Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SUBCOMMITTEE, WHO DID SO MUCH
GOOD FOR OUR VETERANS
THROUGHOUT THE NATION, MR.MY
SHAUD OF MAINE.
-- MR. MICHAUD OF MAINE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
AS MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE STATED, OUR VETERANS'
SAFETY SHOULD BE ONE OF OUR TOP
PRIORITIES IN THE VETERANS'
*** ASSAULT PREVENTION AND
HEALTH CARE ENHANCEMENT ACT
DOES JUST THAT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK CHAIRMAN
MILLER AND RANKING MEMBER BOB
FILNER, THE CHAIR OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE, AS WELL AS ALL MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE HOUSE
VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING IN SUCH A BIPARTISAN
MANNER TO GET THIS VERY
IMPORTANT HEALTH CARE BILL TO
THE FLOOR.
WITHIN H.R. 2074, I WOULD LIKE
TO HIGHLIGHT TWO IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS.
YOU HEARD THE CHAIRWOMAN
BILL VERY
ELOQUENTLY, THINK PROPROVISIONS
I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT IN
SECTION TWO, WHICH WAS OFFERED
BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH
CHAIR MS. BUERKLE WILL CORRECT
THE TROUBLING FINDING IN A
G.A.O. REPORT.
THE REPORT ESSENTIALLY FOUND
THAT VETERANS AND EMPLOYEES
WERE EXPOSED TO PERSONAL
DANGERS, INCLUDING ***
ASSAULT.
THIS IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE AND
I WANT TO THANK THE
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR FOR OFFERING
THAT BILL TO US.
AND THE SECOND PROVISION I'D
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT IS IN SECTION
3, MY PROVISION OF THE BILL.
SECTION 3 WOULD PROVIDE
MUCH-NEEDED FLEXIBILITY IN THE
WAY THE STATE VETERANS HOMES
GET REIMBURSED FOR THE CARE
THEY PROVIDE VETERANS WHO NEED
THAT CARE FOR A
SERVICE-CONNECTED CONDITION OR
A SERVICE-CONNECTED CONDITION
THAT'S 70% OR GREATER.
WILL ENSURE THAT THESE
VETERANS ARE NOT PUT OUT ON THE
STREET.
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH HAS
BEEN WORKING ON THIS BILL FOR
WELL OVER TWO YEARS, AND NOW I
AM FINALLY PLEASED TO SEE THAT
THIS BILL IS MOVING FORWARD AND
HOPEFULLY MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE WILL SUPPORT
THIS VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.
WE HAVE TO DO ALL THAT WE CAN
TO HELP OUR VETERANS AND THEIR
FAMILIES AND THIS BILL IS A
BILL THAT TAKES INTO DIFFERENT
APPROACH TO DEALING WITH OUR
VETERANS AND THEIR PROBLEMS.
SO WITH THAT, MINNEAPOLIS, I'D
LIKE TO YIELD -- SO WITH THAT,
MADAM SPEAKER, I'D LIKE TO
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME TO THE CHAIR -- TO THE
RANKING MEMBER.
THE
RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM THE 35TH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MR. CARTER.
THE
RECOGNIZED.
I'D LIKE TO THANK
THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIRMAN AND THE CHAIRWOMAN TO
INCLUDE H.R. 754, THE VET DOGS
THIS ENSURES THAT THEY HAVE
FACILITIES.
TITLE 38 -- IT AMENDS TITLE 38
TO ALLOW MEDICAL SERVICE DOGS
IN ADDITION TO SEEING EYE DOGS
AT VETERAN FACILITIES.
THEY HELP WITH ALL TYPES OF
BRAIN INJURY, SEIZURES, MANY
OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS THAT
THESE SERVICE DOGS ARE MAKING
OUR VETERANS BETTER.
BOTH THE A.D.A. AND THE RAJA
BILL.
THE V.A. DIRECTIVE ALLOWED
SERVICE DOGS INTO THEIR
FACILITIES GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS.
THE V.A. IN THAT
EFFORT, BUT THIS BILL MAKES ITS
DIRECTIVE PERMANENT.
THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THESE
VETERANS, AND IF YOU SEE THEM
WITH THEIR DOG AND YOU KNOW
THAT THE FRIENDSHIP AND THE
LOVE AND AFFECTION AND
ASSISTANCE THESE DOGS PROVIDE
IS INVALUABLE TO OUR INJURED
VETERANS.
HARRY TRUMAN ONCE MADE A
STATEMENT, IF YOU WANT A FRIEND
IN WASHINGTON, D.C., GET A DOG.
WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE
SURE AND WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE
SURE BY THIS BILL THAT OUR
VETERANS DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE
THEIR FRIEND OUTSIDE THE DOOR.
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
PHIL DAHLHAUSSER I HAVE NO
FURTHER SPEAKERS.
WE HAVE NO FURTHER
SPEAKERS.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
PHIL DAHLHAUSSER I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I WISH WE HAD GONE
FURTHER AND I ASK THE CHAIR --
I MET WITH G.A.O. THIS MORNING
AND THEY SAID THEY COULD FOLLOW
UP REPORTS SUCH AS THIS WITH
INVESTIGATION OF PERSONNEL
ACTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND
REPORT BACK TO US IN TERMS THAT
DO NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE, YOU
KNOW, CIVIL SERVICE THINGS
ABOUT REVEALING THAT THEY WOULD
PROVIDE A THIRD PARTY KIND OF
REVIEW OF THE PERSONNEL ACTIONS
THAT MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER
I'D BE PREPARE TO WORK WITH THE
CHAIR TO HAVE SUCH AN
INVESTIGATION.
BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE
IS IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT
THAT SAID REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET IN
HUNDREDS OF CASES AT SOME FEW
SELECTED SITES THAT THEY
EXAMINED, IT HAD NEW REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE
FIRST ONES.
WHAT GOOD IS MORE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS GOING TO DO?
THERE HAS TO BE SOME ACTIONS ON
THE PART OF THE VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION THAT SAYS TO OUR
EMPLOYEES, THAT SAYS TO OUR
VETERANS, THERE SHALL BE NO
*** ASSAULTS ON OUR SITES.
AND YET WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE,
OH, WE'LL ADD A FEW MORE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, THAT DOESN'T SEND A
MESSAGE BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
SO LET'S TRY TO FIND A WAY, AND
I'LL WORK WITH THE CHAIR TO DO
THIS, TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO
OUR AGENCY, NOT THAT WE'RE
GOING TO PASS ANOTHER FEW
RULES, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
THIS SERIOUSLY.
WE'RE GOING TO DEMAND THAT THE
EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT FOLLOW
WHAT IS CLEARLY STATED IN RULE
AND LAW ABOUT REPORTING ALLEGED
OF *** ASSAULT THAT
THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THIS.
THEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN
TERMINATED IN MY OPINION.
THIS WAS SO SERIOUS AND WOULD
IS HAVE SENT A GOOD MESSAGE TO
THOSE WHO MIGHT PERPETRATE OR
ARE VICTIMS OF SUCH ASSAULT,
SENT A MESSAGE.
I DOUBT THEY WERE REMOVED FROM
THEIR JOB.
I HOPE THE V.A. COULD
CONTRADICT ME.
I HOPE THERE IS ANYTHING MORE
THAN A NOTE THAT THEY SHOULD DO
BETTER IN THE FUTURE.
I HOPE I'M WRONG.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THE HISTORY
OF PERSONNEL ACTIONS IN
RESPONSE TO ACTS SUCH AS THESE
HAVE NOT BEEN ONE THAT GIVES
CONFIDENCE TO ME THAT WE HAVE
SENT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.
SO I WOULD WORK WITH THE CHAIR
TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO SEND
THE RIGHT MESSAGE FROM THIS
CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE THAT THESE ACTS WILL NOT
BE TOLERATED.
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
I COMMIT TO WORKING
WITH THE RANKING MEMBER WITH
FURTHER REPORTING ON THESE
INCIDENTS.
I WOULD ADD THAT THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION
DOES IN FACT INCORPORATE EVERY
SINGLE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
G.A.O. GAVE TO THIS COMMITTEE
IN THEIR REPORT.
WITH THAT I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AND I ENCOURAGE ALL
MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION AND YIELD BACK THE
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
2074, AS AMENDED.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
2/3 HAVING RESPONDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, THE RULES ARE
SUSPENDED, THE BILL IS PASSED,
AND WITHOUT OBJECTION THE
MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON
THE TABLE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE TITLE IS
AMENDED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MADAM SPEAKER, I
MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND
PASS H.R. 2302 AS AMENDED.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BIG.
UNION CALENDAR
NUMBER 155, H.R. 2302, A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED
STATES CODE, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
TO NOTIFY CONGRESS OF
CONFERENCES SPONSORED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR.
MILLER, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. FILNER, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF H.R.
2302, AS AMENDED.
IT AMENDS TITLE 38, UNITED
STATES CODE, THAT DIRECTS THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS TO NOTIFY
CONGRESS OF CONFERENCES,
CERTAIN CONFERENCES SPONSORED
BY THE V.A.
IT'S A GOOD GOVERNMENT BILL.
TRANSPARENCY.
IT ALSO SHIFTS FROM V.A. AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE G.I.
BILL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
FROM CHAPTER 30 TO CHAPTER 33
THIS LEGISLATION IS
SPONSORED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
OUR SUBCOMMITTEE OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY, MR. STUTZMAN OF
INDIANA.
MY THANKS GOES OUT TO HIM AS
WELL AS THE RANKING MEMBER, MR.
FILNER, AND ALSO THE RANKING
MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MR.
BRALEY OF IOWA, FOR THEIR
EFFORTS.
WITH THAT I YIELD TO THE
TWISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY, MR. STUTZMAN, TO
FURTHER DESCRIBE H.R. 2302, AS
AMENDED.
YIELD HIM AS SUCH TIME AS HE
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER, AND THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
H.R. 2302 AS AMENDED CONTAINS
PROVISIONS FROM THREE DIFFERENT
BILLS.
SECTION 1 IS THE TRANSPARENCY
CONCEPTS IN THE ORIGINAL BILL
BUT RESPONDS PARTIALLY ABOUT
THE SCOPE OF COVERING
CONFERENCES BY INCREASING THE
REPORTING THRESHOLD TO
CONFERENCES COSTING $20,000 OR
MORE.
THE CATALYST OF THIS PROVISION
WAS A LARGE V.A. CONFERENCE
HELD IN SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA,
THAT LASTED 11 DAYS AND
FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES OUT OF A TOTAL COST OF
$221,000 -- $221,500 AT A TIME
WHEN EVERY TAX DOLLAR IS
PRECIOUS, IT IS OUR DUTY TO
ENSURE THAT V.A. CONFERENCES
SPEND THOSE DOLLARS WISELY.
THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE
PROVISION IN ANY ECONOMIC
SITUATION, NOT JUST IN TODAY'S
STAGNANT ECONOMY.
SECTION 2 INCLUDES THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAIRMAN MILLER'S
BILL, H.R. 2388, THAT WOULD
STREAMLINE THE COMMITTEE'S
THE V.A.
IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT
V.A. INCORRECTLY USES THE
HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY
AND ACCESSIBILITY ACT, OUR
HIPAA, TO DENY OR DELAY
PROVIDING INFORMATION NEEDED TO
RESOLVE OUR CONSTITUENTS'
CASES.
THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
FOR THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT DUTIES
ARE DEEMED TO BE AN AUTHORIZED
DISCLOSURE UNDER THE PRIVACY
ACT AND HIPAA.
3 INCLUDES PROVISIONS
PRODUCED BY THE RANKING MEMBER
OF THE -- INTRODUCED BY THE
RANKING MEMBER THAT WOULD
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO INCLUDE
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT
INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS ON THE
DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE.
MADAM SPEAKER, TITLE 38, UNITED
STATES CODE, SECTION 4212
REQUIRES FEDERAL CONTRACTORS TO
IMPLEMENT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
PLAN TO HIRE VETERANS AND TO
REPORT ON THE SUCCESS OF THAT
PROGRAM.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE
SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE
LARGELY IGNORED DATA THAT
SHOWED THE EXTENT TO WHICH
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS ARE
COMPLYING WITH THE LAW.
WHILE I AM AWARE OF RENEWED OF
FEDERAL CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE
TO ENFORCE THE LAW, MR.
MCNERNEY'S PROVISION WILL HELP
FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION TO THIS
ISSUE AND I THANK HIM FOR THIS
IMPORTANT PROVISION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, EACH OF THESE
PROVISIONS WILL INCREASE THE
TRANSPARENCY OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS AND IMPROVE OUR
ABILITY TO HOLD THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT
JUST FUNDING BUT ALSO ITS
I AM ALSO HAPPY TO REPORT THAT
MY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN SCORED BY
C.B.O. AS HAVING INSIGNIFICANT
COSTS.
SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT H.R. 2302, AND I THANK
RANKING MEMBER BRALEY FOR HIS
SUPPORT FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S
WORK, AND I YIELD BACK TO THE
CHAIRMAN.
THE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, WE
ENDORSE THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE AND I WOULD YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS ON H.R.
2302, AS AMENDED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AND ONCE AGAIN
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION AND
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
2302, AS AMENDED.
AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
2/3 HAVING RESPONDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, THE RULES ARE
SUSPENDED, THE BILL IS PASSED,
AND WITHOUT OBJECTION THE
MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON
THE TABLE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE TITLE IS
AMENDED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
MADAM SPEAKER, I
MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND
PASS H.R. 2349, AS AMENDED.
THE
THE BILL.
UNION CALENDAR
NUMBER 159, H.R. 2349, A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED
STATES CODE, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
TO ANNUALLY ASSESS THE SKILLS
OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES AND
MANAGERS OF THE VETERANS'
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR.
MILLER, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. FILNER, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
SUPPORT STRONGLY H.R. 2349 AS
AMENDED, THE VETERANS' BENEFITS
TRAINING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2011.
IT WAS CREATED BY THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND
MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, MR. RUNYAN.
IT ALSO WAS WORKED IN
COLLABORATION WITH THE RANKING
MR. MCNERNEY.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE MR.
RUNYAN TO DESCRIBE H.R. 2349,
AS AMENDED.
I YIELD SUCH TIME AS HE MIGHT
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS
RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
RISE IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2349 AS
THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPONENTS TO
THIS LEGISLATION AND THEY'RE
ALL AIMED TOWARD ENSURING
VETERANS' BENEFITS PROCESS IS
MORE EFFICIENT, ACCOUNTABLE AND
FAIR FOR ALL VETERANS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
THE FIRST PIECE OF THIS
LEGISLATION ADDRESSES THE
MINIMALIST APPROACH THE V.A.
HAS ADOPTED IN COMPLYING WITH
EMPLOYEES' SKILLS CERTIFICATION
MANDATE THIS SECTION WILL
REVERSE THE CURRENT TREND
WITHIN THE V.A. OF USING THE
EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATION
PROCESS SOLELY TO INCREASE AN
EMPLOYEE'S PAY GRADE BY
INTRODUCING A PILOT PROGRAM TO
CONDUCT A BIANNUAL ASSESSMENT
FOR ALL CLAIMS PROCESSORS AND
MANAGERS.
THE KEY TO THIS WILL BE
INDIVIDUALIZED MEDIATION.
THIS WILL FACILITATE INDIVIDUAL
ACCOUNTABILITY OF EMPLOYEES
WHILE ADDRESSING DISPARITIES IN
EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING AT THE
PILOT SITES AND EVENTUALLY
THROUGHOUT THE V.A.
SECTION THREE PREVENTS THE
OFFSET OF BENEFITS BY PAYMENT
TO REIMBURSE EXPENSES OCCURRED
AFTER ACCIDENT OR THEFT.
BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
EXEMPT REGULAR IMBURSTMENTS OF
EXPENSES RELATED TO ACCIDENT,
THEFT, LOS OR CASUALTY LOSS
FROM DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL
INCOME.
THE NEXT SECTION IMPLEMENTS THE
USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
WITHIN THE V.A. TO PROVIDE
NOTICES OF RESPONSIBILITY TO
CLAIMANTS.
THIS ALSO REMOVES THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS WHICH
HAVE SLOWED DOWN THE PROCESS
FOR VETERAN'S DISABILITY
IN TOTAL, THIS SECTION WILL
INCREASE EFFICIENCY AN HELP
MODERNIZE THE V.A. BY
AUTHORIZING MORE EFFICIENT
MEANS AVAILABLE FOR
COMMUNICATION WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY REMOVING
ADMINISTRATIVE RED TAPE.
SECTION FIVE CLARIFIES THE
MEANING OF THE V.A.'S DUTY TO
ASSESS CLAIMANTS IN OBTAINING
EVIDENCE NEEDED TO CLARIFY --
TO VERIFY A CLAIM.
AS A RESULT, THE SECTION
ESTABLISHES A CLEAR AND
RESPONSIBLE STANDARD FOR
PRIVATE RECORD REQUESTS AS NOT
LESS THAN TWO REQUESTS.
IN ADDITION, THE SECTION WILL
ENCOURAGE CLAIMANTS TO TAKE A
PROCESS.
THIS, IN TURN, WILL HAVE A
POSITIVE EFFECT FOR REDUCING
LONG-TERM.
SECTION SIX CORRECTS A SERIOUS
CONCERN WHICH HAS CURTAILED THE
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF MR.
-- OF MANY V.A. BEN FIR IF --
BENEFICIARIES.
DUE TO UNCLEAR STATUTORY
LANGUAGE UNDER THE CURRENT
SYSTEM, VETERANS SEEKING HELP
MANAGING THEIR FINANCIAL
AFFAIRS ARE CATEGORIZED AS
MENTALLY DEFECTIVE AND ARE
ENTERED INTO THE F.B.I.
DATABASE WHICH PROHIBITS THEIR
ABILITY TO LEGALLY OBTAIN A
FIREARM.
THIS SECTION WOULD RESTORE
THESE VETERANS' CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS BY REQUIRING SUCH
DETERMINATIONS TO BE MADE BY A
JUDGE, MAGISTRATE, OR OTHER
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO PROPERLY
SUCH VETERANS
ARE IN FACT MENTALLY DEFECTIVE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF OBTAINING A
FIREARM.
SECTION SEVEN OF THIS BILL IS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT VET --
PROTECT VETERANS FROM BEING
CHARGED EXCESSIVE FEES FOR
SUBMITTING APLY CAGES FOR AID
TO THE V.A.
THERE HAVE BEEN AN INCREASE IN
NONACCREDITED INDIVIDUALS THAT
HAVE BEEN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
VETERANS BY CHARGING FEES TO
ASSIST THEM WITH FILING CLAIMS
FOR VETERANS' BENEFITS WITHIN
THE V.A.
THIS SECTION REINSTATED
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PERSONS
CHARGING VETERANS UNAUTHORIZED
FEES IN PREPARATION FOR FILING
VETERANS' CLAIMS WITH THE V.A.
THE FINAL SECTION ADDRESSES THE
UNRESTRAINED GOVERNMENT
SPENDING ON THE PART OF THE
V.A., WHICH IS CURRENTLY
PERMITTED TO OFFER PAY
INCREASES AND BONUSES TO
MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE
BEEN CITED FOR MISMANAGEMENT
AND POOR PERFORMANCE.
AT A TIME WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT
MUST BE ESPECIALLY PRUDENT IN
THE MANAGEMENT OF DEBT, SECTION
ESTABLISHES TAX FOR BONUSES AND
PERFORMANCES AWARDED TO V.A.'S
MOST SENIOR EMPLOYEES AT $2
MILLION A YEAR, A REDUCTION
FROM $.5 MILLION.
IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR WORKING
WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN A
BIPARTISAN MANNER TO MOVE H.R.
2349 AS AMENDED FORWARD AND I
ASK EACH MEMBER AND THANK THEM
FOR THEIR SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF
OUR HONORED VETERANS.
I ASK ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN
IN SUPPORTING ME IN THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AND I
YIELD BACK THE PLANS OF MY
TIME.
I RESERVE OUR TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THIS IS AN OMINOUS
-- MAYBE IT'S OMINOUS TOO.
AN
OMINOUS OMNIBUS, THAT ON
BALANCE, I CAN'T SUPPORT.
IN OMNIBUS BILLS, THERE'S GOOD
AND BAD AND WE HAVE TO BALANCE
WHAT THE PREVAILING THING IS.
LET ME TELL YOU WHY, THERE ARE
TWO POSITIONS IN HERE THAT MAKE
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SUPPORT
THIS OMINOUS BILL.
SECTION TWO REQUIRES THE V.A.
INSTITUTE PILOT PROGRAM TO HOLD
EMPLOYEES OF THE VETERANS
BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION TO
ANNUAL TESTING AND GREATER
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS THAN
THEIR CURRENT 80 HOURS AS FIVE
REGIONAL OFFICES AT A COST OF
$5 MILLION OTHER FIVE YEARS.
WE'RE ALL FOR TRAINING OF OUR
EMPLOYEES AND WANT THEM TO DO A
GOOD JOB AND BE ADEQUATELY
TRAINED.
SECRETARY SHINSEKI HAS SET A
GOAL OF PROCESSING ALL CLAIMS
WITHIN 28 DAYS WITH 98%
ACCURACY, WE HAVE TO GET A
HANDLE ON THE -- ON THE BACK
AND CLAIMS THAT ARE
LANGUISHING UNNECESSARILY.
I THINK THIS IS MISGUIDED, IT
WILL STAND IN THE WAY OF THE
SECRETARY'S GOAL.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN TEST OUR
WAY OUT OF THE BACK LOG.
ANYONE CAN PASS A TEST, THE
QUESTION IS CAN THEY ADEQUATELY
THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED, NOT AN
ADDITIONAL BURDEN RUTTING IN
WORK STOP AMS WHICH IS WHAT
WE HAVE A CERTIFICATION TESTING
PROGRAM USED FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF V.B.A. EMPLOYEES
WHICH WE STRENGTHENED THE
ABILITY TO PASS IN 2008 WITH
GREAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
I THINK THAT THIS BILL HAS
REDUNDANT TESTING, A WASTE OF
$5 MILLION AND WILL ONLY GO TO
THE FATTENING OF THE
CONTRACTORS' POCKETS WHO
DEVELOP THE TEST.
MONEY THAT I THINK CAN BE MORE
EFFICIENTLY USED TO HELP OUR
VETERANS.
I SHOULD REMIND THE BODY THAT
THIS MANDATORY TESTING
PROVISION NEVER PASSED OUT OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WAS
IT FAILED.
IT WAS WITHDRAWN.
UP IN THE FULL
COMMITTEE MARKUP AND I THINK
VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF REGULAR
ORDER THAT WE SUPPOSEDLY PRIZE.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, MA TAM CHAIR,
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THIS
BILL WHICH, LET ME FIRST SATE
IN LEGAL TERMS, AND THEN IN
ENGLISH, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT
THE REPORTING OF THOSE WHO HAVE
AN APPOINTED V.A. FIDUCIARY TO
THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
REQUIRED BY THE PRAY DIACT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN ENGLISH?
THAT MEANS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
JUDGED BY THE V.A. TO BE
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT OF
HANDLING THEIR OWN FINANCIAL
AFFAIRS QUALIFY TO PURCHASE A
GUN.
HELLO.
WE HEARD THE CHAIR OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORT, OH, THIS
IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
LONG HISTORY OF
LAW AND PRECEDENT WHICH SAYS,
WE CAN DENY RIGHTS TO MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY
TO OWN A GUN, A HANDGUN.
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE GOT TO
COMMIT MASS MURDERS WHO ARE
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT BEFORE WE
UNDERSTAND THAT WE OUGHT TO
PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING GUNS
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
YET WE HAVE A JUSTIFICATION OF
THAT RIGHT HERE IN THIS BILL.
THE GENTLEMAN WANTS TO KEEP THE
RIGHT TO PURCHASE FIREARMS
UNTIL -- UNTIL THEY HAVE A
DETERMINATION FROM A STATE
JUDGE.
THAT'S A NON SEQUITUR, MADAM
CHAIR.
WHILE I AGREE SOME OF THESE
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN JUDGED
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT TO HANDLE
THEIR OWN AFFAIRS MAY NOT POSE
A THREAT TO THEMS OR OTHERS,
THE PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION
THE REASONABLE COURSE OF
ACTION, THE COURSE OF ACTION
THAT WILL SAVE LIVES IN THIS
NATION, IS THAT WE NOT ALLOW
THESE V.A. BENEFICIARIES TO
HAVE ACCESS TO WEAPONS UNTIL
THE DETERMINATION IS MADE BY
THAT JUDGE.
LET'S HAVE THE DETERMINATION
FIRST.
NOT AFTER THEY KILL SOMEBODY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT GUNS IN
THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT
BE MENTALLY CAPABLE OF
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP.
THIS DOES NOT STRIKE THE PROPER
BALANCE BETWEEN ENSURING
SOCIETAL SAFETY AND INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS.
I DON'T HAVE TO LIST ALL THE
ATROCITIES THAT HAVE GONE ON IN
THIS NATION OVER THE LAST
DECADE THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF
IRRESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP.
AND YET, WE HAVE A DEFENSE OF A
BILL THAT SPECIFICALLY, IT
DOESN'T EVEN LEAVE IT TO
IMPLICIT, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS,
IF YOU ARE JUDGED TO BE
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT YOU STILL
HAVE A RIGHT TO GO GET A GUN.
HOW STUPID ARE WE?
COME ON.
THIS IS A SCARY THOUGHT.
IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE LEGISLATING.
WE'VE GOT TO DO A BETTER JOB AT
STRIKING A BALANCE ON THIS
ISSUE.
EVERYBODY IN ONE BILL IS AFRAID
OF GROVER NORQUIST.
EVERYBODY HERE IS AFRAID OF THE
N.R.A.
COME ON, LET'S BE RESPONSIBLE.
LET'S PROTECT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
LET'S NOT GO FOR THESE PLEDGES
THAT ARE MADE IN A PARTISAN WAY
TO GET -- TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE
RE-ELECTED AND HURT THE
RUN.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
THIS IS IRRESPONSIBLE.
YOU GIVE, BY LAW, BY A SENTENCE
YOU PUT IN, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU
GIVE THEM A MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT PERSON, THEY'VE
BEEN DEFINED AS THAT, YOU GIVE
THEM THE RIGHT TO BE EXEMPT
REGISTRATION.
COME ON.
WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB THAN
THAT IN THIS BODY.
I RESERVE THE PLANS OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
MILLER: WE RESERVE OUR
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
WE HAVE NO MORE
SPEAKERERS.
HAVE YOU CONCLUDED
YOUR SPEAKERS?
THERE ARE SOME GOOD
PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL.
THE HASTINGS PROVISION IS
ESPECIALLY PROPER BUT WE ALL --
WE OWE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
BETTER THAN JUST IDEOLOGICAL
LEGISLATING BECAUSE I MADE THIS
PROMISE AND THIS IS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
I BELIEVE IN THE SECOND
AMENDMENT.
BUT WE CAN REGULATE THE
CONDITIONS OF THAT AMENDMENT.
AND THIS IS AN ESPECIALLY
EGREGIOUS ONE.
THE V.A. HAS SAID THAT SOMEONE
CANNOT MANAGE THEIR OWN
AFFAIRS.
AND YET WE WRITE IN A PROVISION
THAT SAYS, GO BUY A GUN ANYWAY,
UNTIL A JUDGE SAYS NOT TO.
LET'S HAVE THE JUDGE'S DECISION
FIRST THEN IF THEY ARE JUDGED
MENTALLY SOUND, THEY CAN BUY A
THAT WOULD BE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
THEY DON'T HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A
MENTALLY IMBALANCED AND BUY A
GUN THAT KILLS DOZENS OR EVEN
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR DECADES.
LET'S DO A BETTER JOB.
I YIELD BACK THE PLANS OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
WHAT WE OWE THE
UNITED STATES PEOPLE IS THE
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE SENATE
VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
APPROVED UNDER DEMOCRAT
LEADERSHIP THIS EXACT LANGUAGE
UNDER THE PAST TWO CONGRESSES.
IN FACT, WHAT MY GOOD FRIEND,
THE RANKING MEMBER, WANTS TO
DO, IS TO GIVE A BUREAUCRAT
WITHIN V.A. THE OPPORTUNITY TO
AD-- ADJUDICATE SOMEBODY
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT.
THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO CONTROL
THEIR FINANCES.
WHAT THIS ACTUAL LEGISLATION
DOES, AND I WILL READ, IS THAT
IT DEZ THEY CANNOT DO IT
ORDER OR FINDING OF
A JUDGE, A MAGISTRATE, OR OTHER
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION THAT SUCH A PERSON
OTHERS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A
BUREAUCRAT WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
HAS THAT ABILITY NOR THAT
AUTHORITY AND I THINK THAT
JUDGES NEED TO DO IT SYSTEM OF
WE DO AGREE ON THAT PARTICULAR
INSTANCE.
WITHOUT THAT, I ASK THAT ALL
MEMBERS WOULD HAVE FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
AND URGE ALL MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
OUTSTANDING PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.
THE
QUESTION IS, WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
2349 AS AMENDED?
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
2/3 BEING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE,
THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED, THE
BILL IS PASSED, AND WITHOUT
OBJECTION THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE
TABLE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE TITLE
AMENDED.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM KENTUCKY SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I
MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS AND
INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL ON
H.R. 2250.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
419 AND RULE 18, THE CHAIR
DECLARES THE HOUSE IN THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON
THE STATE OF THE UNION FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
2250.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA
-- I'M SORRY -- WILL THE
GENTLELADY FROM ALABAMA, MRS.
ROBY, KINDLY TAKE THE CHAIR.
THE HOUSE IS IN THE
THE STATE OF THE UNION FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
2250 WHICH THE CLERK WILL
REPORT BY TITLE.
A BILL TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TO ISSUE ACHIEVABLE STANDARDS
FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL BOILERS, PROSEES
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEN THE COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE ROSE ON THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 6, 2011, AMENDMENT
NUMBER 4 PRINTED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OFFERED BY
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PENNSYLVANIA, MR. DOYLE, HAD
BEEN DISPOSED OF.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
CHAIRMAN.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT PREPRINTED
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 TO H.R.
2250.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF
CALIFORNIA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR AND MY
COLLEAGUES, I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL ON SUBSTANTIVE
GROUNDS.
IT NULLIFIES CRITICAL E.P.A.
RULES TO CUT TOXIC AIR
POLLUTION FROM SOLID WASTE
INDUSTRIAL BOILERS.
IT THREATENS E.P.A.'S ABILITY
TO ISSUE NEW RULES THAT
ACTUALLY PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
BY FORCING IT TO SET EMISSION
STANDARDS BASED ON AN INDUSTRY
WISH LIST.
AND ON TOP OF THAT IT ALLOWS
POLLUTERS TO AVOID COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NEW RULES
INDEFINITELY.
THAT IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO VOTE
NO.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY BAD
BUT THIS BILL HAS ANOTHER MARK
AGAINST IT BUS IT DOES NOT
COMPLY WITH THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP'S POLICY FOR
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK, SO WHAT,
WHY MAKE AN ISSUE OF THIS?
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE
REPUBLICANS ESTABLISHED A SET
OF RULES FOR THE HOUSE AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE CONGRESS AND
THEY AREN'T WILLING TO PLAY BY
THOSE RULES.
WHEN CONGRESS ORGANIZED THIS
YEAR, THE MAJORITY LEADER
ANNOUNCED THAT THE HOUSE WOULD
BE FOLLOWING A DISCRETIONARY --
WHAT'S CALLED A DISCRETIONARY
CUT-GO RULE.
WHEN A BILL AUTHORIZES
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, THAT
FUNDING MUST BE EXPLICITLY
LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC AMOUNT.
AND THE LEADER'S PROTOCOL ALSO
REQUIRED THAT THE SPECIFIC
BE OFFSET BY A REDUCTION
IN AN EXISTING AUTHORIZATION.
THIS BILL VIOLATES THOSE
FIRST, THE BILL DOES NOT
INCLUDE A SPECIFIC
AUTHORIZATION FOR E.P.A. TO
PROVISIONS.
E.P.A. WILL HAVE TO START A NEW
RULEMAKING FOR BOILERS AND
INCINERATORS AND FOLLOW A WHOLE
NEW APPROACH FOR SETTING
EMISSION STANDARDS, AND THAT'S
GOING TO COST MONEY.
C.B.O., WHO'S USUALLY THE
REFEREE ON THESE QUESTIONS,
DETERMINED THAT H.R. 2250 DOES
IN FACT AUTHORIZE NEW
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
C.B.O. ESTIMATES THAT
IMPLEMENTING THIS BILL WOULD
COST E.P.A. $1 MILLION OVER A
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
BUT THE BILL DOES NOT OFFSET
THE NEW SPENDING WITH CUTS IN
EXISTING AUTHORIZATION.
THAT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE
PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE
REPUBLICANS' CUT-GO POLICY.
OF KNOW WHAT MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO SAY
BECAUSE THEY SAID IT LAST TIME
WE WERE CONSIDERING
THEY WILL ARGUE THAT THIS BILL
DOESN'T CREATE A NEW PROGRAM.
THEY'LL SAY THAT E.P.A. CAN USE
EXISTING FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE
WORK MANDATED BY THE BILL.
WELL, THAT'S NOW -- NOT HOW
APPROPRIATIONS LAW WORKS.
ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH FEDERAL
APPROPRIATIONS LAW KNOWS THIS
AND THE GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, OR THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CAN
CONFIRM IT.
H.R. 2250 DOES NOT INCLUDE AN
AUTHORIZATION, BUT THAT DOES
NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF FORCING
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
IMPLEMENT THE LEGISLATION WITH
EXISTING RESOURCES.
TO THE CONTRARY, IT HAS THE
EFFECT OF CREATING AN
IMPOLICITY AUTHORIZATION OF
SUCH SUMS AS MAY BE NECESSARY.
NOW, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN
AGAINST SETTING AUTHORIZATIONS
OF SUCH SUMS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY WANTED A
SPECIFIC AMOUNT AND THEY WANTED
AN OFFSET.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD -- SIMPLY
ASSURES THAT THE DISCRETIONARY
CUT-GO RULE IS COMPLIED WITH.
IT STATES THAT THIS BILL
AUTHORIZES THE APPROPRIATIONS
OF FUND TO IMPLEMENT ITS
PROVISIONS WITHOUT REDUCING AN
EXISTING AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS BY AN OFFSETTING
THEN -- AMOUNT, THEN THE BILL
WILL NOT GO INTO EFFECT.
IF I HAD A BILL THAT WOULD
STRENGTHEN THE CLEAN AIR ACT OR
CUT GLOBAL WARMING, THEY WOULD
MEET THE CUT-GO REQUIREMENTS.
BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE EAGER TO
CUT THE CLEAN AIR ACT, ALL OF A
SUDDEN THEIR OWN PROTOCOLS
DON'T MATTER.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING
WITH CUT-GO BECAUSE CUT-GO AS
THEY SET IT UP IS INFEASIBLE
AND UNWORKABLE, THEY NEED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REALITY AND
CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT.
I URGE ALL MEMBERS TO SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT.
LET'S HOLD THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABLE TO KEEP
THEIR WORD.
I URGE SUPPORT FOR THIS
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
MADAM CHAIR, I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT.
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, H.R. 2250 WILL
REDUCE REGULATORY BURDENS FOR
JOB CREATORS AND EXTEND THE
TIME FRAME FOR THE E.P.A. TO
ISSUE ITS RULES FOR BOILERS AND
INCINERATORS.
CONSIDERING THEY
ARE CONSIDERING AN AGGRESSIVE
REGULATORY REGIME IN THESE
AREAS AND DOING SO WITHIN ITS
EXISTING BUDGET, ADDITIONAL
FUNDING SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED.
WHILE THE C.B.O.'S RULES MAY
REQUIRE TO SCORE LEGISLATION IN
A VACUUM, IN THE REAL WORLD
THERE IS NO REASON TAXPAYERS
SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAND OVER
MORE MONEY WHEN ASKING AN
AGENCY MERELY TO DO ITS JOB.
ANY COST OF COMMONSENSE
REGULATIONS IN THIS AREA, AS
OUR LEGISLATION PROPOSES, CAN
CERTAINLY BE COVERED BY THE
AGENCY'S EXISTING BUDGET THAT
HAS INCREASED GREATLY OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND THAT
BUDGET IS FUNDING ITS CURRENT
REGULATORY EFFORTS.
NO NEW FUNDING IS AUTHORIZED BY
THE REGULATION, I DO NOT
BELIEVE ANY NEW FUNDING IS
NECESSARY AND I ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO ON THIS
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE QUESTION SON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
I REQUEST A ROLL
CALL VOTE.
THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED.
TO PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA WILL
BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
DESK.
THE
CLERK WILL DESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
SPECIFY WHICH AMENDMENT.
I HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS.
WHICH ONE.
I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER,
MADAM CHAIR.
WHICH ONE -- OK, NUMBER 18.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 18
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, OFFERED BY MR. CONNOLLY
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
DURING THE PAST
10 MONTHS, THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP HAS TRIED TO PASS
MORE THAN 125
ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL BILLS,
AMENDMENTS AND RIDERS.
WE DEBATED ANOTHER BILL THE
OTHER DAY AND THE MAJORITY
REJECTED EVERY SINGLE AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD HAVE PROTECTED
PUBLIC HEALTH.
I INTRODUCED A SIMPLE AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD HAVE ENSURED NO
DORTSE INCREASED INCIDENTS OF
ILLNESS WOULD HAVE OCCURRED AS
A RESULT OF THE CEMENT FACTLY
BILL WE DEBATED LAST WEEK.
IT WOULD SEEM TO BE A MODEST
PROPOSITION.
THE BILLS PASSED BY CONGRESS
SHOULD NOT LEAD TO PREMATURE
DEATH OR HOSPITALIZATION YET
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
REPUBLICANS CLAIM THAT ALL
THESE ANTI-E.P.A. BILLS WILL
CREATE JOBS BUT SADLY THOSE NEW
JOBS WOULD ONLY BE CREATED IN
HOSPICE.
THE LATEST REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON
THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS H.R. 2250
BEFORE US TODAY WHICH WOULD
BLOCK PUBLIC HEALTH STANDARDS
FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS.
THE E.P.A. IS ISSUING THESE
STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CLEAN AIR ACT WHICH WAS
PASSED IN 1970 AND SIGNED INTO
LAW BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
SINCE 1970, THE CLEAN AIR ACT
HAS DRAMATICALLY REDUCED AIR
POLLUTION.
DESPITE POPULATION GROWTH WHILE
AMERICA'S ECONOMY DOUBLED IN
SIZE.
THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE A FALSE
CHOICE BETWEEN A HEALTHY
ECONOMY AND A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT.
YET THAT'S PRECISELY THE FALSE
CHOICE PRESENTED US IN H.R.
2250.
MY COLLEAGUES CLAIM WE MUST
ALLOW MORE MERCURY POLLUTION.
MORE PARTICULATE POLLUTION,
MORE SOOT IN OUR AIR.
IN ORDER TO SPUR ECONOMIC
RECOVERY.
HOW EASILY SOME SEEM TO FORGET
THAT THIS RECESSION STARTED
UNDER THE MOST
ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL
ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY THAT
OF GEORGE W. BUSH SO IF
ATTACKING THE ENVIRONMENT
REALLY DID SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH
WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF 2008.
THE CONSEQUENCE OF ACTING ON A
FALSE PREMISE PRESENTED BY MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WOULD BE
HEALTH.
ACCORDING TO THE NONPARTISAN
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
BY FOLLOWING THE LAW AND
IMPLEMENTING HEALTH STANDARDS
BOILERS, E.P.A.
WILL PREVENT 2,500 TO 6,500
PREMATURE DEATHS EVERY YEAR.
BY ALLOWING THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF CLEAN AIR ACT WE'LL PREVENT
3,300 EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, BY
PREVENTING ALL THESE PREMATURE
DEATHS AND POLLUTION CAUSED
ILLNESS, MERELY IMPLEMENTING
THE RULES FOR INDUSTRIAL
BOILERS WILL SAVE, TAKING COSTS
INTO ACCOUNT, BETWEEN $25 --
BETWEEN $20 BILLION AND $25
BILLION ANNUALLY.
MY SIMPLE AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
H.R. 2250 TO GO INTO EFFECT IF
IT DIDN'T CAUSE THESE ILLNESSES
AND DEATH.
IF WE CAN LESSEN -- LOOSEN
REGULATIONS WITHOUT ADDING TO
HEALTH CARE COSTS THAT ARE
ALREADY TOO HIGH FOR MOST
FAMILIES, THEN BY ALL MEANS
LET'S DO IT.
BY PASSING THIS AMENDMENT MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES CAN
REAFFIRM THEIR SUPPORT FOR
DEREGULATION PROVIDED THAT IT
DOESN'T INJURE OR KILL OUR
CONSTITUENTS.
MY AMENDMENT SAYS THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL NOT DELAY
ANSWERS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS IF
SUCH EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING
RESPIRATORY AND CARDIOVASCULAR
ILLNESSES AND DEATHS.
THIS ENSURES THAT IF H.R. 250
PASSES, WE WON'T BE CREATING
THE RATE OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE
OR SENDING MORE CHILDREN TO
HOSPITALS WITH ASTHMA ATTACKS.
SINCE MEMBERS CLAIM TO BE
EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR
CONSTITUENTS, I WANT TO OFFER
THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM
THAT INTEREST IN STATUTE.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM KENTUCKY RISE?
TO THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT WOULD
ADD A NEW SECTION TO H.R. 2250
DIRECTING THEM TO IMPLEMENT THE
CURRENT BOILER SECTOR RULES IF
EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING
RESPIRATORY AND CARDIOVASCULAR
ILLNESS AND DEATH INCLUDING
HEART ATTACKS, ASTHMA ATTACKS
AND BRONCHITIS.
I WOULD LIKE FIRST OF ALL TO
MENTION THAT OVER THE LAST 15
OR 20 YEARS, WE'VE MADE
REMARKABLE PROGRESS IN CLEANING
UP THE AIR.
FOR EXAMPLE, OZONE HAS BEEN
REDUCED BY 14%.
PARTICULATE MATTER BY 41%.
LEAD BY 78%.
NITRO VENN DIOXIDE BY 35%.
CARBON MONOXIDE BY 68%.
SULFUR DIOXIDE BY 59%.
THIS AMENDMENT TARGETS SPECIFIC
HEALTH ISSUES, RESPIRATORY AND
CARDIOVASCULAR ILLNESS AND
DEATH AND THE BILL DIRECTS --
OUR BILL, I WOULD SAY, DOES
DIRECT THAT E.P.A. PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH, JOBS AND THE
ECONOMY AND THAT'S WHAT OUR
LEGISLATION IS ALL ABOUT, A
MORE BALANCED APPROACH.
IT INTERESTING THAT THE
BOILER IS ALL ABOUT REGULATING
HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS, YET
E.P.A. DID NOT INCLUDE ANY
BENEFITS FROM DEUS -- REDUCING
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS AND
MERCURY IN PARTICULAR.
THEY INDICATED ALL HEALTH
BENEFITS WOULD BE AS A RESULT
OF REDUCTION OF PARTICULATE
MATTER.
SO THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF BOILER
MAX IS TO DEAL WITH HAZARDOUS
AIR POLLUTANTS.
E.P.A. DECIDED THERE WAS NO
REAL BENEFIT FROM REDUCTION
THERE, BUT IT WAS ALL FROM
PARTICULATE MATTER.
WE OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE
WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT SETS OUT
CLEARLY THE PROTECTIONS FOR
HEALTH AND WHAT IS REQUIRED AND
WE SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO THIS
BECAUSE IT'S IDENTIFYING
PARTICULAR ILLNESSES AND WE
THINK THAT E.P.A. SHOULD LOOK
BROAD RANGE OF HEALTH
ISSUES AND FOR THAT REASON
WOULD RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA'S
AMENDMENT.
BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON --
MADAM CHAIR.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN RISE?
I SEEK RECOGNITION IN
SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
I SEEK RECOGNITION
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN
STRIKES THE LAST WORD IS
RECOGNIZED.
THE ONLY WAY TO SEEK
RECOGNITION IS TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
I SEEK RECOGNITION
TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T STAND
UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AN
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
UNDER THE
FIVE-MINUTE RULE I'M RECOGNIZED
AND WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS JUST
MADE.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM KENTUCKY
KEEPS ON SAYING THAT THERE WILL
BE NO BENEFIT FROM THE E.P.A.
BOILER RULES IN TERMS OF
HEALTH.
WELL, IT'S TRUE THAT E.P.A.
DIDN'T PUT A DOLLAR FIGURE ON
THE POTENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS
FROM REDUCING MERCURY,
CARCINOGENS AND OTHER TOXIC
POLLUTANTS BUT THAT'S NOT
BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE
BENEFITS.
ALLOW ME TO QUOTE FOR THE --
FROM THE E.P.A.'S IMPACT
ANALYSIS.
DATA, RESOURCE, *** LOGICAL
LIMITATIONS PREVENT E.P.A. FROM
QUANTIFYING OR MONETIZING
BENEFITS FROM SEVERAL BENEFIT
CATEGORIES INCLUDING BENEFIT
FROM REDUCING TOXIC EMISSIONS.
THIS DOESN'T SAY THAT CUTTING
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM
BOILERS WILL HAVE NO BENEFIT
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF
CUTTING MERCURY POLLUTION HERE
AT HOME?
CUTTING MERCURY POLLUTION FROM
BOILERS AND INCINERATORS WILL
REDUCE LOCALIZED MERCURY
DEPOSITION, REDUCING MERCURY
DEPOSITION IS CRITICAL TO
REDUCING AMERICANS' EXPOSURE TO
MERCURY FROM EATING
CONTAMINATED FISH.
IN 2000, PEMPLET OF -- E.P.A.
ESTIMATED THAT ROUGHLY 60% OF
THE TOTAL MERCURY DEPOSITED IN
THE UNITED STATES COMES FROM
MANMADE AIR EMISSION SOURCES
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES SUCH
AS POWER PLANTS, INCINERATORS,
BOILERS, CEMENT KILNS AND OTHER
SOURCES.
THESE NUMBERS ARE CHANGED
SLIGHTLY SINCE 2000 WHILE OTHER
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT THERE'S
AN IMPORTANT NEED TO REDUCE
LOCAL SOURCES OF MERCURY
POLLUTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE STUDY BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND
E.P.A. FOUND THAT THE MAJORITY
OF MERCURY DEPOSITED AT A
MONITORING SITE IN EASTERN OHIO
CAME FROM LOCAL AND REGIONAL
SOURCES.
MERCURY IS A POTENT NEUROTOX
STIN.
BABIES BORN TO WOMEN EXPOSED TO
DURING PREGNANCY CAN
SUFFER FROM A WIDE RANGE OF
DEVELOPMENTAL AND NEUROLOGICAL
PROBLEMS, INCLUDING DELAYS IN
SPEAKING AND DIFFICULTIES
IT'S HARD TO TRANSLATE THAT
INTO DOLLARS AND CENTS.
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF ALLOWING A
CHILD'S BRAIN TO DEVELOP
NORMALLY SO THOSE CHILDREN CAN
REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL?
BUT THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE.
CUTTING THE EMOTION --
EMISSIONS OF A POWERFUL
NEUROTOXIN WILL HELP PROTECT
CHILDREN'S HEALTH.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN
HONESTLY ARGUE THAT ALLOWING
MORE MERCURY POLLUTION IS
BETTER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH THAN
LESS.
OVERALL, E.P.A. ESTIMATES FOR
THE QUANTIFIED BENEFITS OF THE
BOILER RULES LIKELY
UNDERESTIMATE THE TOTAL
BENEFITS TO SOCIETY OF
REQUIRING THOSE INDUSTRIAL
SOURCES TO CLEAN UP.
NOW, E.P.A. LOOKED AS WELL AT
WHAT THE RULES WOULD DO IN
TERMS OF THE EFFECT OF REDUCING
EMISSIONS OF FINE PARTICLE
POLLUTION WHICH CAN LODGE DEEP
IN THE LUNGS AND CAUSE SERIOUS
HEALTH EFFECTS, BREATHING
PARTICLE POLLUTION HAS BEEN
FOUND TO CAUSE A RANGE OF ACUTE
AND CHRONIC HEALTH PROBLEMS
SUCH AS SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO
THE SMALL AIRWAYS OF THE LUNGS.
AGGRAVATED ASTHMA ATTACKS IN
CHILDREN.
DEATHS FROM RESPIRATORY AND
CARDIOVASCULAR CAUSES INCLUDING
STROKES.
INCREASED NUMBERS OF HEART
ATTACKS, ESPECIALLY AMONG THE
ELDERLY AND PEOPLE WITH HEART
CONDITIONS.
INCREASED HOSPITALIZATION FOR
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND
INCREASED EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS
FOR PATIENTS SUFFERING FROM
ACUTE RESPIRATORYLE AILMENTS.
BY CUTTING EMISSIONS OF FINE
PARTICLES, E.P.A. ESTIMATES
THAT THESE RULES WOULD PREVENT
UP TO 6,600 PREMATURE DEATHS,
4,100 NONFATAL HEART ATTACKS,
41,000 CASES OF AGGRAVATED
143,000 DAYS WHEN
PEOPLE MISS WORK OR SCHOOL EACH
YEAR.
E.P.A. FOUND THAT THESE RULES
WILL PROVIDE AT LEAST $10 TO
$24 IN HEALTH BENEFITS FOR
EVERY DOLLAR IN COST.
THAT'S A TREMENDOUS RETURN ON
INVESTMENT AND DOESN'T EVEN
INCLUDE THE BENEFITS OF THE
TOXIN -- TOXIC AIR POLLUTION,
TOXIC MERCURY POLLUTION, WHICH
THERE NEVERTHELESS.
THE AMENDMENT IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT STATES THE
BILL DOES NOT STOP E.P.A. FROM
TAKING ACTION TO CLEAN UP AIR
POLLUTION FROM A DIRTY BOILIER
OR INCINERATOR, IF THAT
FACILITY IS EMITTING POLLUTE
TANS THAT ARE CAUSING HEART
ATTACKS, ASTHMA ATTACKS AND
BRONCHITIS OR OTHER RESPIRATORY
AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE.
THE REPUBLICANS ARGUE THAT THIS
BILL IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE
CLEAN AIR ACT OR PUBLIC HEALTH.
THEY ARGUE THIS BILL WON'T
PREVENT E.P.A. FROM REQUIRING
BOILERS AND INCINERATORS TO CUT
THEIR POLLUTION.
I DISAGREE.
I SUPPORT ADDING LANGUAGE TO
THE BILL, MAKING IT PERFECTLY
ERMENT P.A. MUST ACT AND
THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
MADAM CHAIR CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA IS RECOGNIZE PLFLED
CONNOLLY: I REQUEST A ROLL
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT
AGREED TO.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA WILL BE
POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
CLERK.
-- THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7.
I RISE AS DESIGNEE TO OFFER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7.
PARLIAMENTARY
INQUIRY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
KENTUCKY HAS AN INQUIRY.
I AM NOT
POSITIVE WHAT THE RULES ARE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS SAYS THAT HE HAS
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 AND IN THE
LIST OF AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE
THE SPONSOR OF NUMBER 7 IS SAID
TO BE MR. QUIGLEY OF ILLINOIS.
WOULD THE CHAIR BE ABLE TO
EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE RULES
ARE IN REGARD TO THAT?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS STATE THAT
QUIGLEY?
YES, I AM OFFERING
THE AMENDMENT AS THE DESIGNEE
OF MR. QUIGLEY.