Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3218, which secures and strengthens the GI Bill for future generations of veterans. It does so without cutting benefits from anyone who is currently serving.

There are several provisions in this legislation worth celebrating. Removing time restrictions for future student veterans and making this a lifetime benefit, and increasing support for reservists, guardsmen, and their families are among the long overdue improvements to the GI Bill that are included in this legislation.

But the restoration of GI Bill benefits for students defrauded by ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges is particularly noteworthy for veterans in my district and across the country. When those two schools abruptly shut their doors, thousands of student veterans were left with nontransferable credits, depleted

benefits, and none of the job opportunities they were promised. By restoring their tuition and housing benefits, we are restoring a measure of justice for these veterans, and we are restoring their opportunity to get the education they deserve.

I hope this is just the start of our efforts to crack down on for- profit colleges that exploit veterans.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz for their leadership, as well as the other members of the committee and the veterans service organizations who contributed to the strength of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, passing H.R. 3218 is an important step toward ensuring that every person who serves this Nation has the opportunity to live a rewarding and purposeful and prosperous civilian life. I encourage all Members to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, before closing, let me just add my praise to the chairman for his generosity and humbleness. I recognize, too, that this bill does not bear his name but the name of a predecessor. That was an incredible gesture, Madam Speaker. I salute the chairman's leadership.

Mr. ROE from Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), my good friend, a Marine and Army veteran, and senior member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 2210, a bill to designate the Community Living Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, as the Sergeant Joseph George Kusick VA Community Living Center.

Sergeant Joseph George Kusick was awarded the Silver Star for sacrificing his life in an effort to ensure that as many of his comrades as possible made it home from Vietnam. The resulting recovery effort was to be recorded by the squadron as one of the largest and most hazardous on record.

As a radio operator, Sergeant Kusick served as the connection between the 5th Special Forces Group, who found themselves under enemy ambush, and the forward air controller charged with coordinating their evacuation.

Although Sergeant Kusick was seriously injured during the ambush, he refused multiple offers to evacuate, ultimately refusing two helicopters, only to board a helicopter that was then shot down by intense Viet Cong fire.

His bravery and sacrifice earned him a posthumously awarded Silver Star with the following citation: ``Kusick's gallantry in action, at the cost of his life, was in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.''

Mr. Speaker, I salute Sergeant Kusick for his selfless bravery, and I support the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I am very thankful that the gentleman has brought Congress' attention to Sergeant Kusick's deed on behalf of our Nation. I was reflecting on his youth, 22 years old, and to think that so many younger, his age, step forward to defend our Nation and to give up their lives.

I think it is well for all of us in this Chamber to reflect on that sacrifice as we struggle to reach across the aisle and to come to agreement to serve our country, to note the ultimate sacrifice that they put forward. I thank you very much for the effort you have taken to remember a great American hero.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by offering my thoughts and prayers to Majority Whip Steve Scalise and his family, as well as Special Agents David Bailey and Crystal Griner, and the two other members of our community who were injured in yesterday's attack.

We are a family--from Members to staff, to the Capitol Police officers who keep us safe. Families have disagreements and arguments, but, in the end, we support each other. Speaker Ryan got it absolutely right yesterday: an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

We owe it to the American people to hold a vigorous and public debate of our ideas, but we also owe it to them and to each other to do so without losing touch with our humanity.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2372, which would protect access to tax credits for up to 7 million veterans on the American Health Care Act. However, I am concerned by the process that led to this legislation.

In testimony to the Rules Committee and on the House floor, I described this loophole in the bill that jeopardizes access to tax credits for veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in the VA.

Repeatedly, supporters of the AHCA told me that veterans' tax credits would be protected by existing regulation. This bill is evidence that the loophole is an issue and that the existing regulation would no longer apply if the Affordable Care Act was repealed.

While I am glad we are making this fix, I am concerned that the rushed process for considering the AHCA led to the House passing disruptive healthcare legislation without fully understanding its impact on millions of Americans, especially our Nation's veterans.

The tax credit issue is relatively easy to solve, but there are more complicated issues for veterans under the AHCA that require more comprehensive solutions.

The $834 billion cut to Medicaid could impact nearly 2 million veterans. The potential for States to waive protections like essential health benefits could lead many veterans without health coverage for the invisible wounds of war. Indeed, military service could be construed as a preexisting condition.

As someone who repeatedly called out this veterans loophole, I feel compelled to support this fix, but my support is not an endorsement of the AHCA or its impact on veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time. And I want to thank Ranking Member Walz and Chairman Roe for their work on the issue of accountability and their tireless commitment to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

Throughout the debate over accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs, I have advocated for legislation that holds VA employees accountable, without violating their constitutional right to due process.

This legislation strikes that balance far better than previous accountability proposals. This compromise respects current grievance procedures, maintains existing due process protections, and improves the appeals process by requiring managers to present employees with all of the evidence before they move on a disciplinary action.

Today we are voting to strengthen whistleblower protections. This bill codifies the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, and it mandates that its Director is a Senate-confirmed position instead of a political appointee. It also offers training on how to handle whistleblowers correctly, which will encourage employees to come forward if they witness misconduct.

Do I have concerns about this bill? Absolutely, I do. This is not the accountability legislation that I would have written. We must always remember that a third of VA employees are veterans themselves, and they deserve the workplace protections afforded to them in the Constitution as well as the respect of this Congress. But my concerns pale in comparison to the serious and numerous institutional issues raised by accountability bills previously advanced in the House.

Passing this bill today will accomplish several important objectives:

We will fulfill the repeated requests from veteran service organizations and the VA itself for a stronger accountability system.

We will support the VA's continuing effort to create a culture of excellence.

We will provide veterans greater confidence that the VA is prepared to meet their needs.

Finally, by passing this bill, we can shift our focus from who is fired from the VA to who is hired at the VA.

As I stand here today, there are nearly 50,000 vacant jobs at the VA. This is a significant and urgent challenge. Ultimately, the success of the Department of Veterans Affairs will depend on recruiting, training, and retaining the highest quality talent available.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee to streamlining the hiring process and ensuring that the VA has the staff and expertise it needs to provide veterans the care and support they have earned.

I applaud the Senate for forging this compromise, and I again want to recognize Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz for their important work.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to support H.R. 1293, but after hearing the remarks from the chairman on the floor this morning, I am afraid that this bill is just a precursor for what the majority will try to do to our dedicated Federal employees.

The sentiments expressed by the chairman are in line with the legislation that appeared before the Veterans' Affairs Committee just this past week, legislation that would have undermined the use of official time for employees at the VA. So there are attacks happening in other parts of the House.

The committee marked up H.R. 1461, the misnamed VET Protection Act. This bill would limit the amount of time VA employees can use for official time to improve working conditions for themselves and for their colleagues and, in turn, improve services for veterans.

We considered this bill, despite the fact we didn't have clear data on the impact of the bill on the VA's HR capability. I realize this bill we are considering on the floor today is about that data, but the spirit in which it is being moved forward is not about trying to illuminate how official time has helped our veterans.

There are 49,386 vacant positions at the VA. Rolling back the use of official time will only increase the demands on the VA's human resources staff, making it harder to fill positions and recruit and retain quality providers.

Official time benefits our veterans. In Pittsburgh, as was mentioned before by my colleague from New Jersey, an AFGE president used official time to press the VA to address a Legionnaires' disease outbreak that killed 6 veterans and made 16 others sick. Her actions helped save veterans' lives, and she used official time to do it.

At the Phoenix VA there was a 29 percent turnover rate for licensed practical nurses. Union representatives used official time to improve working conditions and cut the turnover rate in half. Less turnover means better care for veterans.

I warn my colleagues against this bill and future misguided legislation to undermine official time and the function of our Federal agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, Mr. Walz, for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2288 the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017.

Over the past 5 years, the number of pending appeals at the VA has skyrocketed by 40 percent and now sits at nearly half a million cases. The average processing time for an appeal is 3 years. Republicans and Democrats agree, the VA agrees, veterans service organizations agree, and, most importantly, veterans agree that we need to fix this broken process.

I am pleased that my colleagues on the committee have come together to develop a bipartisan solution that reduces the overly complicated appeals process, shortens the time a veteran will wait for a decision, and preserves a veteran's full length of benefits if their appeal is decided favorably.

This legislation has taken a lot of time and effort. I applaud my colleagues Ms. Titus and Mr. Miller for laying the groundwork in the last Congress, and Ms. Esty and Mr. Bost for carrying this legislation into the 115th Congress.

I am very, very proud of all the work done by the committee staff to bring this together, and I am grateful to the dedicated VSOs and the VA for their input. This is a great example of how we can put aside our partisan differences and make our veterans' lives better.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and her bill to improve information sharing between providers to ensure that they are able to follow safe prescribing practices.

The VA Prescription Data Accountability Act helps to close a loophole in statute that limits the data that the VA can share with Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs, or PDMPs. These databases track the prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances to help find suspected fraud and intervene with patients who are at high risk for prescription drug abuse. These databases are only as useful as the information they collect.

Since 2011, the VA has been able to share prescription data with PDMPs, but only for the veteran patients it sees. Statutory and technical challenges have prevented the Department from sharing data from nonveteran patients with PDMPs. Approximately 10 percent of the VA's patients are nonveterans. We are talking about 700,000 patients each year.

Now, Ms. Kuster's bill expands the authority of the VA to share all patient data with PDMPs. This will allow us to better monitor the use of prescription drugs and help combat a growing opioid epidemic.

On average, 650,000 opioid prescriptions are dispensed daily in the United States, and 78 people die from opioid-related overdoses. Properly tracking prescription drugs is one of the first steps to turn the tide on this epidemic.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the career of Waudier ``Woodie'' Rucker-Hughes, a tireless worker for civil rights and a pillar of the community in the Inland Empire of California.

Woodie was born in Washington, DC, and came to California in 1969 to begin a career in teaching at John W. North High School in Riverside. She later became the Dean of Students, an assistant principal and Manager of Child Welfare and Attendance for the Riverside Unified School District. In those roles, she helped young people to make the most of their education and their lives.

Woodie has spent her life building a stronger community through her leadership in the NAACP, and her involvement with non-profit organizations and commissions. The people of Riverside live in a city made better by the work of Woodie Rucker-Hughes.

This week, Woodie is retiring from the Riverside Unified School District. She has earned the thanks of a grateful community and the admiration of all that know her.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which states that this legislation will dramatically cut Medicaid services that are vital to people with disabilities and seniors.

Consortium for Citizens

with Disabilities,

April 28, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: The Consortium for Citizens with

Disabilities (CCD) is strongly opposed to the amended

American Health Care Act. The amended American Health Care

Act retains the original bill's proposals to dramatically but

Medicaid services that are vital to people with disabilities

and seniors through per capita caps, which CCD has opposed.

The new amendments--including permitting states to seek

waivers from the protections for people with pre-existing

conditions and from the requirement to provide essential

health benefits--makes the amended AHCA even more harmful to

people with disabilities. We urge you to oppose this

legislation.

Medicaid provides services and supports that maintain the

health, function, independence, and well-being of 10 million

enrollees living with disabilities. For many people with

disabilities, being able to access timely needed care is a

life or death matter. The American Health Care Act changes

the way that the Federal Government funds Medicaid--rather

than paying states based on the actual costs of healthcare

for people in Medicaid, it sets a cap on the amount of

federal support, a cap that is totally unrelated to the

actual costs of needed care for enrollees. This cap is

designed to cut Medicaid, and the bill uses those cuts to pay

for unrelated tax cuts. Slashing federal support for

Medicaid, which is already a lean program, will force states

to cut services and eligibility that put the health and

wellbeing of people with disabilities at significant risk.

The newest amendments to the American Health Care Act make

the bill even more harmful to people with disabilities. The

new amendments would allow states to easily obtain waivers,

that would allow them to charge higher premiums to people

with pre-existing conditions, including people with

disabilities. They also would allow states to seek waivers

from the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide

essential health benefits, including crucial services for

people with disabilities such as mental health and substance

use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and

habilitative services and devices, preventative and wellness

services and chronic disease management, and pediatric

services. These waivers jeopardize the Affordable Care Act's

protections for people with pre-existing conditions,

including people with disabilities, and CCD opposes any roll-

back of those protections.

The ACA helped millions of people with disabilities and

others to gain access to affordable and comprehensive health

insurance. The amended American Health Care Act is

insufficient to help people with disabilities meet their

healthcare needs, and we urge you to oppose the bill should

it come to a vote.

Sincerely,

Health Task Force Co-chairs: Bethany Lilly, Bazelon Center

for Mental Health Law; Dave Machledt, National Health Law

Program; Peter Thomas, Brain Injury Association of America;

Julie Ward, The Arc of the United States.

Long Term Services and Supports Co-chairs: Alison Barkoff,

Center for Public Representation; Nicole Jorwic, The Arc of

the United States; Sarah Meek, Lutheran Services in America

Disability Network; Laura Weidner, National Multiple

Sclerosis Society.

Mr. Speaker, there are 7 million veterans who are eligible for VA care but not enrolled at the VA. All of them could be denied access to the tax credits in this bill, and each in this Chamber needs to understand how.

On page 10, line 6 of manager's amendment No. 4, it states that an individual is not eligible for tax credits if they are eligible for care, as defined by U.S. Code 5000A(f)(1)(A). This code specifically includes VA care. So this means that those 7 million veterans who are eligible for VA care, even if they are not enrolled, would not have access to the tax credits in this law.

This is not fear-mongering. This is not hyperbole. This is the text of the bill we are voting on today. This bill jeopardizes health care for up to 7 million veterans, and everyone should oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1180 for a simple reason: the Working Families Flexibility Act does not give working families more flexibility. In fact, it gives them nothing.

The bill contains no meaningful rights for workers that they don't already have. Instead, it is employers who get the flexibility and the power to withhold overtime pay in exchange for a false promise of comp time in the future.

This bill takes the simple idea that workers should be paid when they work overtime and creates a more complicated system in which employers can pressure their workers to accept comp time instead of cash and then refuse to give them that comp time until it is convenient.

Even the American Sustainable Business Council opposes the bill, and I include their letter in the Record.

American Sustainable

Business Council,

April 24, 2017.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bradley Byrne,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mark Takano,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairpersons Foxx and Byrne, and Ranking Members Scott

and Takano: On behalf of our members and supporter

organizations, the American Sustainable Business Council

(ASBC) is writing to express our opposition to the Working

Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801) of 2017.

The misleadingly named bill, as introduced by

Representative Martha Roby, is the wrong way to encourage

employers to offer work-life benefits to their employees.

This bill would create a major liability on the balance

sheet of small businesses whose employees have ``banked''

away their overtime comp hours. This liability then becomes a

scheduling and accounting challenge when employees decide to

trade in banked hours, requiring business owners to make

unexpected shifts in personnel assignments and paychecks.

Obviously, small businesses with fewer resources and

employees would be even harder hit by these onerous

logistical challenges than larger corporations.

It is important that more supporting measures are taken to

ensure the success of small business. In the spirit of

pursuing pro-business legislation, the Working Families

Flexibility Act proves itself to be anything but flexible for

employees and even more burdensome for employers. The sheer

volume of tracking requirements has the potential to result

in improper penalties being assessed by various government

agencies. The bill will stymie, not foster, economic activity

in the private sector.

In addition, this bill would create headaches for any

employer who must track banked hours across multiple

employees and make the required organizational

rearrangements. These factors could put business owners in

the position of making uncomfortable decisions regarding

their employees which could, in turn, lower the morale of

their workforce.

Current law does not deny employers and employees the

ability to develop mutually beneficial flexible scheduling if

they so choose, which makes this an unnecessary new law. If

Representatives Roby is truly concerned about creating

flexibility for working families, there are other, less

onerous options.

The Healthy Families Act, for instance, would provide

workers the right to earn up to seven earned paid sick days

each year to recover from illness, to care for a family

member, to seek routine medical care, or to manage other

unpredictable necessities of day-to-day life. Employers who

provide this type of leave already would not have to provide

additional sick time. This method is a more predictable and

easier approach to implement for employers.

ASBC is a growing national coalition of businesses and

business organizations committed to advancing policies that

support a vibrant and sustainable economy. ASBC represents

over 250,000 businesses and more than 300,000 business

professionals, including industry trade associations, local

and state chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social

enterprise, green and sustainable business, local and

community-rooted business, women and minority business

leaders, and investors.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is a poorly designed

bill for both employers and employees. In the interest of

working families who need true flexibility, and the

businesses who rely on those family members, we urge you to

vote against it.

Sincerely,

Richard Eidlin,

Co-Founder & Vice President of Public Policy.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible deal for working families. This bill should be called the betrayal of working families act.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my colleagues in the majority are intentionally eroding the rights of working families. I do not believe they lack respect or compassion for the millions of hardworking Americans who feel stuck and powerless in this economy.

But I do believe that, when faced with a choice between protecting workers and rewarding corporations, they routinely fall on the side of corporate interests. The evidence is in this bill. The evidence is in their vote to roll back workplace safety reporting standards. The evidence is in their vote to block the fiduciary rule, and the evidence is in the majority's continued resistance to restoring overtime protections for millions of middle class workers.

President Trump promised to give power back to the people. This legislation betrays that promise, and it betrays the people who desperately need a voice in Washington.

I call on my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1180.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 218.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 544. This legislation ensures that the approximately $1 billion left in Choice funding is spent on the critical mission of providing veterans timely access to care.

It would be an abdication of our responsibility to veterans if we allowed this money to go back to the Treasury instead of going to those who need and deserve our support.

I appreciate the efforts from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for advancing this legislation.

The Choice Act was designed as a rapid response to the veteran wait time crisis, but its framework and implementation has been deeply flawed. Objective analyses found that it is not meaningfully reducing veterans' wait times, and its arbitrary standards have added a layer of confusion for both patients and providers.

There is bipartisan consensus that these concerns must be addressed when the Choice Act sunsets and the funding expires. We can and must do a better job of prioritizing and streamlining veterans' access to care in the community. We can and must do better than the existing Choice Act.

Now, the Choice Act was a temporary emergency measure to address an unacceptable crisis. Unfortunately, it contained language that undermined protections against workplace discrimination for Federal contractors. The next iteration of this law cannot subvert the rights of those who treat and serve our veterans.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs continues to be a vital tool for ensuring fairness and equality in the workplace. It should apply to everyone that does business with the Federal Government because the Federal Government cannot endorse discrimination of any kind.

I will fight to ensure that this committee and this Congress restores their commitment to equality and fairness as we develop a more streamlined and thoughtful method for connecting veterans with community care.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter echoing these concerns from the Human Rights Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the National Partnership for Women & Families.

April 5, 2017.

Dear Representative: We write to express our serious

concerns about H.R. 369/S. 544, which would eliminate the

sunset of the Veterans Choice Program. The Veterans Choice

Program currently includes a provision exempting it from

oversight by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs (OFCCP). This has diminished civil rights

protections when the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

enters into federal contracts for veterans' health care

services. The Veterans Choice Program was always intended to

be a temporary solution to ease the health care access crisis

faced by the veterans receiving care through the VA. We fear

that removing the sunset will open the door to extension of

the program, including extending the provision that strips

critical equal employment opportunity protections from the

men and women serving our nation's veterans. OFCCP must have

full jurisdiction to protect against employment

discrimination and promote equal employment opportunities.

The antidiscrimination rules enforced by OFCCP ensure that

federal contract dollars further equal employment opportunity

and are not used to subsidize unlawful discrimination. OFCCP

plays a unique and vital role in combating unlawful

employment discrimination by federal contractors on the basis

of sex, race, national origin, religion, color, sexual

orientation, gender identity, and disability. It also

enforces the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance

Act, or VEVRAA, which requires nondiscrimination and

affirmative action for special and disabled veterans of any

war, campaign, or expedition in which a campaign badge has

been authorized. In addition, OFCCP guides contractors and

subcontractors on affirmatively promoting equal opportunity

in the workplace and promotes fair and nondiscriminatory

federal contractor workplaces. Many of its regulations

require contractors to take affirmative steps to expand the

pool of individuals from which it recruits, and evaluate

their own practices to identify and address conduct that

limits equal employment opportunities for protected classes

of workers. By conducting compliance audits and systemic

investigations, through its data collection and investigative

authority, OFCCP can aid contractors in identifying and

resolving practices that limit equal employment

opportunities, without relying solely on individuals who are

willing to risk retaliation to challenge unfair employment

practices. OFCCP's historic and current role in ensuring

artificial barriers do not restrict employment based on sex,

race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,

gender identity, disability, or veteran status has improved

opportunities for a wide range of workers across the country

and has ensured that federal tax dollars do not subsidize

discrimination.

Carving out the VA provider agreements from these

antidiscrimination protections, affirmative action rules, and

data reporting requirements has the effect of narrowing

employment opportunities for women, people of color, people

with disabilities, veterans, and LGBT individuals and removes

critical tools for ending employment discrimination and

harassment. Extending the provision that weakens these

protections ultimately threatens harm not only to workers,

but to those who depend on them for care.

There is no appreciable administrative burden that

justifies continuing to suspend these protections and

requirements. Federal contractors and subcontractors with

less than 50 employees and $50,000 in contracts or

subcontracts are not covered by OFCCP's affirmative action

requirements. More than 94 percent of health care and social

assistance firms had fewer than 50 employees in 2009. The

larger providers, those with 50 or more employees and $50,000

or more in federal contracts, should be well-equipped to meet

the minimal administrative obligations associated with

maintaining an affirmative action plan.

The carve-out of VA contractors from the employment

discrimination rules applicable to federal contractors not

only has a detrimental impact on the workforces affected, but

sends a disturbing message that ensuring fair treatment for

women, people of color, LGBT people, veterans, and people

with disabilities is unnecessary and inconsequential. It sets

a precedent for future carve-outs and represents a step

backward from equal opportunity. Any continuation of the

Veterans Choice Program must ensure OFCCP jurisdiction to

enforce the antidiscrimination rules and other equal

employment opportunity protections for these providers.

For further information, please contact the Human Rights

Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, the Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, or the National

Partnership for Women and Families.

Sincerely,

National Women's Law Center.

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

National Partnership for Women & Families.

Human Rights Campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate 20 years of the Gluck Fellows Program of the Arts at the University of California, Riverside.

Since 1996, the Max H. Gluck Foundation has supported undergraduate and graduate students as they bring innovative arts programming to schools, libraries, and community centers in my district.

The Gluck Fellows Program of the Arts has provided students, families, and other community members with the opportunity to experience art, music, dance, theater, and art history through workshops and performances. Over the past 20 years, more than 300,000 Inland Empire residents have benefited from this program.

I congratulate UCR's Chancellor Kim Wilcox; Dean of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Milagros Pena; Gluck Fellows Director Erika Suderburg; and especially the Max H. Gluck Foundation and its chair, Dr. Jon Kaswick.

I wish continued success to the Gluck Fellows Program of the Arts at the University of California, Riverside.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. In its current form, H.R. 1181 would endanger veterans in crisis and serve as another obstacle to addressing the crisis of veteran suicide.

We had hoped to introduce amendments which would protect veterans' rights while ensuring their safety. By bringing this bill to the floor under a closed rule, the majority has prevented us from doing so, from considering other possibilities to come together in a bipartisan fashion.

There are changes that could be made to this legislation to ensure that it is good public policy. For instance, we could consider a streamlined appeals process that would allow veterans erroneously flagged by the background check system to have their status changed.

I do acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from Florida that people with PTSD on this list may have been inappropriately flagged to be on this list, and we could have discussed a streamlined process. We could conduct a study of the VA's existing practices for submitting records of veterans to the background check system.

But rather than subject that whole list to being dismantled and freeing people that should not be free to have weapons--crazy people from having weapons--at the very least, we should understand the impact this change would have on veteran suicide, as Ms. Esty suggested when she tried to offer an amendment to the Rules Committee last night to require a study into the number of veterans who have committed suicide by firearm, who should have been prevented from accessing a firearm under current policies.

I do wish, Mr. Speaker, to dispute the gentleman from Colorado's contention that this is only about going forward, that it affects going forward. I maintain there is considerable concern that this will affect those that exist on the list currently.

These are sensible ideas that I offered, that we could have considered instead of being forced to vote on the legislation we have now. We could come together under unanimity to solve this issue.

But under this rule, we are forced to vote only on legislation that would make veterans and their communities less safe. Accordingly, I call on my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1181.

The epidemic--actually, rather the tragedy--of veterans' suicide has affected families across the country, including my own. I recall walking home after school at the age of 10 or 11 in the month of November--as you know, Veterans Day is in the month of November--and hearing the news that my uncle, who lived across the street from us, had taken his own life with a firearm. He was a Vietnam veteran, and his memory serves as a personal reminder about the tragedy of veterans' suicide. To this day, it continues to plague our communities with our recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of the 20 veterans who die from suicide every day, two-thirds of those occur by firearm. Part of stopping this crisis is keeping guns out of the hands of our most vulnerable veterans. Removing all individuals determined by the VA to be mentally incompetent from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System will make it easier for a veteran in crisis to obtain a firearm.

To be clear, there are veterans currently flagged in the background check system who should not be there, and we need to create a fair and streamlined process for veterans to appeal their status.

But there is a balance between protecting veterans' Second Amendment rights and protecting veterans who are a danger to themselves or others. Immediately removing restrictions on every individual does not strike the right balance. Instead, it rolls back the bipartisan work we have done through the 21st Century Cures Act, and it endangers the lives of veterans who need our help the most.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.