Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman. Let me also thank Ike Skelton, who came to this compromise and led that back in 1993, when I was a freshman right out of Desert Storm, came here to the Congress and began to learn about compromise.

Something that's being thrown around here today that those of us who have service in the military understand, combat effectiveness is measured by small unit cohesion. It is measured by your buddy to your left and to your right. That's the reality. This Congress is about to dump a policy onto the services which the service chiefs have already told us can have a detrimental impact upon our warriors in harm's way. Why are we doing this? This is discrimination.

The Supreme Court allows Congress to discriminate on how our services are put together--if you're too tall, if you're too heavy, if you don't run fast enough, if you can't do the pushups, if you're color blind. There's a whole array. Why do we do that? Because we want the very best able and fit to do what? To go fight and defend America.

I end with this: Tolerance does not require a moral equivalency. Think about it. This is a bad thing to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

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

I rise in reluctant support of Senate bill 3860, as amended, which would require reports on the management of Arlington National Cemetery. The reason I say reluctant support is the Veterans' Affairs Committee itself, really

we didn't take up the issues on Arlington, and we allowed the Senate and the House Armed Services Committee to do their work, but the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, we did not do ours. And so this is very unfortunate that we're proceeding with this bill in a lame duck session when we have not even held hearings ourselves on this issue. So I cannot speak from firsthand, other than my conversations with the Secretary of the Army myself, but the committee did not hold hearings on this piece of legislation at all.

Since the founding of Arlington in June of 1864, the cemetery has been revered as the ``crown jewel'' of the national cemetery system. It is the final resting place of several American Presidents, Supreme Court justices, and over 300,000 veterans and their families. Like most Americans, I was deeply disturbed and appalled by revelations by the Department of Army Inspector General's report regarding the mismanagement and possible criminal behavior at Arlington.

I do want to praise Secretary of the Army John McHugh for his swift action in response to this report, also for his following up on the recommendations of Secretary Geren's request for the investigation. So, once again, I extend my compliments to my good friend, the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh.

Secretary McHugh has installed a new management team that is reaching out to the National Cemetery Administration at the VA for their help in implementing the needed changes to defend Arlington's reputation and ensure that the cemetery operations are conducted in a way that honors our warriors who have given so much in the defense of our Nation.

No family should ever have to wonder if their loved one is accounted for or buried in a proper location. They should assume that all has been done correctly. Our heroes and their families deserve the highest possible standards with regard to burial honors, and this bill seeks to prove this assurance.

This bill, as amended, requires several reports on the new management team's progress to improve Arlington's IT systems, the contracting practices, organizational structure, and report on the feasibility of transferring the operation of Arlington from the Department of the Army to the VA's National Cemetery Administration. While additional reports will be beneficial, I believe it is important to first allow the Army to complete its ongoing investigations of these same issues. Different studies on overlapping issues can provide unique insights; however, providing these simultaneous investigations, performed by different agencies, might also create unnecessary hindrances to the ongoing studies.

Also, with regard to the final provisions on the feasibility of transferring the operation of Arlington National Cemetery to the VA National Cemetery Administration, I want to offer my recommendation that Arlington National Cemetery remain under the jurisdiction of the United States Army. It is hasty to assume that we should immediately just transfer the jurisdiction. It is very important for us to define what, in fact, are the challenges and what are the problems. It is so much like an American: We hear a problem, and we want to run out and create a solution before we totally understand the scope of our challenge. So before we get the cart before the horse, let's not run out there and talk about, Let's immediately transfer.

Now I can assure you that when the Department of Interior was not doing their job, what I believe, correctly, I made a suggestion that we should transfer those cemeteries from the Department of Interior to the VA. I don't have a problem. You can make that a holder out there. You get people to do what they believe are the right things to do, and maybe that is what Senator McCaskill was attempting to do here. So I have to respect her in setting a benchmark to do that, and maybe that is, in fact, what her goal here is, to make sure that everybody does what they are supposed to do.

The VA does an excellent job of administering the National Cemetery Administration. However, ANC imposes a comprehensive array of issues and logistical arrangements that are completely unique and separate from those at the VA that they, in fact, handle. For example, in addition to coordinating approximately 25 military funerals per day, the Army's duties at Arlington, including the responsibility for the horse teams, for the caissons, and guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns, is truly unique. Certainly Arlington National Cemetery can benefit by emulating VA practices that are applicable, and such information sharing is, in fact, underway. But ultimately, Arlington National Cemetery, under the jurisdiction of the United States Army is where it should remain until we can achieve some answers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume, I do associate myself with the gentleman's comments regarding Chairman Skelton Ike not only being a very dear friend, but I really appreciate him stepping forward with these hearings.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Bob Goodlatte.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, a classmate of mine, and I respect all he has been able to do on the Ag Committee.

I will yield now 3 minutes to another Virginian, Congressman Robert J. Wittman.

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

What I would like to comment on now, Mr. Speaker, really deals with a problem in the House rules that I think needs to be corrected as we go into the next session of Congress. So with regard to jurisdiction, lines of jurisdiction with regard to committees and how bills are assigned through the Parliamentarian, at the direction of the Speaker, I sent a letter to the Speaker dated December 9, 2010.

This Senate bill that came to us, it appears that it invokes the jurisdiction also of the House Armed Services Committee. The Army personnel manage and operate Arlington National Cemetery, and the cemetery is under the jurisdiction of the United States Army. So Chairman Skelton properly moved out and held his hearings in the House Armed Services Committee relative to Arlington. So I can begin to understand why the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee then allowed the House Armed Services Committee to proceed.

Then when the Senate conducts their hearings, and they did so, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee passed their bill, and immediately they sent it to us in a lame duck session.

Now, you say, why wouldn't this bill also have either a joint referral or to the Armed Services Committee, or why did it only go to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee?

Well, you go to the House rules. So even though I sent the letter to Madam Speaker Pelosi saying, please invoke jurisdiction of the House Armed Services Committee, the response obviously was ``no'' because here we now are on the House floor doing this bill by a committee who had never done hearings on the bill.

The problem is in the House rules itself. When you turn to the House rules, I think this has got to be an error in the drafting of these rules. Rule X, 2 cites that cemeteries under the United States in which veterans of any war or conflict are or may be buried, whether in the United States, abroad, except cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the VA, it goes to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This has to be corrected. So, hopefully, when you go into the next Congress, this rule gets corrected so that the cemeteries that are under the jurisdiction of the United States Army, such as the two, Old Soldiers Home and Arlington National Cemetery, that that legislation regarding that jurisdiction rests with the Armed Services Committee. The VA Committee, we have oversight; but with regard to this, it's a jurisdictional question, and it needs to be corrected.

And that's why you have two individuals here managing a bill on the floor that really the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, should also be here. But I want all the Members to know that's why this is happening.

I suppose, yes, we can all be very upset with regard to the management and the markings of some of these graves; but those of us who have had the opportunity to go to Arlington and see the job in which the Old Guard perform, it is pretty extraordinary. I was last there on Monday of Thanksgiving week. I joined Lieutenant General John Kelly, his family and hundreds of his friends at the chapel at Fort Myer. We all left the chapel. We proceeded down the windy road, down the hill, led by the Army Band, a platoon of soldiers, horse-drawn caisson that carried the body of John's youngest son, Lieutenant Robert Kelly, killed in Afghanistan.

The wind was crisp. The sky was blue. The oak and maple trees were clutching onto their red, yellow, gold and light-green leaves. Others were slowly drifting to the ground. The sun shined brightly upon them all.

Each grave marker properly and perfectly aligned in columns, in rows and angles, each was offset by rich green grass signifying the etchings in our national book of remembrance. That's my firsthand account of having attended the funeral of Lieutenant Robert Kelly at his burial on Thanksgiving week. That has been replicated since that Monday of Thanksgiving week, and it has been no different than how the Old Guard pays their honor and respect to so many, and it goes back so far in time.

That rich heritage is what causes each one of us to rise when we get so concerned with regard to mismanagement of such a sacred ground.

With that, I'm going to ask all Members to support the legislation.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, H232, The

Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker, in reviewing S. 3860, as amended, a

bill to require reports on the management of Arlington

National Cemetery, it appears that the bill invokes authority

under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed

Services.

Army personnel manage and operate Arlington National

Cemetery and the cemetery is under the jurisdiction of the

United States Army. Accordingly, as the Ranking Member of the

Committee of jurisdiction, I request that an additional

referral be made to House Committee on Armed Services to

provide for its full consideration of this bill.

It is important that the Committee on Armed Services be

permitted to weigh in on this legislation prior to further

consideration, as that Committee has legislative and

oversight jurisdiction over the Department of the Army, and

held a hearing on management issues at Arlington National

Cemetery on June 30, 2010.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Steve Buyer,

Ranking Republican Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I don't know since when the GI bill all of a sudden became the greatest hallmark of Democrats. It's of both parties, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to express my concerns about the way, once again, we are legislating outside of regular order, leaving undone significant fixes needed to correct known substantive and technical problems with the bill. And this all goes back to the way the GI bill came to us. It came to us as a political instrument, not properly even vetted through the House. It came as a political instrument in a highly Presidential election time.

The House committee was doing its work on modernizing the Montgomery GI bill. Stephanie Herseth and John

Boozman were doing yeoman's work, under the guidance of Chairman Filner, and they were doing everything that they were supposed to do to that bill. Sure enough, they took a bill that was drafted by one staffer who had not been properly vetted in the Senate and sent that bill over to the House without even being vetted here by the House. And then Speaker Pelosi wanted to do that, and it was all about, at that time, jamming John McCain.

Now I voted for that when it came here to the House floor. The reason I did that is I wanted a seat at the table. I wanted to be able to correct problems with the bill. We cited 10 or 11 of the problems that we had with the bill, all of which were ignored.

So what happened? All these inequities, all these poor drafting errors, the challenge that the administration even had with regard to the implementation of the legislation. Oh, once again we'll just do something quickly, with expediency, bypass the House process, ignore regular order, dump it on the administration, and then force them to fix it. And then, if they don't do things according to the timeline for which we foresee, then we'll just beat 'em up. This is like the worst way to legislate.

If you want to do proper governing, you don't worry about winning and losing and who's getting credit, whether a Democrat is getting credit or a Republican is getting credit. You don't think about winning and losing. Good government is about the collective ideas of all people of this House.

So, once again, what are we doing? Here comes a bill, once again, coming from the Senate to us on issues that we haven't even had a chance to pore through. Oh, let's come to the floor. Let's cheerlead. Let's embrace. And you're doing it, once again, in a lame duck session.

Then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, in 2006, when Democrats took over the House, what did Dennis Hastert do? He held a conference and he told Republicans: Respect the will of the American people. We will not legislate our agenda in a lame duck.

What are you doing? You're ignoring the will of the American people and trying to jam everything imaginable that you can before you, quote, lose power. So let's do gays in the military and let's jam everything imaginable you can. Let's do this. You're creating even more inequities in this bill than you think that you're correcting.

In order to understand my concerns: Originally the bill cost nearly $80 billion and was not paid for. We could be headed for a similar situation by passing this bill today without going through regular order.

I received a long list of technical changes from the VA that would have facilitated successful implementation. Unfortunately, the majority continues to block my efforts for these changes. In the end, the House once again will have no say in a major piece of legislation expanding veterans' benefits.

So be careful getting out there and pounding your chest thinking that you've done a lot of great things or that you've had all the input. We have not.

I am concerned about the policy change in this bill that ends living stipend payments to veterans during periods of time between semesters. You had better think about what you are about to vote on. This cut in veterans' benefits will hit veterans and their families hard, especially during the holiday season, since many schools dismiss for the winter break veterans who would receive their living stipend check during that period. I can't think of a worse idea than to cut a veteran benefit during the Christmas and holiday season. All Americans know that the month of December is already a strain on their pocketbook, and to have your paycheck cut during a devastating time period is pretty tough.

My second policy concern deals with the national cap on tuition and fees. Current law allows the VA to pay up to the maximum in-state tuition and fees for each veteran enrolled in an institution of higher learning. This means that each State has a different maximum amount of tuition and fees that the VA is required to pay. While the revised benefit of up to $17,500 a year will be a windfall for most veterans, there are veterans in several States, including Texas, New York, and New Hampshire that will see their tuition and fees payments reduced. Veterans in these States will be forced to pay for this reduction from other sources or from their own pocket.

For example, a veteran who is a junior studying at Baylor University in Texas currently receives roughly $26,000 in tuition and fee payments per year. Under this bill, that veteran would receive only $17,500 in tuition and fee payments for a difference of $8,500 per year; or, $34,000 over a 4-year time period will be cut from their benefit.

This bill should have included a provision to grandfather the current students in these high-cost States so they are not required to make up the difference in tuition, but the Members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not get that change, or any other change, for that matter. By removing these interval payments and excluding a grandfather clause, the drafters of this bill were able to pay for their other enhancements of the bill. However, these enhancements are being done at the expense of some veterans to the benefit of other veterans.

It is one of those things which we are always cautious about, cutting one veteran's benefit to the benefit of some other veteran. If you went out and surveyed the average student veteran, I believe they would oppose improving their own benefit at the expense of one of their comrades.

What is even more disturbing to me is that by rushing this bill through without regular order, the majority and the veterans service organizations who support this move don't seem to have a problem with either of these issues that will hurt some of America's veterans in the name of expediency and of the apparent need to score some kind of point here in the lame duck.

I am surprised that the veterans service organizations have jumped on board in support of this bill despite the fact of its cuts of veterans benefits. I am quite certain they are very uncomfortable with me standing here on the House floor talking about the veterans service organizations' support of the cut in veterans benefits.

In a press release on Tuesday, the commander of the American Legion, Jimmie Foster, stated: ``This is great news. This bill rectifies the inequities and shortcomings of the well-intentioned but incomplete Post-9/11 GI Bill and makes it whole.''

It does not. We create even more inequities and make the matter even worse.

In testimony in July before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America stated: ``The discussion draft of Senate 3447 will improve the new GI Bill and ensure that all student veterans have access to the most generous investment in veterans education since World War II.''

At the same hearing, the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated: ``Senator Akaka, your legislation addresses every area of concern the VFW has with improving the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We cannot say enough about the noble intent driving this legislation.''

Madam Speaker, I guess we have a few questions for the veterans who are members of these veterans service organizations. Number one, are your Representatives in Washington really standing up for you when they endorse a bill that cuts your living stipend during the holidays?

Please understand what this does. When an individual finishes their fall semester and before they start their spring semester, their benefits are cut. At some schools they might be out 5 weeks, or 3 weeks, or 4 weeks. We are going to cut their stipend during that break between semesters.

The other question is, are they really representing the view of a veteran when they endorse legislation that cuts tuition payments for some veterans by thousands of dollars while trying to benefit a veteran in some other place?

While I am retiring here at the end of this Congress, I am sure that Members of the new majority will want to hold hearings on the shortcomings in the Post-9/11 GI Bill and look for ways to improve the bill early in the next Congress. That way we can further consider the VA's and the committee's concerns, avoid unintended consequences, and do so in a bipartisan manner, and, most importantly, using regular order and making sure everyone participates in the process. That is

the best way for us to govern a country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, since this bill has not gone through the committee, I think we ought to just go through regular order and go to the next bill. As a matter of fact, we'll shut the book on this, Madam Speaker. What do you think?

Suspend? I ask to be recognized.

I ask to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Hearing no objection----

I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

Hearing no objection----

Oh. So as a sitting Member of the House, the Speaker chooses not to recognize another sitting Member. Is that correct?

So the discretion of the Speaker here is not to recognize a ranking Republican member on a bill that is about to be heard that was never gone through the process of the committee.

I ask to be recognized.

And if the chairman is not here to present the bill, shouldn't we go to the next bill, and we would therefore withdraw this bill?

I ask to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

Wow. Was treating another Member with dignity so hard, Madam Speaker? I don't believe it was. You see, you are right. It is within your sole discretion to recognize a Member. But you chose to exercise the power of the gavel, Madam Speaker. Therein lies the problem.

I am here. The chairman is not here. He wants a bill brought under suspension that was not gone through regular order of the committee over the objections of the ranking Republican. That is an abuse of the process. As a matter of fact, he wants to bring a bill under suspension and then do this sort of political treachery of doing a manager's amendment, and I object to it all. And he is not even here to do it.

So what I am asking is, Madam Speaker, for regular order. If he is not here to pull off this political stunt, then we should just proceed and this bill should be withdrawn. It is the right thing to do by the American people to stop these tactics.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I also thank you for your friendship and your personal counsel over the years. Likewise, I am so pleased that your wife continues to do well.

And to my friend, Mike Michaud, Mike--if I may have the latitude to address him by his first name, Mr. Speaker.

I don't mean to be nostalgic here for the moment, but I think when Members look back, they really don't remember all the difficult and challenging moments, they remember the things that really bring joy to their life. And one of the joys that I have in life is getting the opportunity to meet some real genuine people. And that's what Mike Michaud of Maine is.

You are a genuine human being and it is your nature, it is your character,

it is your moral compass, the reason I use the word ``genuine.'' You are truly one of the individuals that I will miss when I look back at Congress. I really will, Mike.

I only wish your conference had made you chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I really do, because you and I could have done a lot of great things together.

In reality, the unwritten history will be the success of the committee occurred not by your current chairman, but because of the work-around solutions that we were able to do, by you and I working together, with Stephanie Herseth and the Sergeant Major and Vic Snyder. So history may not credit you, Mr. Michaud, for all the things you've done, but I'm going to stand on the floor and let everybody know all the great things that you have done for veterans in this country, and I am very proud of you. So as I stand here and I think of not only myself, but I think about my colleagues, I want to make sure that you deserve the full measure.

When I think about over 20 years ago, frankly, Saddam Hussein was pretty stupid. He decided to take seven of his Iraqi divisions and he invaded Kuwait. He committed incredible atrocities upon the people of Kuwait, and raped and pillaged the city of Kuwait City.

And when the President then immediately sent the 101st and the 82nd Airborne divisions as a blocking force to then protect Saudi Arabia, they had to build up the logistics of Saudi Arabia itself and activate reservists. Not since World War II had there been such a deployment, not only of the air, but of the sea and the activation of the Guard and reserve and bringing Seventh Corps out of Europe.

You see, Saddam Hussein decided to pick a fight, and he also then took on the United States at a time when the United States was its strongest. We had completed the Reagan build-up. Reagan built up our forces. A lot of good judgments were made back in the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s. Les Aspin, then the chairman of the committee, even though he made some policy changes with regard to how soldiers were going to be paid, and those pay issues got resolved later, in the latter part of the 1990s, Les Aspin, and then the Democrat control of the Armed Services Committee, though, worked then with Ronald Reagan and built up our force. And that was about standing down the Soviet Union. So as we then stood down the Soviet Union, we had a military that was extraordinarily powerful. And Saddam Hussein took on America at a time when we were the most powerful.

Now, with regard to our combat experience, the combat experience for the Gulf War was truly also of value, in that our senior level leadership, the senior NCOs, the First Sergeants, the Sergeants Major, the Colonels, the General Officer Corps, the Admirals, they were Vietnam veterans. So as we went into Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the leadership in that war, they said, well, we know what happened during Vietnam, and they always prided themselves that if they ever got themselves in another fight they were going to do things differently. So there was going to be no such thing as rotation. That's what happened in Vietnam.

So when we arrived in theater in the first Gulf War, duration was the theme, not rotation, meaning we will be here so long as it's necessary to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. As it turns out it was 100 days. That was a 100-day ground war. What isn't counted, though, is everything that it took to pull off a 100-day ground war.

Bringing out so many of the guardsmen and reservists was extraordinary. What was amazing about all this is that that type of a call-up of all the guardsmen and reservists to then support the active elements actually was bringing America to the war. When you pull out a teacher, you pull out someone who leads the church choir, you pull out someone who is the butcher and the baker and you then send them to war, you're bringing America to war. And America really at the time was a little shocked.

I mean, some of us, for myself the call-up was in 3 days. I got a notice and I was gone in 3 days. And it was a pretty extraordinary moment, not only in my life but in a lot of people's lives.

When I think back at all of this, I really compliment the extraordinary leadership, not only of then Dick Cheney, but also of Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf. But I also look back with great pride of the men and women in theater. I believe that the active duty, of whom had always sort of looked down and chastised the reserve components, had new respect for the reserve components. And I look back at the Persian Gulf War, it was a defining moment, I think, at the time for our country.

With regard to the veterans, Mr. Michaud, you are absolutely correct. With a number in excess of 170,000, when you think of the number of those of us that actually went--I don't know the exact number, probably around 700,000 of us that went--that is a very large percentage that have some form of an illness.

I was pretty startled by all this. I do recall what it took to sort of expose that some bad things had happened; the fact that we had blown up one of the Army depots that contained some mustard and sarin gas, and that plume was so large that it went over tens of thousands of not only our own troops, including myself, but also about 10,000 of the U.K. And to think that the DOD was not forthcoming with that information to our veterans for a long time is very disturbing.

I do recall, when I got home I did not have the physical strength to even run down to the end of the lane. That is only about 1,000 feet. And here I am, 30 years old, physically fit, come back from war and I don't have the physical capacity. Something had happened to me, and I didn't know what it was. I do recall that my wife wanted me to go down to the VA or to go to the doctor, and I refused to do it. I refused to do it because, I said, Joni, if I go, they're just going to say it's in my head. I made it up. It's not real. Yet something had happened to my body.

When I then came to Congress, I can assure you when I look back at it, and all of us know when you run for Congress it takes about a year and it takes a lot out of you physically, and I was very sick during that 1 year when I first ran for Congress. When I got here, I decided that I had to accept and get out of the denial mode and step forward and provide voice to a lot of my comrades, and that is what I chose to do.

It is very difficult, especially all of us as public figures, to be willing to step forward and put a face, especially your own, on something like that. But I chose to do that. I remember working not only with the gentleman from Illinois but also Joe Kennedy at the time. That is one of the first things I learned about politics, too. When you take someone like Joe Kennedy and you marry him up with Steve Buyer, when we brought something to the floor, nobody voted against it.

So the things we were able to do by opening the VA to make sure that these veterans got their access to health care, then creating the compensation for undiagnosed illnesses, that was pretty radical. But we knew that something wrong had happened, and we wanted to make sure that our compassion was real, so let's make sure we take care of the families. And that is exactly what we sought to do.

I want to congratulate the gentleman for bringing this resolution. We have moved on to the second Gulf War, and now we are beginning to complete Iraq and we are still in Afghanistan. It is almost as though we have forgotten what happened to the veterans in the first Gulf War, and so many of them continue to suffer from these physical ailments. So when you take a moment like this, you are really saying unto the American people, ``Hey, we've still got some concerns. We still have some very real challenges out there.'' And as I leave, I know that my comrades are in good hands.

So I want to thank all of you for supporting the VA and for supporting my comrades. They were there for us and you remember, and for that I am forever grateful. Thank you and Godspeed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to compliment the authors of the legislation in your work on this.

But I would like to point out something before we get too excited about whether we are doing a good thing today. Number one, we are--but what are we leaving on the table? If we are trying to address the issue with regard to prescription drugs and making sure that that drug gets in the hands of the right person and that the drug is safe, there is a bigger issue out there. It is called the drug safety issue and whether America's closed system is truly closed. And what we are leaving on the table is an issue which this Congress has not addressed, and it's John Dingell's drug safety bill. And not only is it that, its electronic pedigree, red paper pedigree with regard to drug safety, but the biggest one of all, I would say to the Colombian drug cartel, is that you're in the wrong drug business. We have got all the laws imaginable to whack you pretty hard for your cocaine and your marijuana. But the great threat that is occurring right now to America are drugs coming into the country that we know are not safe.

Now, let's do a quick little math because I am leaving Congress, and this is an issue that those of you who are still here, we, as a Nation, you, as legislators, must address this. We have 11 international mail facilities, 11 of them. Our ports of entry. You add UPS at Louisville and FedEx at Memphis, 13. Every day we have on average of 35,000 pharmaceutical packages coming into the international mail facilities. They are coming in because people are getting them on the Internet, and they are going to some drugsave.com out of Canada or whomever. They think it is safe, and they think that that drug is just like what I can get down at my local drugstore, and they order it. And it's coming through illicit, bad operators who are preying on America's sick and elderly.

Every time FDA goes out there and checks, we are finding that, on average, 80 percent of those drugs are either adulterated, knock-off, or they are counterfeit. Now let's do the math: 13 international mail facilities times 35,000 average per day, that gives you 455,000 of these pharmaceutical packages per day, times 365. Now we are in excess of 160 million pharmaceutical packages. We are talking boxes of drugs, not just little ones. We are talking boxes of drugs. And if 80 percent of that number are counterfeit, knock-off, adulterated drugs, we are in excess of 132 million.

Now, of a smaller percentage that the FDA actually finds and discovers, we have a return-to-sender policy. That's why I wanted to address this. Can you believe that? FDA has a return-to-sender policy. So here we are--I compliment you. We are going to say, Okay, if these drugs aren't good, we want to make sure they don't get into the hands of the people that the doctor doesn't want them to. So we are going to say, Let's destroy them. But as a Nation, our FDA has a return-to- sender policy. So when they discover in an international mail facility that the package is adulterated, knock-off, or counterfeit drugs, they don't destroy them. They do not destroy them. They then take that package and send it back to the bad actor. The bad actor must think, America, what a great place. What a great place. I will steal people's money; I will prey on the sick and the elderly; and the American Government will actually send my counterfeit drugs back to me so I can do it again.

So I just want to make this point. Your legislation is absolutely wonderful. But I want to point out, there is a really large problem out there. So before we get too excited that we are doing something really good--and we are but on a much smaller level. Because if we are going to allow millions of people to gain access to these types of drugs, we know that these drugs do not metastasize in the body in the way in which the doctors are intending them to do. And people actually think that the drugs they are taking are exactly what they can get down at

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3219, as amended, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010.

This is an omnibus benefit and health bill that contains many provisions to help veterans and their families. I am glad that we were finally able to work this out with the Senate and, really, pass many of the provisions that the House had passed previously in the summer of 2009.

This bill contains many provisions authored also by my Republican colleagues, including:

The Pat Tillman Scholarship Initiative that would require the VA to publish a list of college scholarship opportunities for veterans on their Web site. This initiative grew from a meeting that my staff had with the family of the U.S. Army Ranger and former NFL star, Pat Tillman.

After Tillman's death in Afghanistan, his family and friends founded the Pat Tillman Foundation. Foundation staff informed my staff that they were having problems educating and reaching potential veterans for college scholarships they were awarding. This provision will assist groups like the Pat Tillman Foundation by informing veterans of scholarship opportunities for veterans by placing them on their Web site.

We also have the reauthorization of the Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program. This program is run by the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service and provides grants to local homeless veteran providers for job-skill training and counseling. This program has been lauded as one of the most successful programs in the Federal Government in combating homelessness.

I am also pleased that we were able to include an expansion of this program to local homeless providers that offer job skill training for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children. This is an initiative that I have worked on, and I appreciate the cooperation of the majority to make this, in fact, a reality.

I took up a cause with regard to addressing this in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration went into a lot of the inner cities and wanted to help recruit women with children, as we were doing the welfare reform initiatives, and bring them into the military. So they joined the military and then they also brought their children. When they left the military, some actually returned to welfare and some became homeless. The fact that we have women with children in America who are homeless, I could not stand that thought.

So I want to thank the majority for working with us in making these provisions a reality.

This expansion was originally drafted as H.R. 293 and was part of the Nobel Warrior Initiatives that I introduced in January of 2009. Unfortunately, this program is needed, as I said, because recent reports also by the VA indicate 9 percent of the homeless veteran population is women, many of whom have children. These individuals obviously require a safe and supportive environment in a private setting in which they can regain their footing and acquire skills which will lead them to meaningful employment. Once that occurs, they become self-enriched, and they also become better mentors to their children.

I hope that this expansion, more homeless veteran providers, will expand beyond their normal male-dominated services to assist women as well as homeless veterans with children.

Another one of my provisions in H.R. 3219, as amended, would allow veterans to purchase additional amounts of Veterans Group Life Insurance coverage. Currently the amount of VGLI coverage that a veteran can have cannot be changed. Because the level of coverage must be made within the first year of a servicemember's discharge, and because most of the separating servicemembers are young and single, many select levels that become insufficient as they age and have families. The provision would allow veterans to purchase up to $400,000 of VGLI coverage in $25,000 increments every 5 years until age 60. The cost of such increases would be offset by premiums, so there would be no direct cost to taxpayers.

This provision would also allow veterans to tailor their life insurance coverage to fit their current needs and provide greater security for their families, and I am glad it was included in the bill.

The final provision I would like to highlight was introduced by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, John Boozman. This provision would establish a program to make grants of up to $200,000 to encourage the development of new assistive technologies for specifically adaptive housing.

The goal of this provision is to encourage the development of technology to provide the maximum level of independence to severely disabled veterans in their daily living. This includes emerging technologies such as voice command operations, integrated computer- managed functions, and fall prevention devices, and I am pleased this measure will also authorize much of the needed funding for this goal.

I am also pleased this bill includes many other improvements for veterans and their families, such as creating a new veterans energy- related employment program; increasing training for veteran employment specialists; increasing protections for deployed servicemembers under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act in regard to cell phone contracts; providing numerous VA life insurance program improvements; increasing the plot and burial allowance for deceased veterans; authorizing aid and attendance benefits for veterans with traumatic brain injury; increasing the number of veterans who can begin receiving independent living services; expanding eligibility for adaptive auto grants to disabled veterans and servicemembers with severe burn injuries; and requiring a National Academies study of best treatments for chronic multisymptom illness in Persian Gulf veterans.

It authorizes the funding for construction of medical facilities and/ or community outpatient clinics in Long Beach, California; Billings, Montana; Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. We also have an increase in here with regard to the hospital in New Orleans.

Under section 902 of title IX under ``construction,'' the modification of authorization for the amount of medical facility construction projects previously authorized for the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, increases from $625 million to $995 million.

The reason I stopped to highlight that is I am going to exercise some disappointment, because we were never able to achieve a joint facility and agreement to actually save money by having some jointness here between Tulane and LSU and another one of the hospitals. This is a lost opportunity. It is really unfortunate. So we are going to be building another one of these big state-of-the-art VA hospitals, and it costs now about $1 billion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

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

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the highly capable staff of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, not only the full committee, but also the subcommittees. It seems that each session of Congress both bodies pass so many different individual pieces of legislation that we have picked up as a now regular course of doing business creating an omnibus bill.

So we do a puts and takes, back and forth between the House and the Senate, and we actually then create a much larger bill that we then bring to the floor that can best serve the interests of America's veterans.

And that's in fact what we have here. This is really a very good bill. I couldn't begin to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how many hours have gone into the development of this bill. It is a bipartisan bill. I really appreciate the work of not only my colleagues in the Senate, but also their staff.

At this time I would specifically like to mention the leadership of Colonel Malcom Shorter. I would like to thank you for your leadership, sir, on the committee. I recognize it and it is appreciated. And to your counterpart, your pilot, an Air Force colonel himself, Kingston Smith, the Republican House staff director. The two staff directors I think worked very well together, both having worn the uniform. You don't get caught down in the fights between political parties. You think about serving the men and women in uniform. And for that I want to congratulate both of you for keeping everyone focused.

I also want to thank David Tucker. David is someone that I have known for a lot of years on the committee. I find him to be a man of distinct honor and integrity. You have always been a very straight shooter, David. Also, he is one whereby if in fact you raise an issue of law or I have raised an issue of law, we diligently dive into it and we get our interpretations and we also get Kingston Smith for his read. But I have had a distinct pleasure, David, of working with you over the years, and I want to recognize your valuable contribution not only in this bill, but what you have done over the years. I consider your talent valuable, but I consider your friendship even more.

To Juan Lara, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, the staff director, thank you very much for your work with Mike Brinck on the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Not only do you two work together, but you also take the leads of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Dr. Boozman. And, as I said many times, this subcommittee sets the pace not only for the House Veterans' Affairs Committee itself, but I think you set the pace for the entire Congress. This little subcommittee, how you work together interoperably, you can't even tell who is a Republican and who is a Democrat. For that, I congratulate you. I think America would rejoice and may even be surprised that somebody in this town thinks about being an American first. So I want to thank you for your leadership and being a pacesetter.

Kimberly Ross, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs staff director, along with Brian Lawrence, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance Republican Staff Director, both are also pacesetters and don't always get all the attention that they should. Brian, along with Mike Brinck, these are two individuals that are also incredibly talented. Mike, I really appreciate all the years that I have had the opportunity to work with you. And, Jon, I would say for you, you're an individual for whom much is expected. I truly believe that.

I guess I am at that point in my career, Mr. Speaker, that I am being a little nostalgic because I recognize individuals, that their diligence, hard work, it's invaluable to the committee; it's invaluable to Congress. There's a reason that we call them professional staff, because that's exactly what they are. They are very professional in their work. Both committees can actually go to a professional staffer and they're going to tell them exactly the read or give them the recommendation for the best interest in how to serve the Nation. And so these individuals whom I have read truly live up to the status of being a professional staffer here in Congress.

I also recognize that this is probably the last markup I will have with the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. I want to share this. It has truly been a distinct honor to serve the Nation's veterans, Mr. Speaker. I serve the men and women who wear the military uniform. I help take care of their families, the spouses, the children, the widows, the orphans, the consequences of war, the consequences of their service; and it has been a distinct honor to work with a lot of very talented people to do that.

I get upset at times in the committee, and I can have disagreements even with my friends in the veterans service organizations when individuals play their politics or they don't follow the rules or they don't follow the process. And we're meant to be a bipartisan committee. When that doesn't happen, I can get really upset pretty quick.

So I'll end with saying that, Mr. Speaker, it has been a distinct honor. I have also enjoyed serving with you, Jesse.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for another bipartisan bill H.R. 5360, despite my deep disappointment that certain veteran-friendly small business provisions passed unanimously by the Veterans Affairs Committee have been stricken from the bill before us today. Those provisions directly would have improved opportunities for small businesses owned and controlled by service disabled veterans.

H.R. 5360, is a bill that is a compilation of several bills reported to the Veterans Affairs Committee by the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity under the leadership of the distinguished Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and I appreciate her work and that of Ranking Member Boozman and Chairman Filner for bringing this bill to the floor.

At a time when small businesses are facing a continuing shortage of credit, I am delighted to see that the bill includes section five which I introduced to reestablish the VA's small business loan program that expired in 1986. Under section five, VA would be authorized to guarantee small business loans up to $200,000 made by financial institutions. VA would also be required to contract with a financial institution experienced in this field to manage the program. I had originally introduced a similar provision in H.R. 293 and H.R. 4220.

However, I am deeply disappointed that the Democrats on the Small Business Committee led by Chairwoman Nadia Velazquez once again chose to favor other small business set aside groups over service disabled veteran-owned small business by objecting to section 21 which I also included in this bill by amendment at the Full Committee markup. Section 21 would have merely leveled the playing field for service disabled veteran-owned small businesses when competing with other set aside groups for VA contracts by changing the word ``may'' to ``shall'' when awarding sole source contracts to service disabled veteran-owned small businesses.

The Veterans Affairs Committee unanimously passed both of these provisions in hope that an additional source of credit backed by the VA will encourage lenders to increase the amount of credit and that a level playing field is the right thing to do for small businesses owned and controlled by service disabled veterans. It is truly unfortunate that Chairwoman Velazquez and Speaker Pelosi continue their history of opposing provisions that would benefit disabled veteran- owned small business.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate indeed that about 10 percent of homeless veterans are women and a significant percentage of those veterans bring children with them. So I am also pleased that the bill includes another provision which I introduced to establish a Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program for Women or HVRP-W. This program will focus on homeless programs specially designed to serve homeless women veterans and veterans with children. A veteran, especially one with children at their side should never be homeless.

Section 13 of the bill contains a provision introduced by Mr. Boozman to encourage research and development in the field of assistive technologibs used to adapt the homes of severely injured veterans. This authority will make a disabled veterans' homes just a bit more livable.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our young people need positive role models. That is why the provisions I introduced as part of H.R. 4220 are an important part in this bill. Section 19 would provide a small temporary stipend to veterans who are new teachers in rural areas. Therefore, we are not only helping veterans to become teachers in rural areas, but we are also showing our next generation of America's what it means to make a commitment to the nation.

Section 20 would also provide one-year internship jobs at VA for up to 2,000 graduates of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program. These positions will provide service disabled veterans with work experience while helping VA meet the needs of their fellow veterans.

Anyone who has renovated a home recently knows the cost of construction continues to climb more rapidly that the overall inflation rate. Severely disabled veteran often need their homes adapted to make them more livable. That is why Mr. Boozman introduced provisions to make a small increase in the grants made under VA's Specially Adapted Home program. These provisions would increase the existing small grant to $13,756 and the large grant to $65,780.

Mr. Speaker, section 24 contains provisions also introduced by Mr. Boozman as H.R. 4259 known as the WARMER Act. This bill updates the types and maximum values of energy efficiency loans that VA may guarantee while directing VA to standardize its appraisal process to ensure energy efficiency improvements are properly valued.

Finally, section 25 is a provision introduced by Mr. Moran of Kansas to make it easier for severely disabled veterans to use the Temporary Residence Adaptation or TRA grant. TRA grants make small grants up to $12,000 available to adapt the homes of family members with whom a severely injured veteran is living. Normally, TRA grants are deducted from the veterans overall grant, thus reducing subsequent grants. The provision would allow VA to issue up to 25 grants in Fiscal Year 2011 without reducing the veterans total award. This will help determine whether disabled veterans would be more likely to use the TRA grant.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure the Members of my support for this excellent bill despite the removal of several provisions that would benefit veteran-owned small businesses at this critical time and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5360.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you are moving fast today. Had I known, I would have been here for the first bill. And I am serious about that comment. You have to give us adequate time to get to the floor so we can respond to the bills.

I am recognized, and I am making a statement, because I am really upset. I am upset because this is the way the majority has been running the Congress, Mr. Speaker.

If you want to know why the American people are upset with the majority, it is because of this. If you don't give adequate notice to even a ranking member to be on the floor on bills, people are going to know. Do you know why they are going to know? Because I am going to tell the story. Rules matter around this place.

Now, let me go back to the first bill. The only reason I mention this is because I want to thank--you just passed it, by voice vote.

Let me tell you what is upsetting, something else that matters around here, and it is the Parliamentarian. You drop that bill, and the Parliamentarian makes those bills go to the appropriate jurisdictions. Something may get added by amendment to a particular bill that some other committee thinks that they want a view on it. Then what happens is the majority, not giving a doggone about the minority, puts bills onto this floor, whatever they want to do, so long as it is in comfort with someone else. They don't care about the minority or what our views are, so they just put it on the floor.

So once again we try to change the ``may'' to ``shall'' language in the last bill. The Small Business Committee prevents it. Now, why would you do that? Why would the Small Business Committee, run by the Democrat majority, alienate the disabled veterans? Why do you keep doing this? We keep appealing to you to place the disabled veteran in a higher position with regard to other set-asides, and you won't do it.

Mr. President, don't stand up and tell the American people, well, now we are going to focus on small business. Or, Madam Speaker, don't stand up and say we are now going to focus on small business. What did you do at the moment of calling? At the moment of calling, when you had an opportunity to do something about it, what did you do? Don't give the American people rhetoric. What did you do at the moment of acting? Oh, no, no, no, we are not going to do it.

Oh, you do your stimulus bill. I want to respond to a $1 billion small business bill on veterans. No, we're not going to do that; we are going to do VA construction.

Now you say, oh, my gosh, what are we going to do to stimulate small business? You had your opportunity over and over and over.

So, yes, I am pretty upset, Mr. Speaker. I am really upset. I am upset at what happened on that last bill. I am retiring. I am leaving Congress. And I am hopeful that the chairman--that you are as pugnacious as you can be and focus on that to help that disabled veteran, and change that language, Mr. Filner, from ``may'' to ``shall,'' and I think it will go a very long way.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the bill in front of us, I rise in support of it. It

is the Veterans Benefits and Economic Welfare Improvement Act of 2010. It is a bipartisan, omnibus veterans benefits bill that includes many provisions that help veterans and their families.

H.R. 6132 will assist transitioning servicemembers by creating a new program through the Veterans Employment and Training Service to assist unemployed veterans who are not eligible for other VA education programs by creating a new on-the-job training and apprenticeship program.

The bill also codifies programs that the VA is currently using to transform its disability claims processing system and provide veterans the right to equitable tolling when a claim reaches the Board of Veterans' Claims.

The bill would assist pensioners by excluding the repayment of medical expenses or medical insurance awards or settlements from the veteran's annual income when determining their pension amount.

I am also pleased and also appreciate the chairman's supporting of the provision by the ranking member, Henry Brown of the Subcommittee on Health to increase the pension for Medal of Honor recipients to $2,000 a month.

Mr. Speaker, while I am sure we all agree that the provisions in this bill are laudable, it is unfortunate that certain provisions have also been left out.

Ranking Member Boozman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity was also successful at the full committee markup of this bill in adding a provision that would have protected the veteran's Second Amendment right to bear arms. His amendment would have prevented veterans from losing this right without a judicial decision or due process. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

The provision was supported by the American Legion, AMVETS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the NRA, and the Gun Owners of America. Chairman Conyers of the Judiciary Committee raised questions on the jurisdictional issue regarding the provision and insisted that it be taken out.

Here we go again. So to America, bills are coming to the floor, people are yanking things out of the bill. So what is happening is we are rushing bills to the floor, rather than allow them to be properly vetted through all jurisdictions. We are not going to do that.

So what do we have? We have a bill now on the floor that had a gun provision taken out of it right before an election. That is great. I am not running again, so those of you who are pleased that I guess the gun provision was taken out of the bill, you can answer to your constituents about why that happened.

So I'm, once again, bothered. It's unfortunate. I am leaving an institution that I love and respect, but, boy, am I bothered with the way it is being run.

I ask Members to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3685, which was introduced by my good friend, the deputy ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Cliff Stearns of Florida.

This bill would make it easier to find employment opportunities in their area and promote the VetSuccess Web site.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to discuss his legislation.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida on his legislation. He's worked hard on it. As you can tell, he has put a lot of time and effort into this. The only thing I would add is that it's not just veterans--those whom have been recently discharged from the military. We also have guardsmen and reservists who are returning. We just had a brigade return

from Tennessee. Of this brigade that has just returned from a theater of war, 40 percent do not have jobs waiting on them. Think about that. Forty percent of those just now coming back from a theater of war don't have a job waiting on them. So it is not just the veterans who may have served the Nation many years ago. It is those who are returning who are still active guardsmen and reservists, yet now they don't have that job to come back to. We had better be leaning forward on this one.

Mr. Stearns, I want to thank you for your legislation. I want to thank the chairman for supporting the legislation.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 3685.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

I rise also in support of H.R. 3787, as amended, introduced by my good friend, the former Command Sergeant Major Tim Walz of the Minnesota National Guard. I know where he wanted to go with this legislation. I think what he has done is really struck the right compromise. I discussed this even at the time in the committee. We don't like to think of America as a coalition government, but in fact that's what we are. We are States out there for which we all have to recognize the constitutions of each of the States and we are bound together by a U.S. Constitution. Different States have their own militia but at the same time they're also under the United States Code, and can be called upon. When they're called upon to serve in Federal status, in particular serving the Nation at war for a period of greater than 180 days or are injured on active duty, they gain access to not only being called a veteran but also to veterans' benefits.

But this is a pretty good title. It is an honorary title with regard to those who served greater than 20 years in the National Guard and they had not been called to active duty for an extended period of time, which would make them eligible for VA benefits under the statute. So I think what the gentleman from Minnesota has tried to do is to strike the appropriate balance, and I believe that he has found it.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 3787, as amended. I congratulate the former Sergeant Major on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5630, a bill which would set certain requirements for professional level jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program.

In 2009, the Government Accountability Office reported that one-third of the VA's regional offices reported that their VRE staffs did not have the skills needed to properly serve the disabled veterans who come to them for help. Although it is our understanding the VA currently hires counselors with at least a master's degree in vocational rehabilitation counseling, it does not require counselors to obtain and maintain certification in their field from a national certifying organization. There are also no educational qualifications for VRE employment coordinators.

To ensure that the VA rehabilitation counselors are the best qualified in their field, H.R. 5630 would set a minimum hiring standard at a master's degree and would require counselors to obtain national certification within 5 years of hiring and to maintain these qualifications. Employment coordinators would be required to have a relevant bachelor's degree, to obtain certification within 5 years, and to maintain these qualifications. Counselors and coordinators who fail to comply with these standards will be subject to termination.

Mr. Speaker, these are commonsense provisions which are designed to ensure that our disabled veterans are receiving the best vocational rehabilitation and employment services possible.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5630, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, opposition to this bill.

For that very moment, the chairman compliments the gentlelady for having legislation immediately upon a concern. It is so much like an American. We don't even have the patience to figure out where the problem is but let me tell you about our solution.

Now, what we're supposed to do around this place is do a little homework, do a little investigation, find out what's going on, have the distillation of the facts, find out what the facts are in the first place. Oh, no, no, no. Let's run out there and act like we are ``doing something'' when we don't even know what the heck we're doing. It's the reason the American people get upset with us and they get upset with this institution; especially now, when you get so close to an election, you have to protect and guard yourself against politics over substance.

This bill, by forcing it onto the floor at this moment in time, is exactly that. This bill condones a controversial practice the VA called retained asset, or alliance accounts, for paying Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, proceeds to the families of deceased servicemembers. Now, we all thought that the statute was being followed. It wasn't. Someone years ago down at the VA changed it.

In the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we have not had adequate time to address the issues on this bill. There's no record on which we base and form policy decision or evaluate the views of the life insurance experts. None of us had the opportunity to do that.

One of the executives from Prudential came by the office. We had a very good discussion about relevant concerns I can address a little bit later. The use of these accounts in place of the SGLI lump sum payment called for in the Federal statute is currently the subject of a Federal fraud lawsuit in Boston by five plaintiffs against the Prudential Life Insurance Company. Prudential is the VA's contractor managing the SGLI program and making the payments. New York's attorney general has launched an investigation of Prudential as well.

My colleagues on the committee know next to nothing about a very complex issue, its history, the controversy surrounding it. Indeed, I would like to know more about it myself before having to even vote on it. I'm learning something new almost every day I deal with this issue. The issue requires careful deliberation by the committee. We should not have to base decisions on media reports in Bloomberg or The Washington Post.

I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, when we marked up the bill in the committee, I raised very pertinent issues. I sought to work with the author of the bill. She had no interest in working out an amendment on the language. I thought what would happen is, well, I won't offer the amendment in the committee. We'll work this matter out as we learn more.

The chairman even spoke about this week we were to have done a hearing on this bill. We get notice on Friday that they want to bring it to the floor. We're supposed to be doing a hearing on the bill this week before we bring it to the floor. But what's happening is is this body, called Congress, is in a panic.

I yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, the challenge before the body is we now have legislation before us which is on an issue which is now being thrown into the courts, and we've got a statute that's not being followed by the executive branch; and it is completely within the rights of Congress to speak, but we've got to be very careful. Do we understand the scope and issues at hand? I submit we do not, and we are eagerly rushing something onto the floor. Let me go a little bit further.

My colleague Mrs. Halvorson argues that this bill does not change the existing payment authority and does not address the legality of retained asset accounts for SGLI purposes, but I'm also a lawyer, and I respectfully suggest that it may do just that. I am not alone in my view with regard to this concern because I have been talking with other lawyers about my legal analysis of this present challenge.

After the markup, one of the representatives of one of the veterans service organizations, of whom I've had disagreements with over the years, came up to me and told me that he agreed with the concerns. Members of the committee actually regret that I didn't offer the amendment to actually strip the bill, and I guess I never thought that this would actually come to the floor until these matters got addressed.

It's laudable to require the VA to counsel SGLI beneficiaries on their benefits, the payment methods available to them. It's very clear in the statute, very clear already in the statute, but this bill goes a lot further and specifically requires counseling about something the bill euphemistically terms, quote, maintaining the payment, end quote. Now, what is that? What do you mean ``maintaining the payment''? The statute is already very clear what you're to do with the money when it comes to widows and orphans or other beneficiaries. This is a reference to the retained asset account payment method without calling it that.

I think it is reasonable to ask how Congress can tell the VA to counsel anyone about Prudential's practice that may be illegal without well informing them of what Prudential is doing may be illegal and is being challenged in a Federal class action today unless, of course, we change the law and expressly make the practice legal, which Mrs. Halvorson maintains she's not doing. But somehow, I don't think that full disclosure is going to occur.

I completely understand how my colleagues might find all this rather confusing, and I don't find it funny either.

I'm also confused by Mr. Chairman's report statement after the Bloomberg article was released that he was outraged, and the VA should demand answers. Did we get answers, and now everything is all right? Did the VA's self-investigation resolve everything?

The White House has also made a statement, calling this an unacceptable business practice. Have the unacceptable business practices been identified? Have they been stopped? Has something changed, and now Congress should mandate that the VA give specific counseling on the ``outrageous'' and the ``unacceptable'' business practice? That's what this legislation does.

Mr. Speaker, this complex issue is directly before Congress in the form of H.R. 5993, as amended. We should not be effectively ratifying this practice by requiring the VA to counsel beneficiaries about it. Instead, we should give careful scrutiny and make sure we understand it sufficiently to decide whether to expressly authorize it in the law for the future. Our servicemembers and veterans and their families in the VA, Prudential, and life insurance experts should all have an opportunity to weigh in on the record. I want to make sure that it's clear and that I'm not taking a position for or against the practice of retained asset accounts.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the retained asset accounts now, as they have been questioned, are receiving scrutiny and appear not to match the payment authorized in the United States Code. So when you pull out the United States Code--and we're talking about the present statute--so you turn to title 38, section 1790, and then you turn to (d). It says: ``The member may elect settlement of an insurance under this subchapter either in lump sum or in 36 equal monthly installments.'' It doesn't say anything in the statute about retained asset accounts. Now, why is that? Go back to legislative history. When this statute was written back in the mid-1960s, there as no such thing as a retained asset account.

So what has changed? There is a commonly accepted business practice in America with regard to retained asset accounts. Now, in the latter part of the 1990s, the VA struck an agreement with Prudential then to adopt that business practice. But what they did is they adopted a business practice that is contradictory to the United States Code, the statute. So this bill before us is about to say, the VA should provide counsel to the beneficiaries about a business practice that is not even legal. That's like saying,

Okay, in title 10, it is illegal to smoke marijuana, but in another statute Congress is going to provide counseling on the proper use of an illegal substance. And you say, Steve that's crazy. You are absolutely right, that's crazy, and that's why this legislation before us today is crazy. We should not be saying we're going to provide counseling with regard to some agreement that the executive branch struck that's in contradiction to the statute.

Now, you've got the VA and Prudential. Immediately they do a powwow. Oh, my gosh, we've got a problem. We've got to try to define this. The White House has made a statement. Ooh, it says ``unacceptable.'' We've got to figure out--come together and strike an agreement.

This is Groundhog Day, Mr. Speaker. The agreement that the executive branch struck with an insurance company back in the latter part of the 1990s was not authorized for them to do because the statute says how SGLI payments are to go directly to beneficiaries. It doesn't say you can do three or four other types of payment schedules. It only says two of them. You either give them a lump sum or you do 36 monthly installments. It's very clear.

So this agreement is just as worthless as the agreement they struck in the 1990s when it comes to the law. I guess maybe it makes them feel better. Maybe they hope that it takes the heat off. This thing, this agreement is about politics, it is about substance and legality, and it is about public relations. But if you really want it to be about the law, then what we should do is look at the law; and we need to say, Okay, then maybe you need to amend the Code. If you have to amend the Code to say, We want to permit retained asset accounts, then that is, in fact, what we should be doing.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FACT SHEET

Actions for Improving the Alliance Account Program, September 13, 2010

VA takes seriously the concerns raised regarding the

Alliance Accounts (AA) and has reviewed the program to ensure

that beneficiaries are protected, being treated fairly, and

accorded the utmost care and respect. A full explanation of

terms up-front, education about options, and financial

counseling to assist in decision making will provide the

transparency that will continue to ensure confidence in this

important program.

By the end of October, 2010, VA will make the following

modifications to ensure:

All benefits due under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance

(SGLI) or Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policies are

received by the beneficiaries in a secure, timely manner.

Beneficiaries are enabled in making deliberate and

responsible decisions with the assets they receive.

Beneficiaries making financial decisions have been educated

and assisted in understanding the complex issues before them.

They will be made comfortable in competently managing

benefits in accordance with their own time lines.

Options available to the beneficiaries will be clear,

competitive, and at no cost to the beneficiary.

The entire settlement process is dignified and respectful

of the individuals involved.

The specific approaches that VA, working in consultation

with other Agencies, has determined it will pursue in the

near term are:

VA will provide better clarity of payment options by using

a new Claim Form that requires the beneficiary to

affirmatively choose one of three clear payment options:

Lump Sum Alliance Account (Retained Asset Account).

Lump Sum Payment--Paid out in full via a check sent to the

beneficiary. VA is exploring Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

36 Monthly Installments--Paid out in full via monthly

installments, as mandated by law, sent to the beneficiary

(this three year payout option has always been available to

beneficiaries).

If the beneficiary does not select an option, the SGLI

Program will utilize the AA. The AA provides immediate access

to funds, while permitting beneficiaries the time necessary

to study their options and make deliberate, responsible

financial decisions.

In addition: A VA-supplied letter will be enclosed with

every Claim Form and every AA Kit that will explain in a

clear and complete manner:

That the insurance proceeds have been deposited into an

interest bearing account at rates competitive with similar

types of ``demand accounts'' (e.g., checking, money market,

etc.).

The current interest rate and the fact that the interest

rate may vary over time.

That the beneficiary can immediately write a ``check'' for

the entire payment or any lesser amount.

That AA funds are retained by Prudential until paid out.

That while AA is not FDIC insured; it is backed by

Prudential and State Guaranty Associations. The National

Association of Insurance Commissioners has established the

following Web site for additional consumer information:

http://www.naic.org/consumer_

military insurance.htm

That free, professional independent financial counseling is

available to all beneficiaries for a period of two years or

as long as they have funds remaining in their AA.

VA will also take the following actions:

VA will require Prudential to conduct a follow up contact

with beneficiaries whose accounts remain open after six

months to confirm beneficiary understands the terms of the

account.

All SGLI/VGLI related information, including FAQ's, Web

site information, handbooks, etc. will be modified to clearly

and completely explain all aspects of the AA and all options

available to the beneficiary.

VA will clearly designate the source of correspondence by

removing the SGLI seal from all ``checks'', forms, and

correspondence and replacing it to show that it is from

Prudential, with the subtitle of ``Office of Servicemembers'

Group Life Insurance''.

VA will identify additional opportunities to encourage

beneficiaries to use the free financial counseling service.

VA will, in coordination with DoD, improve support to

Casualty Assistant Officers and Transition Assistance Program

(TAP) Personnel by helping to prepare additional training

materials and instruction.

VA continues to carefully monitor this program and remains

committed to making any improvements necessary to ensure that

Servicemember and Veteran beneficiaries are well-protected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

September 13, 2010.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here is our challenge. I don't know what about these other groups, Mr. Chairman, that you have had a chance to talk to. I just spoke to the new chairman of the American Legion.

I am going to take all of it. I will even take your time, if you will give it to me.

You know, you can stand up and say, Well, this veterans group supports it, and this one doesn't. You cited the American Legion. I just spoke to a brand-new commander of the American Legion who supports my position, so I don't know what the disconnect is.

I can assure you, now that I am speaking about the fact that there is a legal problem, the fact that I informed the executive of Prudential with regard to this way forward that you have signed with the VA does not get you out of the hot water that you are in. There is a legal problem here. And the four corners of the document that we have before us is actually legislation that uses this clever and artful language about maintaining the lump sum

payment. What do you mean, ``maintaining the lump sum payment''? It's almost like a code word for saying, We want to maintain our current business practice of the retained asset account because that's what the way forward agreement is. It's very clever. This is very wrong.

Here is what we ought to do, Mr. Speaker. I have never done this before on the House floor with anyone in my 18 years, but I am going to ask this of Chairman Filner: Would the gentleman ask that this legislation be pulled from the floor at this time so we may work out the details rather than having this heated debate? You said that you would have a hearing on it. Let's go have a hearing. Let's work this out with our leading experts, and let's bring a work product to the floor that we can be proud of. And I want to ask the gentleman if he would withdraw this legislation.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, all right. Reclaiming my time, this was a very good moment for bipartisanship, to actually bring a work product to the floor that we could all agree on. And I am greatly disappointed, Bob, that you made that judgment call. But this is not right. This isn't right at all.

The suspension calendar, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to be for legislation that is noncontroversial. It is supposed to be for legislation that the parties have worked out in a collegial manner, not to take something for which there is utter and complete disagreement, not to take something that there have been no hearings on, not to take an issue that it now finds itself in attorney generals' investigations and class action lawsuits, and we are just going to, like, bring it to the floor, even though we are going to pass a statute that is in complete contradiction of an existing statute. What are we doing?

I mean, this is really a time-out moment here. This is a time-out moment, Mr. Speaker. And it is very, very bothersome to me that something like this would be placed on the suspension calendar, especially when this was the week in which we were supposed to be holding hearings on it.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are anxious to get out of here and you want us to adjourn for an election, but don't take legislation to the floor that is not properly prepared for the floor. And you have permitted that to occur, and that is not right. It is wrong, in my book.

But you are the majority, and you have actually been able to show that you can do as you please, and the rules don't always matter, I guess, around here.

But I want the Record to reflect my views on what is happening here. Also, I will file additional views with the bill and the report to explain in greater detail the legality of what I feel that we are facing, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this bill does not become law until it is fixed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3199 the ``Emergency Medic Transition (EMT) Act.'' This bill, introduced by Congresswoman Harman, was originally included as an amendment to the House passed version of the Health Reform bill. Congresswoman Harman, at my request, kindly withdrew the amendment so we could properly vet this with our VA Committee professional staff. I want to thank Congresswoman Harman for allowing my staff to review the bill and contribute suggestions. I am pleased to announce my full support of this legislation to help veterans and states alike.

By funding this HHS program that will award grants to state entities with jurisdiction over emergency medical personnel training and licensing, states will be provided the resources for our veterans to receive the EMT training and certification they need, help fill state shortages in emergency medical technicians, and avoid duplicative training courses and costs. Further, the included GAO study will help Congress assess the program's effectiveness going forward.

Licensing and certification of returning veterans for civilian jobs for skills that they have been trained and are well-experienced in from their military service has been a long standing point of frustration and a barrier to many returning veterans finding meaningful employment in a timely manner. Recent reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate among our newest cohort of veterans is at an alarming rate of 19.3% for the month of August. It is my hope that H.R. 3199 will alleviate a portion of this problem and help our combat medics get their EMT licenses with as little bureaucratic red tape as possible.

Lastly, in order for this bill to meet its full intent and potential, it is critical for the Governors of our states to swiftly create consistent licensing standards necessary to fill EMT shortages and put veterans to work. I look forward to working with the states to accomplish this goal.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, H.R. 6127, the Extension of Health Care Eligibility for Veterans who Served at Qarmat Ali Act, to extend the VA healthcare enrollment period for certain veterans who served in the Qarmat Ali region of Iraq.

Soon after the conflict in Iraq began in 2003, Army National Guard units from my home state of Indiana as well as units from Oregon, West Virginia, and South Carolina and National Guardsmen mobilized as individual augmentees from across the nation were called up and tasked with guarding the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility.

For 6 months--from April to September--these National Guardsmen from across the nation bravely guarded the plant, located just outside Basra. Their mission was to secure the facility and provide protective services for the independent contractors who were working throughout the region to restore Iraqi oil production.

Recently, they have been notified of their possible exposure to a toxic chemical known as sodium dichromate and are being asked to come forward, be evaluated, and enroll in VA's Gulf War Registry. Health problems associated with such exposure include respiratory issues, skin lesions, and burns. Contact may cause increased rates of lung cancer and other ear, nose, throat, and skin disorders.

The men and women of these National Guard units completed their mission--and served our country--well. It was hard for me to discover that despite their safe return, their service may continue to put them at risk. In particular, I am very sensitive to the Hoosiers who may have been injured.

Under current law, combat veterans who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations during a period of war after the Persian Gulf War or in combat against a hostile force during a period of ``hostilities'' after November 11, 1998 are eligible to enroll in the VA health care system, notwithstanding sufficient evidence of service- connection, for five years following separation from service.

This includes members of the National Guard and Reserve who were activated and served in combat support or direct operations as long as they meet certain requirements.

When Congress established the 5 year period of open enrollment for VA health care it was with the understanding that some wounds of war may not manifest themselves until years after a veteran leaves military duty.

But despite our best intentions, we are finding that some veterans are faced with combat-related health problems that were not apparent even 5 years after the veteran re-entered civilian life. This creates a gap in services that unfairly penalizes these men and women for conditions out of their control.

I commend the VA for their efforts to contact these veterans and create the Qarmat Ali Registry to aggressively track and treat veterans exposed to this toxic chemical as part of the Gulf War Registry.

However, it is also important for them to have immediate access to VA's high quality health care system. The use of VA health care will help to identify potential medical conditions, and provide counseling, immunizations, and medications to prevent illness. Appropriate preventative care can substantially improve health outcomes and the quality of life for our honored heroes.

But, some of the Qarmat Ali veterans who separated from service following their deployment in 2003 may no longer be eligible to enroll in VA health care under the 5-year open enrollment period. As a result, they must first file a claim and seek a service-connected disability rating before enrolling in the VA health care system and gaining access to the comprehensive medical care VA provides.

Unfortunately, the claims process can be both time-consuming and daunting. It is unacceptable that the Qarmat Ali veterans, already subjected to harmful toxins during service to our country, must now await the outcome of a lengthy and sometimes adversarial claims processing system before they can enroll in VA health care.

The VA was established expressly to care for veterans like these who willingly left their homes, families, and lives to protect and defend our nation and may find themselves sick or injured as a result of such selflessness.

H.R. 6127 would correct this unintended gap in services by extending the enrollment eligibility period for Qarmat Ali veterans by 5 years from the date of notification. This would allow them to immediately begin receiving services at VA medical facilities for any and all of their health care needs.

Breaking down barriers to needed care is the very least we, as a grateful nation, can do for the men and women who fight for our freedoms, in Qarmat Ali and around the world.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6127 and these brave American heroes.