Jeb Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership of the Resources Committee on both sides of the aisle, as well as the leadership on both sides of the aisle in the House, for allowing myself, Congressman Bass and Congressman Sanders to have another opportunity to debate this bill today. What we have before us is a compromise in true New England fashion, with both States' delegations and Governors of both States having worked together to bring before the House a consensus package that represents the best interests of my colleague's State of Vermont and the best interests of my State of New Hampshire. As someone who is an avid hiker and someone who will have a little bit more time now to hike, I can attest to all Members of the House, this wilderness designation makes sense for New Hampshire. I have hiked in both regions of the proposed wilderness designation. They are worthy of this additional protection of wilderness designation. In the case of New Hampshire, myself and Congressman Bass, Senator Gregg and Senator Sununu, the sponsors of this measure, have worked extensively with all sides that were interested in this legislation, both environmental groups, logging interests, snowmobiling groups to make sure that we had a plan that mirrored the interests of Tom Wagner, who is the administrator of the White Mountain National Forest, and his very capable group of people that proposed the White Mountain National Forest plan and the wilderness designation. As a side note, the White Mountain National Forest plan, despite all the comments that came in after the plan was published, in particular comments about wilderness designation, was not challenged in court by any of the various interests, which is a tribute to how hard New Hampshire interests worked on the compromise that you see before you today. So, as somebody who has spent extensive time hiking in the White Mountain National Forest, including in these two proposed wilderness designations, the Sandwich designation, as well as the Wild River designation, I thank again my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for allowing this bill to come forward. I thank the leadership on both sides for allowing this bill to come forward. It is truly going to protect both the Green Mountain National Forest and the White Mountain National Forest, and I would welcome all of you to come join me in hiking in these two wilderness designations once they have been signed into law.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, once again I thank my colleagues from Guam and New Mexico for their support of this legislation. Like Congressman Bass's bill previously, my bill expands by nearly 11,000 acres the Sandwich Range Wilderness Area in the central part of the White Mountain National Forest. The Forest Service in the State of New Hampshire, working once again with environmental groups, with businesses involved in the forest products industry, developed a comprehensive plan for the management of the White Mountain National Forest. Both of these wilderness proposals have seen fit to have garnered the support of everyone in New Hampshire that I am aware of. The Forest Service plan had absolutely no appeals and is in the process of being implemented. The legislation that myself and Congressman Bass have separately proposed would implement the two wilderness proposals and, as I have repeatedly stated, has received no objections. It is certainly my hope, and I appreciate the support of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, as well as my colleague from New Mexico, for this legislation, should go forward this afternoon. It will protect the New Hampshire environment. It will also serve the forest products industry in my State. And I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible way to vote for both of these bills later on today, despite the call for a vote potentially by my colleague on the other side of the aisle

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues from Guam and New Mexico for their support of this legislation. This legislation was sponsored by my colleague Congressman Bass, who is unable to be here today. As the gentleman from New Mexico stated, it has broad support in New Hampshire. In fact, we are not aware of any opposition whatsoever. It has the support of a number of environmental groups as well as interested businesses that are in the forest products industry. It was a result of consensus among all of the interested parties in New Hampshire, and I urge its adoption. Also, on a personal note, having hiked extensively in this area of the White Mountain National Forest, it is a worthy candidate for wilderness designation. It is one of the most beautiful areas of our State, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill unanimously

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to unanimously support H.R. 3082, as amended. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3082, as amended.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I close by commending the work of the chairman of the committee, Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, Acting Ranking Member Filner, and my colleagues Mr. Salazar and Mr. Udall for their hard work on this legislation. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Veterans Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis, not only for their hard work on this bill, but the two prior bills we have discussed this afternoon. General Leave

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and recognize her for her hard work on this issue

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I start out again by thanking my friend from Colorado for his work on this bill. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3082, as amended, the Veterans Small Business and Memorial Affairs Act of 2006. Title I of this bill improves the status of veteran and disabled veteran small businesses when competing for contracts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would be a reasonable expectation, Madam Speaker, that of all the Federal Government's agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs would be a leader in achieving the President's goal for annual procurement from at least 3 percent disabled veteran-owned businesses. Sadly, not. Our most recent data from fiscal year 2005 indicates that VA did barely over half of what the President asked and public law required. Deficient as it is, VA's record beats many other agencies, including the Department of Defense. According to the Small Business Administration, only three of 81 Federal agencies met the President's 3 percent goal. H.R. 3082, as amended, would require the VA Secretary to establish annual contracting goals for small businesses owned and controlled by veterans and service-disabled veterans. The goal for service-disabled veterans shall not be less than 3 percent. The Department of Veterans Affairs would also be required under title I to maintain and validate a database of small businesses owned by veterans and disabled veterans. The bill would clarify veterans small business competition rules for contracts worth less than $5 million. Veteran and service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses would be given priority in VA contracting, as well as priority among other set- aside groups eligible for preferential treatment under the Small Business Act. Title I of the bill would allow a business' status as a veteran or disabled veteran-owned small business to continue for a period of 10 years following the death of the veteran owner if the surviving spouse owns the business. Under title II of the bill, tribal governments would be allowed to participate in VA's State Cemetery Grants Program. This program, which dates back to 1978, complements the Department's national cemetery system. Tribal governments, however, are not eligible to participate. This bill would correct that deficiency and help recognize the unexcelled service of Native Americans in our Nation's Armed Forces by facilitating the establishment of veterans' cemeteries on trust land. Title II contains a provision that would permanently authorize the VA Secretary to provide the family of a veteran interred in a private cemetery with a government marker in addition to any headstone the family may have provided. Congress had given the Secretary a 5-year authority effective for deaths that occurred as of September 11, 2001. This bill would also expand the benefit to include veterans who died between November 1, 1990, and September 10, 2001. This provision would also permit the Secretary to offer a headstone in lieu of a marker, if the family so requests. The simple elegance of the veteran's marker, used since just after our Civil War in American cemeteries from Arlington to Normandy, holds a sacred place in the hearts of many veterans and families. On behalf of Chairman Buyer, I want to thank a tireless supporter of our veterans--Representative Nancy Johnson of Connecticut--for her perseverance and leadership in working to ensure families the availability of this unique symbol of service to our country. Title III of this bill contains provisions affecting the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service. Title III would require the Veterans Employment Training Service, otherwise known as VETS, to establish nonmandatory guidelines for disabled veterans outreach program specialists and local veterans employment representatives qualifications. The bill would clarify that part-time employment of DVOPS and LVERs is half-time employment and require that DVOPS and LVERs hired after date of enactment to successfully complete training by the National Veterans Training Institute within 3 years of appointment. States would be required to develop a licensing and certification program for veterans within 2 years of enactment under title III of the bill. A 5-year demonstration project would be authorized to allow Department of Labor VETS to enter into contracts with nongovernmental entities to carry out employment services in high unemployment areas using unobligated funds and require GAO to report on the demonstration project. Finally, title III would establish a 3-year demonstration project to identify not less than 10 military occupational specialties that would lead to State licensing and authorize $1 million for the fiscal years 2007 through 2009. The final title of the bill would make modification to the veterans' education programs. Title IV would clarify pro rata refund policy for nonaccredited educational institutions; extend authorization for work-study positions located at veterans cemeteries, State veterans homes, and State approving agencies through June 30, 2007. It would further require the VA to report on methods to improve and streamline the administrative processes and procedures of education programs in chapters 30 through 36, and restore lost entitlement for certain chapter 35 education beneficiaries forced to discontinue a course of education due to being called to full-time National Guard duty. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3082) to amend title 38, United States Code, to require that 9 percent of procurement contracts entered into by the Department of Veterans Affairs be awarded to small business concerns owned by veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to unanimously support H. Con. Res. 125. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 125.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, this resolution calls upon the President to establish a national Hire a Veteran Week. No group in America deserves special employment opportunity more than our Nation's veterans. These men and women have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to preserve the Nation's way of life and economic system. They serve on every continent, in hundreds of occupations, in remote locations, and in the toughest of combat conditions. They answer the Nation's call to duty, asking in return only our support and our thanks. Veterans are one of the most diverse communities in America, with significant representation from all major ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Today's veterans bring a solid work ethic, understand the chain of command, are accustomed to working within a system, are highly motivated, and are comfortable with technology. Hiring a veteran to fill a good-paying job is an important way to say thank you for your service and brings a quality employee to the workforce. Madam Speaker, this bill was jointly referred to the Committee on Armed Services which waived consideration of the bill. I would like to thank Chairman Buyer, chairman of the full committee, Acting Ranking Member Filner, Ranking Member Evans, Chairman Hunter, and Ranking Member Skelton for their help in moving this resolution to the floor. I would also like to commend my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) for his work on this bill, and thank Mr. Holt of New Jersey for introducing this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 125) expressing support for the designation and goals of ``Hire a Veteran Week'' and encouraging the President to issue a proclamation supporting those goals.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Evans of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor. And, as I indicated previously, I would also like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Simmons, the sponsor of the bill, for introducing this legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to unanimously support H. Con. Res. 347. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 347) honoring the National Association of State Veterans Homes and the 119 State veterans homes providing long-term care to veterans that are represented by that association for their contributions to the health care of veterans and the health-care system of the Nation.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 347.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking my colleague and friend from Colorado for his work in support of this legislation and also thank my colleague and friend Mr. Simmons from Connecticut who is traveling and could not be here to participate in this debate. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 347, which honors the National Association of State Veterans Homes and the 119 State veteran homes providing long-term care to veterans that are represented by the association for their contributions. The National Association of State Veterans Homes functions on an all-volunteer basis to improve the conditions of care furnished by State veterans homes and is at the forefront of developing new methods for providing long-term care services to our elderly veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs now provides State veterans homes with a per diem grant program which provides approximately 30 percent of the average cost of daily care, in addition to a grant program to support construction and major renovation projects. State veterans homes provide more than 50 percent of the total national long-term care bed capacity for veterans at an average daily cost that is significantly less than nursing homes operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. As the number of elderly veterans rises, State veterans homes continue to improve and sustain their health by assuring access to affordable and quality nursing care. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida, and special thanks to Mr. Ryan for his hard work trying to thread the needle and bring forward a bill that is constitutional, which, while not perfect, certainly is an important step in the right direction. Why is this an important step? It shines the light on special- interest spending, whether it is earmarks or whether it is special- interest tax breaks. Citizens Against Government Waste estimated that there were nearly 10,000 of these special-interest projects in last year's appropriations bill, totaling $29 billion, and so it is, in my opinion, extremely appropriate that we shine the light on this special-interest spending. The substitute, which our friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about, would have further restricted this bill to make it almost meaningless by exempting large swaths of the Federal spending from this rescission authority. We need to go forward with this bill. I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, it has bipartisan support. There were four members of the Budget Committee that voted for it. Let us vote for it today and let the President have this opportunity to shine the light on unnecessary spending.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the chairman for his fine work on bringing forward this bill, as well as the ranking member, and for the bipartisan nature of this bill. As so many other speakers have testified this morning, community health centers are an integral part of our health care network throughout our country, and are an increasingly important aspect of trying to deal with the uninsured and underinsured. The reason they are so important is that community health centers focus on preventive care and primary care. They offer low-cost alternatives to emergency room visits, which is not only the most expensive care that people can get, but also why should we be letting illnesses progress to that stage when community health centers can help people with preventive and primary care. Community health centers focus on the uninsured and the underinsured, a critical element of our health care delivery system. And the cost savings to our system are significant, as other people have testified this morning. In my State of New Hampshire, in 2004 there were 219,000 patient visits to community health centers. Not only do they provide basic preventive care, but also education, outreach, screenings, nutrition counseling, substance abuse counseling, prenatal care, and dental care, so the community health centers are full service medical care for so many different people in our community. I have eight community health centers in my district. I have visited three of them, and I would like to cite them all for their good work: The Avis Goodwin Community Health Center in Dover that is run by Janet Atkins; the Manchester Community Health Center in Manchester, the director is Ed George; and the Lamprey River Community Health Center in New Market run by Ann Peters recently won a Federal project designation and was able to significantly expand their ability to treat patients in their area of New Hampshire. Their efforts are noteworthy. That is why this legislation is so important to be able to not only encourage the existing health care centers we have, but to expand them and expand their mission. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I thank the chairman and thank the ranking member for the bipartisan nature of this bill.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a New Hampshire organization called There's No Place Like Home. This group is a committee of volunteers who have made a commitment to helping those who are most in need, those who have lost their homes to a natural disaster. The mission of No Place Like Home is to raise funds and organize volunteers to build homes for families who lack the resources to rebuild after their home has been lost to a natural disaster. There's No Place Like Home was founded in response to the tragic losses suffered in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. The idea came from the building trades program at Somersworth High School, which takes on a building project each and every year. The students in this program were so moved by the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, that they decided they would build a home to send from New Hampshire to a deserving family in the gulf coast as their project for this year. After working hard all year, the students recently completed the first home, and it is on its way, as we speak, to Louisiana. Having been successful on this first project, the students are now going to build a second home to send to another family in our gulf coast. In addition to the students that are building this home, there are several people whose involvement have made this project possible. They are: There's No Place Like Home team, consisting of the program development coordinator Paula Young, program director Pastor Bernie Quinn of the Rochester Grace Community Church, the construction coordinator Roy Darling, and the building trades instructor Brian Patterson. These individuals are passionately committed to this cause. They have been working hard to raise funds, find deserving recipients of a home, and oversee the students and the construction. They have worked tirelessly to support this laudable project from its conception, and they deserve a world of thanks for their efforts. I would also like to thank the members of the New Hampshire National Guard who are in charge of the important task of transporting the finished home to Louisiana, and the many businesses and sponsors in New Hampshire who have donated supplies, money and time to this organization. I had the opportunity to twice visit with the students of Somersworth High School, the first time while they were building the home and just yesterday after it was completed. To see these students, fine young Americans hard at work using their skills to help families in need, was truly remarkable and for me very inspiring. I was impressed not only by the quality of their work, but certainly by the compassion that they displayed for the family receiving this home. I wish There's No Place Like Home continued success and hope they are able to inspire other organizations to follow their lead. The founders of this organization, like Paula Young and all of the volunteers, are to be commended for their hard work and their commitment to giving back to the greater good of our Nation. I am honored to represent such caring, civic-minded citizens in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent, Mr. Arthur Glidden, for his hard work and dedication to the continuation and protection of the Wolfeboro Centre Community Church. He has worked on this project for over 43 years. Mr. Glidden is 83 years old and has been a resident of my hometown of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, for his entire life. Arthur's wife, Dotty, is also a lifelong resident of the community and a supporter of the church. In 1841, a group of Wolfeboro citizens purchased one-third of an acre for $17 to build a nondenominational worship center for the Christian members of that area. This traditional New England church was started, and it continued in operation with the generous help of the congregation. In 1964, Arthur Glidden became president of the church board and began what has now become his long-standing devotion to the parishioners and the care and preservation of the building. Arthur has taken the traditions of when the meeting house was first built, and he has raised them to a higher level. For almost 25 percent of the life of the Wolfeboro Centre Community Church, he has been its greatest protector and benefactor. At times, almost single-handedly, Arthur Glidden lifted the church up to save it from declining attendance and carried it forward on his shoulders until it was safe and secure again. Arthur Glidden is to be commended for his steadfast dedication to the Wolfeboro Centre Community Church and all of his efforts to improve the community in which he lives.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Young and Mr. Murtha for their hard work and support of our troops and support of our Nation's defense, but I also join with my colleagues who have previously spoken. In November of 2003, I supported the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized the NSPS system. At that time, I believed that NSPS would produce greater efficiencies in government. Further, I believed NSPS would reward government employees that displayed personal initiative, hard work, and productivity, all at the same time while preserving collective bargaining and Civil Service protections. Unfortunately, as others have outlined, the implementation of NSPS has been staggered and revised on several different situations, indicating both the complexity and the problems when applying some of the good aspects of NSPS with the reality of its implementation. Last November the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management published the final regulations for NSPS. These did not live up to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration between the government and labor that was promised when Congress passed the authorization bill several years ago. In fact, as has already been alluded to, a Federal judge agreed with representatives of labor that NSPS failed to meet fundamental standards. On February 27, 2006, a Federal court enjoined the NSPS regulations because they failed to ensure collective bargaining rights, did not provide for independent third-party review of labor relations decisions, and failed to provide a fair process for appealing adverse actions. For the thousands of Federal workers at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is in my district, the NSPS regulations as proposed would have had a damaging impact. The shipyard's unique labor and management relationship has created tremendous efficiencies and progress and has become a model for good government. This progress and the relationship at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could well be lost under the NSPS program. Under the broad and rigid centralized NSPS regime, the flexibility that has led to some of our government's best practices and most successful entities would be impossible. In fact, representatives of labor have indicated to me that many of the efficiencies that were the result of labor-management agreements would not have been possible under NSPS. NSPS, as proposed, systematically restricts opportunities for labor representatives to communicate, negotiate and collaborate with Pentagon management. Given the exemplary record of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is in my district, which has returned submarines to the water and to fleet commanders sooner than any other yard in the country, all while saving significant millions of dollars on submarine maintenance for taxpayers, it is difficult to imagine that none of this could have been possible under the proposed NSPS format. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues who have spoken previously on this issue, and I rise in support of this amendment and ask the entire House to support it tonight.

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arthur Glidden for his hard work and dedication to the continuation and protection of the Wolfeboro Centre Community Church for over 43 years. Arthur Glidden is 83-years-old and has been a resident of my hometown of Wolfeboro for his entire life. Arthur's wife, Dotty, is also a lifelong resident of the community and a supporter of the church. In 1841, a group of Wolfeboro citizens purchased one third of an acre for $17 to build a non-denominational worship center for the Christian members in the area. This traditional New England church was started and it continued in operation with the generous help of the congregation. In 1964, Arthur Glidden became President of the Church Board and began what has now become his long-standing devotion to the parishioners and the care and preservation of the building. Arthur has taken the traditions of when the meetinghouse was first built and he has raised them to a higher level. For almost 25 percent of the life of the Wolfeboro Centre Community Church, he has been its greatest protector and benefactor. At times, almost single-handedly, Arthur lifted the church up to save it from declining attendance and carried it forward on his shoulders until it was safe and secure again. Arthur Glidden is to be commended for his steadfast dedication to the Wolfeboro Centre Community Church, and all of his efforts to improve the community in which he lives.