Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H. Res. 648.

Madam Speaker, President Obama is certainly to be commended for the thoughtful and thorough consideration that he has given to our alternatives in Afghanistan. In essence, given the mess that he was bequeathed there, he was asked to choose the least bad alternative.

My personal belief is that a good man made the wrong choice. But I think it is incumbent on this Congress to do as our President did and give thoughtful and thorough consideration of what our alternatives are there and whether there is a better way than dispatching another 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan to assure the security of our families.

We have had now almost a decade without a debate of Afghanistan policy in this Congress. I believe we must take a hard look at how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of the lives of young Americans are being put on the line in Afghanistan and ask if this is the most effective way to defeat terrorism.

Some were, of course, pleased that the President indicated in his speech that July 2011, a period of a little more than a year and a half, would mark a point in this long war at which we would see the beginning of the end of the war and some of the troops that were being dispatched there would begin to return home.

Almost as soon as the speech ended, administration officials began to explain that deadline away. First we learned that not all the troops would get there until the fall of next year. They're not going for the weekend or a 2-week stay or a stay of less than a year. And then Secretary Gates made clear in interviews the nature of this July 2011 deadline. He said that at the time of July 2011, some ``handful,'' in his words, or some small number or whatever the conditions permit might be departing Afghanistan at that time but that we would, in his words, ``have a significant number of forces there for some considerable period of time.'' It was only a few days after that that Afghan President Hamid Karzai indicated just how long that commitment might have to be when he announced that ``for another 15 to 20 years Afghanistan will not be able to sustain a force of that nature and capability with its own resources.''

We are talking about a very extended commitment of more and more American troops and more and more American dollars, ironically, at a time that some of our allies who've been in Afghanistan, like the Canadians, like the Dutch, are making plans to withdraw their troops as our troops enter the country.

I have heard from not a few constituents expressing their concern about this decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Whether we agree or disagree on whether this is the best approach, we all agree that our objective is to work together to keep our families safer. One person to whom I presented the Veteran of the Year award just last month in Bastrop, Texas, Retired Colonel Bill Stanberry, twice awarded the Legion of Merit and inducted into the Infantry Officers Hall of Fame, offered this observation:

``There is no sign or promise of a viable leadership in the government in Afghanistan, an ingredient that is absolutely essential to the success of the program. We are allowing our adversaries to determine the kind of wars we fight and how we fight them. We need to find ways to exploit our strengths and not be lured into battles of war where our substantially weaker adversaries have the advantage by dictating how we fight.''

Our strategic choices in Afghanistan, I believe, are not narrowly limited to either escalating rapidly, as the President has proposed, or departing immediately, but they include more effective ways of using the resources that we have already committed to accomplish our original objectives. And apparently, our Ambassador in Afghanistan, former Lieutenant-General Karl Eikenberry, had some of the same concerns that I do. It is widely reported that he sent at least two classified cables to Washington before the announcement expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan without a meaningful demonstration by President Karzai, who just had stolen a million votes to stay in power, that his government would be able to tackle corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise in strength.

We went to take out al Qaeda, not to change it into Switzerland. Let's keep that commitment and do it in the most cost-effective way.

I thank the gentleman and I thank him for his leadership.

I certainly support more trade--where it most stands to benefit American consumers and to spur economic development in some of the world's least developed countries. During the last 2 years, there has been considerable talk about crafting a 21st century American trade policy that ensures we are not encouraging trade that depends upon degrading our environment and lowering labor standards. Unfortunately, talk is often about all that we've had. Upholding labor and environmental standards has been much more rhetoric than reality. Today's renewal of this GSP legislation does nothing to encourage participating countries to even enforce their own minimal environmental laws or to honor the multilateral environmental agreements that they have joined.

This is in significant contrast with the European Union. There, in order to enjoy the benefits of its GSP Plus program, beneficiary countries must fully implement major multilateral environmental agreements. There's no reason why we should not be doing the same and more. We should have led the European Union on the environment, but we can now at least follow its lead.

There are GSP labor standards, but under the Bush administration, naturally, there was very little interest in seeing them enforced. Why, for example, should the thuggish government of Uzbekistan enjoy any trade preferences? In addition to being one of the world's leading violators of human rights across the board, we have ample evidence of widespread labor abuses within Uzbekistan, including compulsory child labor. For over 2 years, the USTR has failed to act on a related petition about child labor, even after the Uzbeks failed to appear at a hearing to defend or explain their egregious child labor record.

This raises troubling questions about the integrity and effectiveness of the USTR review process. The Uzbek case is but one example of the significant problems with that enforcement mechanism of labor provisions in the GSP. Surely our trade policies here in the 21st century can aspire to do more than to bless practices that come right out of a 19th century Charles Dickens novel.

In the promised GSP review for this next year, as described by Chairman Levin, I think we have considerable work to do if we are to give full and complete meaning to the promises of President Barack Obama that our trade policy will reflect not only our desire for more commerce but our commitment to uphold our environment and our workers.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago as home foreclosures shot up and retirement accounts fell to new lows, after years of permissiveness toward corporate misconduct, the Bush administration responded by handing Wall Street the biggest subprime loan in American history using American taxpayer money. I opposed that Bush bailout because it did not provide adequate protection for our taxpayers. I wanted those who caused the crisis to be responsible for a little more of the cleanup. Instead, Wall Street banks took taxpayer money and they continued their scams with teaser rates and hiding rate increases in the fine print.

Well, now today through this legislation, we respond with extensive reforms. Maybe not all the reforms that I personally would prefer, but reforms that can really empower the cops on the beat. One of the most important of these is the Consumer Finance Protection Agency envisioned by Professor Elizabeth Warren, who Democrats appointed to head the oversight committee over all of these bailout funds. Professor Warren is independent. She is a visionary and an expert in this area. Working with our colleagues Representatives Miller, Delahunt, Frank, and others of us, we have provided cops on the beat to address abusive lending practices that helped cause this crisis to see that they do not plague consumers once again.

There's a line in an old Hank Williams, Jr. song, ``The cops are against the robbers but the laws are against the cops.'' We need this law to create a new squad of financial cops whose sole job is to protect taxpayers from others' greed. It is working families that we cannot let fail, and it is time we enacted the meaningful protections for American consumers that are embodied in this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

This rule provides for consideration of a $31 billion spending bill, including some worthwhile provisions and some not-so-worthwhile provisions. Approval of this tax extenders package has become something of an annual ritual, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, and the term ``temporary tax break'' has become an oxymoron.

If today's proposal required the government to write more checks to Wall Street and other fortunate Americans, there would be howls of protest; but because this involves tax expenditures, not direct expenditures, there is no protest, and there is no scrutiny of the expenditures. A tax expenditure occurs when this Congress decides to award some interest group, usually those with the most powerful lobbyists, the right to avoid paying taxes on the same basis as the rest of us by writing in some preference, deferral, loophole, or tax break.

The principal alleged virtue of today's bill is that it changes nothing. There is nothing more, there is nothing less than the advantages that Congress has repeatedly extended in the past.

In a modest effort to address the glaring disparity between the sunlight of the appropriations process and the shadows of the Tax Code, today's legislation does include a new requirement that I authored requiring that the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Government Accountability Office thoroughly evaluate and report on a set of criteria, the cost-effectiveness of each of these tax expenditures.

The Center for Tax Justice has been an invaluable partner in securing this provision. A good example of the urgent need for review was provided only yesterday regarding one of the most popular provisions in this bill, the research tax credit, that I have long personally supported. Calling for its permanent extension has become synonymous with being tech friendly and being concerned with economic growth.

But the Government Accountability Office ``identified significant disparities in the incentives provided.'' It determined that ``a substantial portion of credit dollars is a windfall'' for some, while much ``potentially beneficial research'' receives nothing. That is why we should be scrutinizing these tax expenditures, even the most popular, at least as closely as we do direct expenditures.

On the plus side, today's bill does effectively address international tax evasion by individuals. On the minus side, it does nothing to stop an even more egregious abuse by corporations shifting jobs and tax revenues overseas. In fact, while some try to draw a distinction between illegal tax evasion and tax avoidance, the only real difference between individuals illegally hiding their cash overseas and corporations manipulating the Tax Code is that the corporations have better lobbyists to obtain a veneer of legitimacy.

Similarly, the equitable taxation of carried interest in this proposal is belatedly a step forward, but it presents two problems. First, the bill fails to distinguish venture capital, which is so important in spurring new businesses in the most innovative sectors of our economy.

Second, the Senate is most unlikely to accept the financing that we propose here and instead is likely to grab something from our health insurance reform pay-fors and begin taxing employer-provided health insurance as a substitute, something that so many Members of this House have opposed.

Facing a soaring deficit, to me tax justice means before we ask working families to pay any more taxes, we ought to ask why Congress has done so little to crack down on those getting special treatment and to prevent billions of dollars of tax avoidance. Next year, America deserves a little more tax justice and a more level playing field for small businesses that cannot take advantage of all the dodges available to their multinational competitors.

Madam Speaker, I agree with so much of what President Obama said last night, but not so much what he would do. The path to peace and security will not be found through a wider war. Troop escalation by 40 percent, then de-escalation, all within 18 months, is totally unrealistic. We have been fighting in Afghanistan on the installment plan: a few more troops, a few more months, and many more billions. 2011 will not mark the

end of this war. It will just mark the beginning of the next installment in what is a deteriorating 8-year war whose elusive end is always just over the horizon.

The better exit strategy is to have fewer troops. With some allies already preparing to depart as we expand, most of the blood spilt will remain American. We should honor the sacrifice of those courageously serving by putting fewer of them in harm's way. It shouldn't take 100,000 Americans to defeat 100 al Qaeda. All this effort props up a corrupt Karzai government that just stole over a million votes. Afghanistan can consume as many lives and as many dollars as we're willing to expend there, and leave our families no safer.

Mr. Speaker, after the tragedy of 9/11, I voted for the resolution that authorized military action against those who attacked us, including sending our troops into Afghanistan. We sent a strong, unified message that we will never yield to terrorism. We have not just the right but the duty to keep America secure. I certainly agreed with taking out Osama bin Laden. It is outrageous that the Bush-Cheney- Rumsfeld administration failed to stop him, unnecessarily prolonged this conflict, strengthened our enemies as their attention and our resources were diverted to an ideologically driven invasion of Iraq.

Surely all Americans should respond affirmatively to President Obama's call last night for unity of purpose in keeping our families secure and overcoming all of those who would do us harm. I agree with so very much of what President Obama said, but not so much with what and how he said he would accomplish our shared goal.

It is true he had no really good and easy alternatives, and I applaud his deliberative effort. But the path to peace and security will not be found through a wider war. It is wholly unrealistic to expect that we can escalate our military forces in the harsh, faraway landscape of Afghanistan by another 40 percent, then deescalate and begin bringing them home all within a mere 18 months.

We have been fighting in Afghanistan on the installment plan. A few more troops, a few more months, and a whole lot more money--billions. There is no way that 2011 will mark the end of this war or even the beginning of the end. This is just a mirage. In 18 months the reasons may vary, but the next installment will be requested in what is already a deteriorating war that has lasted 8 years with the illusive end of the war always just over the horizon.

The better exit strategy is to have fewer troops who need to exit. We should honor the sacrifice of those who are courageously serving and put fewer of them into harm's way. It should not take 100,000 highly equipped and trained American troops to defeat less than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan, an estimate yesterday from the President's National Security Adviser.

Once again, we hear talk of a grand coalition, but make no mistake, it is Americans who are being asked to bear the overwhelming share of the burden. As these troops would arrive in Afghanistan, the Canadians, the Dutch, they have already announced they will be bringing their troops home at the same time our people get there.

The French and the Germans have said not one more troop. Spain may increase its total to 1,200. Iceland has two, Luxembourg has nine. Every bit of help counts certainly, but it's clear that the great amount of blood that will be spilt will, once again, be American, and the cost will be to the American taxpayer.

Now, United States Army doctrine, as written by General Petraeus, calls for one counterinsurgent for every 50 members of the population. In Afghanistan, with a population of 30 million, that would work out to about half a million additional troops, not 30,000. Whatever the exact number is, it is clear that to meet the military's own objectives, more installments are in order. All this effort to prop up a corrupt Karzai government that just stole over 1 million votes to keep itself in power as it attempts to control a fraction of the country of Afghanistan.

My fellow Americans, we must chart a better course. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to scrutinize this request carefully as well as how to pay for it, to find a better way to achieve our shared goals of protecting every American family. To do otherwise will leave us embroiled in an Afghanistan that can consume, as it has throughout human history, as many lives and as many dollars as we are willing to expend there. And such a painful, unending sacrifice may well make our families less, not more, secure.

This bill is about more than the reasonable desire of physicians for reimbursement rates that cover their actual cost and fairly compensate their work. It is about access

to quality health care and your ability to choose the doctor best for you.

When accepting new Medicare patients means losing money, fewer physicians can accept new patients. In 1997, a Republican Congress enacted a payment formula that never worked, and then they kept everyone guessing year after year as to what kind of gimmick they would come up with in lieu of the next year's payment cut.

Now we have revised their flawed formula and prevented what could be up to a 40 percent cut for physicians. Our bill will not only help seniors and the disabled, but it will help many members of the active duty military and our veterans who rely on TRICARE. Our troops should never have to worry whether their family can get the care and the doctor that they need.

Instead of another Republican Band-Aid, we offer a cure for what ails the Medicare-TRICARE formula. Today is one time that the ``just say no'' party ought to say ``yes'' to good public policy, which is supported by the Texas Medical Association and medical societies across the country.

To help cover huge medical bills in Bastrop, Texas, they held a Main Street pancake supper, an auction at the American Legion. Well, essential health care shouldn't depend on the kindness of strangers or the goodness of neighbors and certainly not on the ``just say no'' of the Republican Party or the weak TEA parties brewed up by the insurance lobby.

Now, belatedly, they offer a scheme as skimpy as a hospital gown. They do nothing to help seniors. Their proposal is inefficient, it's ineffective, and it's wasteful. Masquerading as reform, their bill authorizes insurers to continue denying coverage for preexisting health conditions, such as acne or a C-section. Republican obstructionism has itself become one giant preexisting condition to meaningful change.

This is a typical old-time Republican medicine show. Do a little bit for 5 percent of the people. Do nothing for the other 95 percent of the uninsured, and leave the portion of American families who are uninsured the same tomorrow as today. The only thing they propose more of is more insurance policy loopholes.

Freedom. They want the freedom to go broke after a medical emergency, the freedom to have more bankruptcies, medical bills--the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in America today. We cannot secure bipartisan support for health insurance reform tonight because they don't support any real solutions for the uninsured.

Our Democratic plan is a lifesaver for 12 times as many Americans, and it's a dollar saver, responsibly reducing the national debt by $36 billion more than this phony Republican scheme.

Now is the time for a truly historic choice. The Republicans have chosen to side again with the big insurance monopolies. We choose to strengthen Medicare. We chose to stand up for the millions of struggling families who have been denied health care access for too long.

This bill represents a textbook example of how not to deal with the economic challenges that our country faces. While previously approved by the House solely to address

the needs of the unemployed in economically depressed areas at a cost of a little more than a billion dollars, the Senate has taken the good work of Chairman McDermott, delayed it, not responded promptly, and has now mushroomed the cost to $24 billion.

Economists have advised us that every dollar we invest to help the unemployed spurs economic growth (GDP) by $1.61, very effective, a real winner, what the House did originally. But the corporate giveaway that the Senate added to this bill--the so-called ``loss carry-back provision''--yields, according to the same economists, 19 cents for every dollar of revenue that we invest--a real loser.

Today's bill allocates $2 billion to the winner and $10 billion to the loser.

Understand that this bill now directs the Treasury to essentially write a check directly to corporations for more than $10 billion; checks to corporations that have committed fraud, checks to corporations that have no ability to create jobs because they have no employees and exist solely on paper as a fiction. It rewards some of the very corporate losers who have brought us to the brink of economic ruin.

If this is such a great idea, why don't we first apply loss carry-back to workers who have lost their jobs and give them back some of the taxes that they paid when they had a job? That would certainly be more stimulative.

As we move forward next month to extending benefits for next year, it will be much more costly. We should use this lesson as a reminder that good policy to address jobs and the needs of the unemployed should not be burdened with windfalls to those with good lobbyists.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The troubling legacy of the eight years of Bush-Cheney mismanagement includes many types of deficits. We all know of the soaring budget deficit, but every bit as real is the ``opportunity deficit.''

Despite our success earlier this year in creating a new higher education tax credit and expanding Pell Grants, too many young Americans find themselves unable to go to college because of financial barriers. As the gentleman from Colorado just mentioned, too many others leave college with such a mountain of debt they are unable to pursue some of the professional objectives that they would like to do.

When our youth cannot develop their full God-given potential because of financial barriers, our entire country suffers an opportunity deficit. With families struggling in this difficult economy, we bridge the opportunity gap and ensure that more students can obtain a college degree.

This bill really corrects two deficits left over from the Bush Administration by eliminating the waste and inefficiency in the operation of the federal student financial assistance program. It is truly an investment in America's future. By eliminating the unnecessary middleman role of private financial institutions, eliminating the red tape and lending directly to the students, the Federal Government will have more money for them and more resources left over to apply to reducing our national debt.

With the approval of this bill, just in my Central Texas congressional district alone, over the next decade, college students attending the University of Texas, Huston-Tillotson University, Texas State University, St. Edwards, and ACC, will receive more aid, about $46 million more aid, with this measure. Fifteen thousand more students will apply through the simplified financial aid application form, as we cut through the red tape. And we will have $15 million more dollars to help young people prepare to go to college to get the education that they need. Who could oppose such a winning combination of helping our students and reducing the national debt?

Who could oppose this winning combination? Well, the banks who pocketed the wasteful expenditure of taxpayer money, of course, and a few ideologues in the Republican Party who oppose all federal involvement unless it helps their buddies.

The alternative that the Republicans are offering today is little more than another corporate bailout that will provide billions more to lenders instead of reducing our debt and helping our students.

Let's invest in our students and reject another corporate giveaway.

As one economist concluded, it's easy to dodge your responsibilities but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.

For 8 long years, fiscal responsibility was abandoned by the Bush administration and its congressional enablers. When a difficult decision came along, they played a devastating game of dodgeball to the tune of, ``Don't worry, be happy.'' Well, record surpluses turned into record deficits and the economy began to collapse. This did not happen by accident.

Republican ideologues urged the irresponsible approach of fiscal deficit with more borrow-and-spend and tax cuts as the best tactic to starve government and ensure that Democrats would never be able to address the other deficits in our society: educational deficits, health care deficits, and more.

This year, with only 7 months so far to correct 8 years of failure, as we clean up the mess that we were given, we reaffirm our commitment to pay-as-you-go. And we're already making it a reality in one of the most significant challenges of our time, the health care deficit. We correct it without adding to the fiscal deficit. We're paying for long neglected health care reform by cutting costs in the system and taxing the few at the top who benefited the most from the Bush era.

Fiscal responsibility, fiscal security is national security. Today's vote signals that we are abandoning the Republicans' fiscal model, which is straight out of the Magic Kingdom. Their rule, like the first law of Disney, is that ``wishing will make it so.'' That may work well in the law of fairy tales, but it has been a budgeting disaster and an economic nightmare that we begin correcting today.

Madam Speaker, this energy bill's fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real cap is on the public interest, and the trade is from the public to polluters. It is too weak to spur new technologies and green jobs.

An Administration analysis shows that doing nothing actually results in more new renewable energy electricity generation capacity than approving this bill.

Vital authority for the EPA is stripped, but two billion additional tons of pollution are authorized every year forever. Residential consumer protection is incredibly entrusted to the mercy of utility companies. Exempting 100 new coal plants and paying billions to Old King Coal does indeed leave him ``a merry old soul.''

This bill is 85 percent different from what President Obama proposed just a few months ago. No wonder that his Budget Director called this type of legislation ``the largest corporate welfare program . . . in the history of the United States.''

Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.

I thank the gentleman.

Earlier today, I voiced my strong objections to this bill. I voted against the rule to permit this bill because of its rejection of some amendments that I thought were important to improve the legislation.

For three reasons, I'm voting for final passage. First, I've been listening to the debate, not so much those who support the bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the ``flat earth society,'' the climate denials, some of the most inane arguments that I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge.

Second, I believe there is still some hope to make improvements to this bill once it gets out of the House. Better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed in this legislation.

And, third, I'm convinced that unless we act today, the Senate will not act. And unless we act in this Congress, we will not get the international agreements we need to address this serious challenge.

I am voting ``yes'' in the hopes that we will have a better bill and we will have the international accord that we so desperately need to deal with this critical matter.

Thank you very much, Chairman Filner, and thank you Ranking Member Boozman, for the leadership that each of you provides for those who have served our country.

The return of a soldier or sailor to civilian life is a tradition as old as the Republic itself. Just outside this House Chamber in the great rotunda of the Capitol is a portrait of General George Washington resigning his command in the Continental Army at the close of the Revolution.

In his farewell orders to his troops in November of 1783, he praised the brave men, retiring victorious from the field of war to the field of agriculture. He urged his soldiers to participate in ``all the blessings which have been obtained,'' and asked rhetorically, ``In

such a Republic, who will exclude them from the rights of Citizens and the fruits of their labor?''

Washington reminded this Congress of its duty to support these new veterans, he said, ``so that the officers and soldiers may expect considerable assistance in recommencing the civil occupations.''

Well, today, more than 34,000 of America's troops have been wounded as a result of their brave service in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Of these men and women, about 8,000 have suffered traumatic brain injuries and another 1,200 have undergone amputation of a limb.

Battlefield injuries like this don't end on the battlefield, and as General Washington long ago confirmed, neither should our commitment to these wounded warriors. When it comes to recovery, the road back to civilian life can be long, and it can be difficult. Complications arise from amputations. They can force a veteran to return repeatedly to the Veterans Administration for medical care; or what begins as a migraine may turn out to be a traumatic brain injury requiring a battery of time-consuming tests.

Even those veterans that live near a veterans facility find it difficult balancing their medical requirements with other demands on their time; and, of course, many veterans live far away and must travel a long distance, like a veteran in Luling, Texas, who must drive back and forth to the VA hospital in Temple in what may take 4 or 5 hours.

But this is not the only long road that some veterans confront. This legislation is the result of problems that some Texas veterans brought to my attention. They said wounded veterans should not be fired after they exhaust their sick and vacation leave to receive care for injuries that a VA doctor says they need that they incurred while defending our country.

I agree. And they said there ought to be a law supporting our veterans, and I felt confident when the Veterans' Affairs Committee and this Congress heard their plea, they would answer, as they have today.

You see, Madam Speaker, some employers have policies limiting the amount of time that an employee can be out on sick leave. An employee that exceeds that limit may be terminated; and as the law is written today, this means an employer can legally terminate a veteran with a service-related disability for receiving the care that he or she so desperately needs.

I stand here today to say that is not good enough. Our veterans should not have to choose between their lives and their livelihoods. No veteran should have to stand in front of their employer after suffering an injury while serving the Red, White and Blue and be told, you have a pink slip. I am sorry, you can't have a job. But the fact is that this has happened, and it has happened to some simple Texas veterans.

In 1994, when the Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act to clarify and strengthen the Veterans Reemployment Rights Statute, its first purpose was to encourage non-career service in the uniformed services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment which can result from such service.

Now that we are 15 years down the road, it is time to take decisive action to develop policies that evolve with the changing needs of our troops. That is what the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act that we consider today that I authored seeks to accomplish. It amends existing law to establish a right of veterans who receive treatment for illness, injuries and disabilities incurred or aggravated by uniform service to the United States to be retained by their employers.

I appreciate the support of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Disabled American Veterans, important organizations representing our veterans who have endorsed this legislation.

This legislation requires employers to retain a person who is absent from work because they are receiving medical treatment for a service- related injury or disability. It grants the servicemembers the same seniority and other rights and benefits that they had prior to receiving treatment, and it seeks to ensure that these servicemembers receive the same rights and benefits as other employers who are on furlough or leave of absence.

Our service men and women selflessly put aside their civilian lives to step into uniform and serve the cause of freedom and stand up for all of us. Today, it is our responsibility to stand up for them.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure no American veteran ever has to choose between getting well and getting paid.

I thank the leadership on the committee.