Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 838, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 839, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 829, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 830, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 831, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 832, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 833, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 834, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 835, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 836, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Energia Sierra Juarez cross-border transmission line between California and Mexico. I would like to insert into the Record Senate Joint Resolution 13, adopted by the California Senate.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 13--Relative to Cross-border Transmission

[Filed with Secretary of State September 15, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, On rollcall No. 823, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 824, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 825, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present I would have voted ''aye.''

Mr. Speaker, On rollcall No. 826, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 827, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 828, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

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

Like the chair, I rise in support of passage of this COLA act, S. 894, sponsored by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And I'm proud to work closely with her in my role as the ranking member of the House committee. I thank the leadership of this body for bringing this uncluttered version of the veterans' COLA bill to the floor, which passed in the Senate last month, so that we may pass it without delay and get it to the President's desk.

The veterans' COLA increase will be 3.6 percent for 2012, a figure tied directly to the Social Security COLA whose beneficiaries will also see the same increase in their payments.

As it has since 1976, Congress, through the passage of the Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, directs the Secretary of the VA to increase the rates of basic compensation for disabled veterans and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation, what we call DIC, to their survivors and dependents, along with other benefits, in order to keep pace with the rate of inflation. This bill will enable disabled veterans, their families, and their survivors from World War I through the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many of the over 3.5 million veterans who receive disability compensation benefits depend upon these payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but for those of their spouses, children, and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans, their families, and survivors would likely see the value of their hard- earned benefits slowly erode.

Mr. Speaker, I think we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to guarantee that those who sacrificed so much for this country are able to receive benefits and services that keep pace with their needs and inflation.

We funded the war; let's fund the warrior and his or her family and survivors. Let's ensure that their benefits make ends meet at the end of the month. I urge my colleagues to support this COLA bill, and I thank Senator Murray for sponsoring this important measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 816, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 817, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 801, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 802, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Obviously, nothing is more important than the safety of our veterans; and this bill, H.R. 2074, contains many provisions to help improve the safety and health care of our veterans.

Because of a report I requested as chair, the GAO presenter ``VA Health Care: Actions Needed to Prevent Sexual Assaults and Other Safety Incidents.'' That report found that veterans and employees were exposed to personal dangers, including sexual assaults, in the very facilities that should be protecting them.

And, Madam Speaker, I think we ought to be more outraged given the findings of that report. That report found that there were not just dozens of alleged sexual assaults that went unreported, not even scores of such assaults, but hundreds of them--hundreds of sexual assaults alleged but not reported by those who had the obligation and responsibility to report them.

How are our veterans protected when they can't even have a report of an alleged assault? What message does that give to people that the military & the VA care about what's going on here and what's going on with their safety? That's who we should be going after here, by the way. It's very clear who has the responsibility about reporting such assaults, and yet they were not reported in the hundreds of cases, and that was only, by the way, at some selected study places. Who knows what we would have found in the whole institution?

I don't know that the VA has ever reprimanded any of those people. I don't know that the VA has ever said to the Veterans Administration that this will not be tolerated, that not only are we going to report on them, but investigate them and bring people to justice. I don't know that any of that has happened. That's what this bill should be trying to focus on. What happens to those people who don't report them? What happens to the cover-ups? What happens to those who protect each other as people are assaulted?

I'm not sure that we have come to grips with this issue. This report was outrageous. This report was incredibly, incredibly tragic. And all I find is we are going to do some process changes in here--and I support those, and we'll vote for the bill. But we're sending a message here to the entire 250,000 working people of this VA that we're not really concerned about them, we're not reporting them, we're not getting to those people covering up, we're not getting at those people who protect each other, we're not getting at those who have violated the law by not reporting such incidents.

Let's go after them. Let's give our veterans some comfort that their safety is protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of our Health Subcommittee, someone who has served for 4 years as the chair and who has done so much good for our veterans throughout the Nation, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

I have no further requests for time and would be prepared to close once the chairman has no further speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I said earlier, this is a bill that has a lot of good things in it, and I wish we had gone further.

I met with the GAO this morning. They said they could follow up reports such as this with an investigation of personnel actions, for example, and could report back to us in terms that don't violate any civil service protections that they would provide a third party kind of review of the personnel actions that may have resulted from their recommendations.

You don't have to answer now, but I would be prepared to work with the chair to request such an investigation, because what we have done here is, in response to the report that said reporting requirements were not met in hundreds of cases at some few selected sites that they examined, merely add new reporting requirements. They didn't follow the first ones, so what good are more reporting requirements going to do?

There have to be some actions on the part of the Veterans Administration that say to our employees, that say to our veterans that there shall be no sexual assaults on our sites. Yet what we're saying here is, oh, we'll add a few more reporting requirements. That doesn't send a message, because we already had the reporting requirements.

Let's try to find a way--and I'll work with the chair to do this--to send a message to our agency, not that we're going to pass another few rules, but that we're going to take this seriously, that we're going to demand that the employees who did not follow what is clearly stated in rules and law about reporting alleged cases of sexual assault be terminated. In my opinion, they ought to have been terminated. This is so serious, and it would have sent such a good message to those who might either perpetrate assault or to those who are victims of such assault.

They should have been terminated. I doubt that they were. I doubt that they were removed from their jobs. I would hope the VA might contradict me, but I doubt that there was anything more than a note saying they should do better in the future. I hope I'm wrong, but I will tell you that the history of personnel actions in response to acts such as these has not been one that gives confidence to me that we have sent the right message.

So I will work with the chair to do whatever we can to send the right message from this Congress and from the American people that these acts will not be tolerated.

I yield back the balance of my time.