure that our severely disabled and elderly veterans are able to get the care they need. Specifically, my bill requires the VA to enter into contracts or provider agreements with State Veterans Nursing Homes in order to get the reimbursement that they adequately need to take care of our veterans.

Without this legislation, State Veterans Homes will not get reimbursed properly for the services they provide for our veterans. According to data from the National Association of State Veterans Homes, the average rate for care is roughly $359 per veteran per day, while VA only reimburses the homes $235 per day. This difference of $124 per day amounts to over $45,000 per year for each covered veteran. And with approximately 25,000 beds nationwide, the financial burden on State Veterans Homes could become crippling.

Passing this legislation into law will ensure that our State Veterans Homes are paid adequately for the services they provide and can continue to serve our veterans that are in need of those services.

I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner for their support of this bill and for working to bring this legislation to the floor. Our veterans will be better off as a result.

I also would like to thank Chairwoman Buerkle for her efforts as well, working in a bipartisan manner, and staff on both the majority and minority sides for bringing this bill forward,

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Miller. He had mentioned earlier about a colloquy. If those colloquies are entered separately, will that be made a part of the Record?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about section 102 of the bill. That provides medical care for certain medical conditions for veterans and their families who lived at Camp Lejeune from 1957 through 1987.

There is one provision applicable to family members where VA would reimburse family members for health care services provided under this section but only after they exhaust reasonably available alternative reimbursements.

I want to ensure that this language is not read to mean that family members must actually file suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act or even come to end of litigation under a suit filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act to ensure the medical care offered by this provision. Can my colleague confirm this?

I thank the gentleman.

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

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

This is an omnibus bill that on balance I can't support. Omnibus bills are good and bad, and we have to balance that. Let me tell you why there are two provisions in here that make it impossible for me to support this omnibus bill.

Section 2 requires the VA to institute a pilot program to hold employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration to annual testing and to even greater training requirements than their current 80 hours at five regional offices at a cost of $5 million over 5 years. Now, we are all for training of our employees and want them to do a good job and be adequately trained for it. Secretary Shinseki has set a goal of processing all claims within 125 days at 98 percent accuracy. That's a great goal, and we have to get a handle on that and get a handle on the backlog and the claims that are languishing unnecessarily.

I think this provision is misguided because it will stand in the way of reaching the Secretary's goal, because I don't think we can test our way out of the claims backlog. Anybody can pass a test. The real question is can they adequately process claims. That's what the VA needs from its employees, not another additional burden resulting in work stoppages, which is what this testing requirement will do.

We already have a certification testing program used for the advancement of VBA employees, which was greatly strengthened in the bill that we passed in 2008 with great bipartisan support. I think that this bill has redundant testing and wastes $5 million and will only go to the fattening of the contractors' pockets who develop the test, money that I think can be more efficiently used to help our veterans.

I should remind the body that this mandatory testing provision never passed out of the subcommittee that was responsible for the bill. It failed. It was withdrawn, but it showed up in the full committee markup and I think violates the spirit of regular order that we supposedly prize.

More importantly, there is a provision in this bill which, let me first state in legal terms and then in English, which would prohibit the reporting of those who have an appointed VA fiduciary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system required by the Brady Act. What does that mean in English? That means people who have been judged by the VA to be mentally incompetent of handling their own financial affairs qualify to purchase a gun. Hello? We heard the chair of the subcommittee support, oh, this is a constitutional right. Hey, we have a long history of law and precedent which says we can deny rights to mentally incompetent people, especially to own a gun, a handgun. How many people have to commit mass murders who are mentally incompetent before we understand that we ought to prevent them from getting a gun in the first place? Yet we have a justification of that right here in this bill.

The gentleman wants to keep the right to purchase firearms until they have a determination from a State judge. Well, that's a non sequitur, Madam Speaker.

While I agree that some of these people who've been judged by the VA not to be mentally competent to handle their financial affairs may not pose a threat to themselves or others, the prudent course of action, the reasonable course of action, the commonsense course of action, the course of action that will save lives in this Nation is that we not allow these VA beneficiaries to have access to lethal weapons until the legal determination is made by that judge. Let's have the determination first, not after they kill somebody.

So we're going to put guns in the hands of people who may not be mentally capable of responsible gun ownership. This does not strike the proper balance between ensuring societal safety and individual rights. I don't have to list all of the atrocities that have gone on in this Nation over the past decade that happened because of irresponsible gun ownership; and yet we have a defense of a bill that specifically, it doesn't even leave it to implicit, it specifically says if you are judged to be mentally incompetent, you still have a right to go get a gun. How stupid are we, Madam Speaker? Come on. This is a scary thought. It's irresponsible legislating. We have got to do a better job of striking a balance on this issue.

Everybody on an earlier bill is afraid of Grover Norquist. Everybody here is afraid of the NRA. Come on, let's be responsible. Let's use common sense. Let's protect the American people. Let's not go for these pledges that are made in a partisan way to make sure you're reelected and hurt the American people in the long run. That's what we are doing here. This is irresponsible. You give, by law, by a sentence that you put in, Mr. Chairman, you give them, mentally incompetent people, they've already been defined as that, you give them the right to be exempt from the Brady law's registration. Come on, we can do a better job than that!

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, there are some good provisions of this bill. The Hastings provision is especially appropriate. But we owe the American people better than just ideological legislating because I made this promise and this is a constitutional right. I believe in the Second Amendment. But we can regulate the conditions of that amendment, and this is an especially egregious case which needs regulation.

The VA has said that someone cannot manage their own affairs, and yet we write in the provision that says, okay, go buy a gun anyway until some judge says you're mentally incompetent. Let's have the judge's decision first. Then if they are judged to be mentally sound, they can buy a gun. That's their constitutional right. They don't have a constitutional right to be mentally imbalanced and buy a gun that kills dozens or even hundreds of people. That's what we've seen in this country for decades. Let's do a better job.

I yield back the balance of my time.