Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I endorse the arguments just made by the chairman of the subcommittee.

I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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 It was withdrawn, but it showed up in the full committee markup and I think violates the spirit of regular order that we supposedly prize.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.

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

We know how JPMorgan Chase and other banks overcharged thousands of veterans and then improperly foreclosed on dozens of families, the most notable case being of Captain Jonathon Rowles and his family who testified very movingly before our committee.

Now in the news, we have information that some of the biggest banks and mortgage companies have defrauded veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging illegal fees in veterans' home refinancing loans, just, of course, to add to their problems. I think some of those folks who did that did it knowingly, they did it against the law, and they ought to be in jail today.

But when a servicemember separates from the armed services, they need sufficient time to establish good economic footing to be successful. We know that at times, military families have had a difficult time making a transition from the military to the civilian world; therefore, we ought to provide enough time for them to work with their lender, get a new loan, if necessary, or, in a worst-case scenario, sell their home. A home is often a veteran's largest financial asset, and they should have an opportunity to capitalize on their equity and avoid a negative mark on their credit history when they have the means to do so with their own home.

Mr. Speaker, this is why my bill here will extend mortgage foreclosure protection to 1 year for those who are separating from service, and it extends those protections to our servicemembers' widows. The bill also includes a requirement for lending institutions with over $10 billion in assets to have a compliance officer and a toll-free number for veterans to call. We should require lending institutions to be informed about the protections for our military and to have a number that they can call for information and help with their loan.

I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I would urge support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

The bill before us, H.R. 1025, as noted sponsored by Congressman Walz of Minnesota, would ensure that deserving men and women of our National Guard and Reserve receive the honor and distinction of being called veterans. It seems a simple thing, and yet it is denied them.

Representative Walz introduced this bill in the last Congress. I'm disappointed to say it didn't clear the Senate, and so we'll have to try again. Our Guard and Reserve comprise a large component of those called to serve in our current wars, and these changing dynamics need to be incorporated into our policies. I think this bill strikes the desired balance. I am in full support of the bill.

I would now yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, Congressman Walz, to explain it in more detail.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 742, I was away from the Capitol due to a prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 743, I was away from the Capitol due to a prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 744, I was away from the Capitol due to a prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Iranian-Americans from 41 states across America attended a rally outside the Department of State on August 26, 2011, calling on the Secretary to remove the principal Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which acts as Iran's Parliament-in-exile, addressed the rally via satellite from Paris. Excerpts of her remarks follow:

Honorable and brave Iranians, I salute your protest and

gathering, which symbolizes an uprising for the freedom of

the Iranian people and in defense of the persecuted and

besieged Ashraf; an uprising against a discredited label

against the Iranian Resistance. Today, your calls echo the

calls for justice emanating from an enchained nation, which

rejects the velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule)

dictatorship. Ashraf is proud to have such admirable

representatives and defenders like you; And the Iranian

people are proud to have stored in your being the most prized

possession required for the attainment of freedom and

democracy.

Dear Compatriots, It has been more a year since the ruling

of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which ordered the

State Department to review the terrorist listing of the

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK). The

Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance have paid the price

for this unjustified delay with the blood of their most

courageous children. Political prisoners in Iran, like Ali

Saremi, were hanged by Khamenei's henchmen. And, the 36

heroes of freedom in Ashraf, who were martyred on the orders

of the velayat-e faqih regime, were all part of this bloody

price. The terror listing in the U.S. is openly used as a

justification to legitimize such bloodletting, both by the

cruel mullahs in Tehran as well as their proxy government in

Iraq. Therefore, the Iranian people are asking the United

States, ``Why are you not annulling the license to kill our

children?''

The decision of the appeals court in Washington stated that

the State Department violated due process rights during the

listing process. And, 20 judgments by European courts against

the terrorism charge leave absolutely no doubt that this

label is completely discredited. Thousands of

parliamentarians and human rights advocates in the Arab world

and in Europe, joined by a large number of members of the

U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, forming a great

global voice in defense of the freedom-loving Iranian

Resistance. This constitutes an exceptional consensus in the

face of 14 years of injustices committed against the PMOI and

the Iranian Resistance. Dozens of the most honorable former

senior officials serving in the country's administrations

over the last two decades have taken a clear stance in the

course of their multiple international conferences in

Washington, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London and Rome, leaving

absolutely no credibility for this listing. Hail to their

sense of justice and clear-sightedness through which the

great historical symbols of America like Jefferson and

Lincoln are resurrected.

We have seen how the mullahs' regime and the insignificant

factions directed by Tehran utilize cruelty and insolence to

attack and avenge these dignified personalities. But, these

officials have shown extraordinary courage by placing their

credibility and political reputation in support of this

Resistance. We recognize the United States in the image of

these noble human beings and not those who have succumbed to

religious fascism. They represent an America that recognizes

democracy and human rights in Iran as the precondition for

global peace and security and guarantor of the American

people's genuine interests. This is the United States that is

standing by the Iranian people. For the past 170 days, your

courageous and resilient friends have staged a sit-in across

from the State Department. They echo the Iranian nation's

call for the upholding of justice for the protection of

Ashraf and removal of the PMOI from the terror list night and

day, both under the summer heat and the winter chill.

Letters from more than 800 religious leaders and 2,000

priests across the U.S. in support of this Resistance.

Thirteen hearing sessions in the U.S. House and Senate to

pursue the issue of protecting Ashraf and annulling the

discredited terror label against the PMOI Passing of multiple

resolutions in Congress, and especially the amendment passed

by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month about the

imperative to prevent the displacement of Ashraf residents

inside Iraq And thousands of political, parliamentary, media

and social initiatives, all of which have inspired the

admiration of everyone. The evil forces that have laid a

siege on your sisters and brothers in Camp Ashraf seek to

destroy and annihilate Ashraf and its freedom-seeking

residents. But, you have spread the flames of Ashraf in your

society and hoisted its flag. Hold onto this flag more

powerfully, because this is the banner of freedom and

democracy in Iran.

Clearly, the U.S. bears special responsibility for ensuring

the protection of these residents on the basis of its

agreements with every single one of the residents in Camp

Ashraf. We urge the U.S. to listen to Congress and the

resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and

abandon the idea of displacing Ashraf residents within Iraq.

We call on the U.S. to support the European solution instead

of this dangerous idea which will have no results other than

a humanitarian catastrophe. Similarly, we want the United

Nations to rise up to its irrevocable obligations in ensuring

the protection of Ashraf . . .

Madam Chair, on rollcall 695, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Carney

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 696, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proclaim that organized labor is often the sole source fighting for the rights of not just union members, but all workers.

Today, we are recognizing a great leader of working men and women in Randy Cammack. Randy currently serves as the Vice President at Large of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Executive Board President Joint Council 42, and the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 63.

Randy Cammack began his Teamster career in Los Angeles, California as a UPS truck driver in 1967. He has logged over 31 years as either a business agent or officer with the Teamsters International. As the Vice President at Large of the Teamsters International, he represents over 1.4 million workers; and as President of the California State Federation of Labor, he is the voice for over one million workers.

Randy has served on several collective bargaining teams at the local, state and national levels. He is frequently brought in to help solve many complex, tough grievances and wage negotiations sessions. It is basically in this area of his vast experience that he has earned numerous local, state, and national recognitions.

Among the many awards he has received are the Hispanic Community Service Man of the Year Award, twice won the Community Service Man of the Year Award, 2011 Inaugural Labor Award and the 2011 Gladys Mason Labor Award for Patriotic Leadership presented to him by my colleague, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.

It gives me great honor to join with the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council in honoring Randy Cammack as the 2011 Labor Leader of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proclaim that there are very few public servants who are as deeply committed to the plight of working men and women than San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald.

For the past several decades, Marti could usually be found at numerous rallies and public forums strongly advocating for decent wages and adequate healthcare benefits for the working men and women in our community.

In fact, Marti Emerald excelled as a broadcast journalist for 30 years before taking the oath of office for the San Diego City Council in 2008. Most notably Marti was the Consumer Advocate or ``The Troubleshooter'' at San Diego's ABC television affiliate for 22 years, earning more than 100 awards for community service and journalistic excellence.

Marti has deep roots in the San Diego Community. She served on the Boards of Directors of Catholic Charities, the Better Business Bureau, and the Glenner Alzheimer's Family Centers. Marti graduated Magna Cum Laude from National University.

During her tenure on the San Diego City Council, Marti has focused on repairing the image of City government through fiscal restraint, pension reform and increasing transparency in City government functions. Marti is serving her third year as the Chair of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.

It gives me a great honor to join with the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council in honoring San Diego City Councilwoman, The Honorable Marti Emerald, with the 2011 Johns Fellowship Award.

Mr. Speaker, from 1961 to 1971, approximately 19 million gallons of fifteen different herbicides, including 13 million gallons of Agent Orange, were sprayed over the southern region of Vietnam. Many, including Agent Orange were based with the toxic contaminant, known as dioxin.

It is estimated that between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese people were present during the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides and many more were or continue to be exposed through contact with the environment and food that was contaminated, or as offspring of those exposed who now suffer from illnesses and deformities.

Today there are still dozens of environmental hot spots in Vietnam which contaminate the food, soil, sediment and wildlife and continue to expose Vietnamese to dioxin.

Agent Orange exposure continues to negatively affect the lives of men and women in Vietnam and in the United States. Many victims' lives are cut short and others live with disease, disabilities and pain, often untreated or unrecognized.

Therefore, Congress resolves to address and remediate the ongoing problems and concerns that arose or will arise from the use of these deadly Agents during the Vietnam War in both the United States and in Vietnam.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2634.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1383, as amended. I thank Chairman Miller for the work he has done on the bill to make sure it was palatable in both the House and the Senate.

Let me just say, though, for the record, the GI Bill updates which we passed last Congress were passed with the full support of virtually every veterans service organization in the Nation, the majority of which submitted letters of support and strongly advocated for the bill, which included this tuition cap which we have been talking about. Everyone was well aware of the effect of the tuition cap, so I was sort of surprised when these same folks started talking about what they called ``unintended consequences.'' I think everybody knew the consequences.

I know that many of our veterans made plans about their education based on the laws in effect before they started. And while most States ended up getting an increase with the new national average, a few States also saw a decrease. It is in these States that H.R. 1383, as amended, seeks to hold harmless our veterans from the so-called ``unintended consequences'' of the tuition cap.

Our veterans have indeed, as Chairman Miller pointed out, earned their education benefits, and I firmly believe that we should seek to avoid any actions that may interfere with the use of their benefits. I am pleased that we are here today taking action to alleviate this potential burden on a small population of these student veterans. The start of the new school year, of course, is right around the corner, so I hope that with our quick action today we will have this issue solved in time for the new academic year.

We have made quite a few changes to improve the so-called Post-9/11 GI Bill, and more changes are still being contemplated. As a veterans' committee and as a Congress, we must continue to work hard to ensure future changes do not delay or diminish benefits. Veterans are our priority, and we will protect their interests.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 603, I was unable to vote due to previous commitments in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall 604, I was unable to vote due to previous commitments in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''