Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on September 4, the same day that this Congress voted against an amendment to cut aid to India, Indian security forces attacked a Sikh church, which is called a Gurdwara. They claimed to be looking for a terrorist, but they had no search warrant and they did not ask the Gurdwara management to send the alleged terrorist out. Instead, they just stormed this house of worship and tortured six Granthis, the clergy of the Gurdwara. India tells the world that it is a secular democracy. This raid on a Sikh house of worship proves otherwise. Clearly, Sikhs, among others, do not enjoy religious freedom under Indian rule. Narinder Singh, a spokesman for the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the center and seat of the Sikh religion, puts it in perspective. On August 11, he told National Public Radio, The Indian government all the time they boast that they're democratic, they're secular, but they have nothing to do with democracy, they have nothing to do with secularism. They try to crush Sikhs just to please the majority. This is the same Golden Temple that was subjected to a brutal military assault on June 4, 1984. To this day, it remains under police surveillance. On June 29, a man named Gurdial Singh, who is the elected mayor of the village of Khiala Khurd, was stripped by the police in front of the people of his village. He was then held upside down while Indian forces beat and tortured him. All this happened to Gurdial Singh because he is a baptized Sikh. The most revered mosque in Kashmir was subjected to an attack similar to the massacre at the Golden Temple. Many Muslim prisoners are force- fed pork, which is against their dietary laws. This is a form of emotional and spiritual torture. India still enforces an old law against encouraging a Hindu to change his religion. This law expired years ago, but is treated as if it is still on the books. It is as if the United States still enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Fugitive Slave Law. Some of the more militant Hindus even suggested that the late Mother Teresa might not be worthy of honor because the Sisters of Mercy persuaded some people to embrace Christianity. This is secular India. Secular India is a land marked by the government-sponsored murders of over 200,000 Christians since 1947, more than 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 53,000 Muslims since 1988, and thousands upon thousands of other minorities. Here is a land in which religious persecution reigns. America is the moral voice of the world, the bastion of freedom for the oppressed peoples all over this globe. It is our moral duty to do what we can to end this kind of oppression. We should formally declare India a country that practices religious oppression and impose appropriate sanctions, up to and including an embargo if necessary. We should stop providing monetary support for a government that practices religious persecution, violates human rights, and continues to develop nuclear weapons. And we should speak out strongly in support of the freedom movements in Punjab, Khalistan, in Christian Nagaland, in Kashmir, and throughout South Asia and the world. Let freedom ring in South Asia.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and the conference report on VA, HUD, independent agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1998. As I noted in July when this bill was considered by the House, I remain concerned about the adequacy of VA health care resources, not only in the next fiscal year but in the next future years as well. As most Members know, appropriations for VA health care have been essentially frozen. As years pass on, inflation will erode the value of this funding. Proponents of this freeze in appropriations for VA health care claim that allowing VA medical centers to keep VA copayments and third-party collections will replace appropriated funds. In its report earlier this year, however, the House Appropriations Committee noted that the accuracy of each year's estimated third-party collection effort is unknown. With regard to the VA having sufficient resources to meet the health care needs of our Nation's veterans, the House has failed to enact H.R. 1362, which authorizes a 3-year demonstration program to provide for discounted Medicare reimbursement for health care services provided to certain Medicare-eligible veterans at selected VA health care facilities. Dr. Kenneth Kizer, the under secretary for health, has recently told Members that enactment of this legislation is critical to the Department of Veterans Affairs. According to Dr. Kizer, without enactment of this legislation this year, VA will not have the resources needed to provide health care to veterans in future years. H.R. 1362 was reported favorably by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in July but has languished in the House since then. I urge its favorable consideration by the House as soon as possible. I am pleased that the conferees have recognized the value of VA research not only to veterans but to all Americans and have appropriated a total of $272 million for VA medical research. This is a sound and wise investment. The conference also provides an additional $8 million to meet the needs to help the VA to achieve the year 2000 computer compliance. Achieving this goal is critical to the delivery of health care and other earned benefits to our Nation's veterans, their dependents, and survivors. So I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the Democratic ranking member, for their support. Likewise, I want to salute the chairman and Democrat of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and Carl Stokes for their efforts on behalf of veterans. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and adoption of the conference report.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the Sikhs of Khalistan on the 10th anniversary of their declaration of independence. Khalistan declared its independence from India on October 7, 1987. A decade later things have not changed in Punjab, Khalistan. India continues to enforce a brutal tyranny that the Indian Supreme Court described as ``worse than a genocide.'' When India had its 50th anniversary in August, we heard a lot about Indian democracy and we heard about the elections in Punjab. India is a democracy only for the elites. For the Sikhs of Khalistan, the Muslims of Kashmir, the Christians of Nagaland, and so many other living under Indian occupation, it is not a democracy at all. Let me share with my colleagues the statement of Narinder Singh, a spokesman for the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh shrines, which was attacked by the Indian regime in June. On August 11, Narinder Singh was interviewed on National Public Radio. Here is what he said: ``The Indian Government all the time they boast that they're democratic, they're secular, but they have nothing to do with democracy, they have nothing to do with secularism. They try to crush Sikhs just to please the majority.'' In view of the fact that a quarter of a million Sikhs have been murdered by the regime since 1984, I believe that Narinder Singh is exactly right. Despite the elections in Punjab and throughout India, the repression is still going on. Ram Narayan Kumar, a Hindu human-rights activist who has exposed disappearances and mass cremations in Punjab, was threatened with death if he does not drop his work. Justice Ajit Singh Bains, chairman of the Punjab Human Rights Organization, had to go to the Supreme Court to get permission to visit his terminally ill brother in Canada. By the time the papers were issued, his brother had died. Hundreds of political opponents of the Punjab government have been arrested, and the government conducted a warrantless search of an opposition newspaper editor's home. Sikh activist Simranjit Singh Mann faces new charges under the repressive TADA law, although this brutal law expired in May 1995. Human-rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra is still missing over 2 years after he was kidnapped by the Punjab police. On September 4, a Sikh church, known as a Gurdwara, in Chandigarh, was raided on the pretense of looking for a terrorist. No terrorist was found, so the police contented themselves with beating and torturing six of the clergy, known as Granthis. On June 29, the elected mayor of the village of Khiala Khurd, Gurdial Singh, was stripped naked, held upside down, beaten, and tortured in front of the townspeople. His crime? He is a baptized Sikh. Mr. Speaker, these are not the acts of a democratic government. When police in Los Angeles beat Rodney King, they were eventually punished. The New York policemen who violated a Haitian immigrant with a plunger are in the process of begin punished for this terrible act. In India, police officers murder innocent Sikhs like 3-year-old Arvinder Singh and collect cash bounties for it. According to the PHRO and other human rights organizations, more than 60,000 of these bounties have been paid out by the Indian regime. How can a moral country like America stand by and allow these events to pass by unnoticed? Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action against this brutal tyranny. India has initiated unconditional talks with the Christian nation of Nagaland. We must demand that it undertake similar talks with the Sikhs of occupied Khalistan. We should declare our support for a free and fair plebiscite on independence in Khalistan, end our aid to India, and declare it a country that practices religious persecution. We should place an embargo on India similar to the one we had on South Africa and the one we still maintain against Cuba, ending only when these conditions are met and freedom is allowed to flourish in South Asia. Then and only then can India legitimately claim that it is a democracy. I look forward to the day when we can welcome India into the fold.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], a member of the committee.

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

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Dennis Kucinich].

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2206, as amended, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act. The bill before us today extends several important authorities which are scheduled to expire and approves a number of programs critical to meeting the needs of veterans with health care problems. Specifically, this measure takes important steps to address some of our most serious concerns about homelessness among our veterans in our country. On any given night in America, a third of those living in the streets of America are veterans. I find this hard to live with both as a veteran and as an American citizen. I believe we must do more to respond to this problem. As the VA's health care system makes important changes, at a minimum we must assure that the VA maintains both the quality and quantity of services delivered to homeless veterans today. This proposal will ensure the VA is able to continue such worthwhile activities which are allowing veterans to become independent and restore dignity to their lives. Importantly, this legislation makes Persian Gulf veterans eligible for VA health care by virtue of their service in the gulf rather than through a particular exposure. The medical literature has yet to pinpoint a single cause of the problem many veterans are facing and varies on its determinations of whether health differences exist between military service persons who served in the gulf and their peers who served elsewhere. The bill we are proposing today takes cognizance of the variation in the literature and gives veterans the benefit of the doubt. The VA exists to treat veterans with health problems related to their service to this country, and this bill will allow gulf war veterans with illnesses to access this care. The measure also authorizes a grant program to improve health care provided to these veterans. The VA Health Administration is enthusiastic about using its competitive grants to encourage their care providers to be innovative in treating the symptoms veterans have related to their deployment to the gulf and in developing centers of excellence for this care. Our Nation cannot forget these veterans as time marches on. We are obligated to investigate not only the causes of their illnesses but to find the best treatments for their symptoms for those people who honorably served in that war for our country. Several years ago the VA realized a substantial increase in drug prices due to unanticipated changes in the Medicaid pharmaceutical pricing policies. Manufacturers' representatives have stated they would not hesitate to raise prices to the VA again if State and local purchasers are allowed to benefit from the prices that the VA negotiates on behalf of Federal purchasers. This would increase the prices VA and others who benefit from the negotiation pay for pharmaceuticals. Because of this response, we do not believe State and local purchasers should benefit from access to the Federal fee schedules. Furthermore, our Committee on Veterans' Affairs believes because of the inadequate resources that we have, that as many as 50,000 veterans would lose their access to the health care system if the VA was required to pay more for their drugs. We cannot allow this to happen. This bill is extremely important to America's veterans. I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EVANS

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

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, the problem of sexual harassment is not new to our society or our Federal work force. It has only been in the past decade or so, however, that Congress has begun to truly recognize the depths of the problem and attempted to eliminate it from our workplace. Recent testimony before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has shown that sexual harassment has been far too commonplace at the VA over the past few years. Despite what I consider to be sincere efforts of VA Secretary Jesse Brown and his successor, Hershel Gober, VA's ``zero tolerance'' policy against sexual harassment has failed. VA's zero tolerance policy was placed in effect in 1993 after the Subcommittee on Oversight's hearings showed a seriously flawed EEO process and a culture of tolerance toward sexual harassment at the VA. I chaired those hearings back then, and I also fought to overhaul the EEO process within the VA at that time. Thanks to the collective efforts of our past chairman, Sonny Montgomery, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], our current chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and others, the House passed legislation during the 103d Congress that is nearly identical to the bill that we are considering today. Given the promises of comprehensive Government-wide EEO reform, however, the Senate did not act on this piece of legislation. Nearly 5 years later, there has been no Government-wide reform of this process, there have been no major overhauls of the VA's administrative process, and VA's well-intentioned zero tolerance policy has proven to be ineffective. But thanks to the leadership of VA's Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, Terry Everett, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has continued to keep a watchful eye on the VA's efforts to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Joined by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] and Republicans, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], Terry and I introduced this bipartisan legislation that we are considering today on the floor of the House. I commend the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Everett], for fighting the good fight, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation this afternoon. No one should think that we in Congress will be able to completely end sexual harassment, discrimination and abuse at the VA or anywhere else. Still, we can play a significant role in bringing renewed professionalism, independence and objectivity to the EEO process at the VA, and that is exactly what we will do by enacting H.R. 1703. By removing the EEO complaint process from the facility where the discrimination allegedly occurred, this legislation limits the ability of heavy-handed facility directors to unfairly influence the discrimination complaint process. By removing the final agency decision-making authority from the VA's office, this legislation eliminates the obvious conflict of interest created when the general counsel is expected to be an advocate for the VA on one hand, and to decide the merits of discrimination complaints against the department on the other hand. By enacting this bill, we can address these serious flaws and bring renewed independence, objectivity and professionalism to the EEO process at the VA. I am pleased to say that VA Secretary Hershel Gober has acknowledged that the VA's current EEO process is flawed and in need of reform. In anticipation of this legislation and similar legislation in the Senate, Mr. Gober has already initiated administrative changes to the EEO process which would bring the department much of the way toward achieving the reforms originally proposed in 1993. I applaud his leadership and his demonstrated level of commitment on this issue, but it is still up to Congress to make sure that the VA does all the work it needs to do for this issue to be addressed. The Congress cannot and should not be expected to wait any longer for meaningful reform of the EEO process within the VA. More importantly, this Nation's veterans and the VA employees dedicated to serving them cannot be expected to wait any longer for meaningful action and honest reform to come to the EEO process at the VA. By enacting H.R. 1703, we in Congress can help put the VA back on the path toward restoring employee trust and eradicating discrimination in the workplace. Our veterans and VA employees deserve no less. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2571. This bill accommodates the administration's construction spending priorities as well as those projects for which our committee anticipates appropriations will be made. The major construction projects require modest funding but are critical to provide access to veterans in areas where their needs cannot be met or in maintaining patient safety in existing facilities which are deficient in conforming to the earthquake code. I am also pleased with the emphasis this bill places on outpatient projects and development of information resources management centers. Leasing, rather than building, to meet VA's needs is also a move in the right direction. VA has sometimes been criticized for using bricks and mortar to meet its space requirements while facilities in the community stand vacant. The leases this bill authorizes are more flexible than in the past, and the VA can provide the capacity it needs not only for today but it may need maybe tomorrow. The authorizations for construction and for leases also allow the VHA to continue on its course of shifting the care to ambulatory settings and providing increased access to the health care needs of our veterans in 1998. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Doggett motion to instruct conferees concerning H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. It is very clear that our Senate colleagues, in this Helms amendment, have established an Iraqi claims fund to provide a means to handle conflicting claims for frozen Iraqi assets stemming from the Persian Gulf war. Among those who have filed claims for such frozen assets are gulf war veterans and tobacco companies. In determining who has priority to such claims, the Helms amendment would give preference to private corporate interests, such as tobacco companies, over our veterans. It is inconceivable that Americans would support such priorities at the expense of our Nation's veterans. We should instruct the conferees to reject the Helms amendment to the foreign relations bill. Many veterans who served our Nation during that conflict have been afflicted with undiagnosed illnesses that many people call Persian Gulf syndrome since they returned home. As forcefully stated by veterans service organizations and veterans advocates, this ill-conceived provision which pits gulf war veterans against tobacco would add insult to the illnesses many veterans contend with daily. To suggest we have done enough to help those veterans of that war with the problems that they are facing I think is to ignore the facts. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, I am afraid to say, we have not done enough for our Persian Gulf veterans. Having access to these assets, perhaps as a result of a class action suit, the same way that Vietnam veterans sued the chemical companies dealing with the agent orange issue, is something that could be a real possibility for these veterans to obtain assistance they have not received from the Federal Government under those Democratic or Republican administrations. While I have supported the legislation that has dealt in small part with the Persian Gulf veterans, I think it is woefully inadequate today. Our Government has not honored the claims of those people who fought and defended those people in the Persian Gulf region. This at least offers them one other fund, one other road, one other avenue that they can take to get the help they need.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill directs the Bank to provide a financial carrot for firms to adopt, adhere, and comply with their own business standards while operating in China. Under this proposal, priority for Export-Import Bank financing would be granted to firms who have pledged to avoid the use of child or prison labor, avoid discrimination based on religion, race, gender, and national origin, respect freedom of association and the right to organize, provide a safe and healthy workplace, obey applicable environmental laws, comply with U.S. and local laws in promoting good business practices, including laws prohibiting illicit payments, and assure that their business partners in China adhere to those same principles. In order to qualify for this preference, firms must demonstrate that they are making a good faith effort to comply with these principles. The board of directors would evaluate a firm's qualifications based on guidelines outlined in this amendment. Most companies are aware of these procedures because they are modeled after chapter 8 of the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines relating to organizational defendants. Those guidelines were implemented in 1991 as an incentive for U.S. corporations to prevent and detect violations of U.S. laws within their organization. If a firm implements a compliance system to prevent corporate crimes such as bribery or fraud, the firm can mitigate any fines incurred in court. As a result, these guidelines have been a powerful incentive for firms to establish ethics codes as well as compliance measures. The amendment also directs the bank to work with the Commerce Department's Clearinghouse on Corporate Responsibility to ensure that the recipients of financing from the bank are aware of and have access to resources and organizations, such as Businesses for Social Responsibility, that assist businesses in developing, implementing and monitoring codes of conduct. Good corporate citizenship is being embraced by more and more companies who are realizing that they do not have to sacrifice profits for principles. In fact, an article in the January issue of WorldBusiness notes that the conference board estimates that at least 95 percent of Fortune 500 companies now have such codes. The time has come to strengthen our international trade and investment policies by fostering and rewarding the private sector's commitment to human and worker rights as well as environmental concerns. In the case of China, it is time to search for new avenues for promoting and fostering democracy and human rights. This amendment ensures that the constructive engagement with China works. While critics of this amendment claim that this is an administrative burden on the bank, I believe placing priority on human rights and workers' rights is worth the effort. Additionally, in an era of tight budgets, should we not be very careful about spending taxpayers' dollars? My amendment employs economic incentives to reward good corporate citizenship. No firms should be precluded from receiving financial assistance from the bank for activities in China. Rather, this amendment would ensure that the global corporate responsibility is a part of the strategy for improving and expanding global partnerships and opportunities. It is time that the U.S. invests in an international trade and investment policy that is both a competitive and a positive force abroad, not just a license to exploit workers and children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that I have the right to close on this amendment.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives passed the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act. Included in the bill is a provision that deserves the support of every Member of Congress who wants to assist our Persian Gulf war veterans. The provision, authored by Representative Bernard Sanders, would provide $7 million over 5 years to the Department of Health and Human Services to use both the expertise of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the possible connection between chemical and biological exposures and the mysterious ailments being suffered by our gulf war veterans. Representative Sanders deserves much credit for his efforts to ensure that we thoroughly investigate what is making our veterans sick. This provision comes at a time when more and more people are becoming convinced that chemical weapons may have played a substantial role in the illnesses that are afflicting Persian Gulf veterans. Just recently, the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses agreed to revise its final report to reflect that chemical weapons may have played some role in veterans' ailments. In addition, the final report will now say that research on the effect of chemical weapons exposure has been minimal and that it may take years of research to clarify the causes of these problems. I believe that we cannot leave any stone unturned in trying to find answers. As DOD continues to revise upward the number of veterans who may have been exposed to chemical weapons, it's obvious that we cannot allow our Government to do a minimal job of investigating what is becoming a compelling possibility. The provision could not have come at a better time. For too long, our Government has refused to fully investigate the possibility that low- level chemical weapons exposure or exposure to multiple chemical substances may pose serious health consequences. We now have a chance to reverse this and ensure that every possible avenue is investigated in trying to help our sick Persian Gulf war veterans. Again, I applaud Representative Sanders for his work. I hope it finally signifies that we have turned the corner in our efforts to get to the bottom of this tragedy.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, my colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, for their efforts in producing this bill. Likewise, I appreciate the hard work of all members on the subcommittee on this legislation, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee, for his most important contributions, and likewise members of the full committee as well. In particular, I am very pleased that the full committee has provided $2 million in funding for the National Veterans Training Institute. This is a sound investment and money well spent, which will enable the continued provision of essential training. Again, I am most thankful to this committee for its actions. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offered for myself and my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], provides an additional $2.5 million for the homeless, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project, a program administered by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training. I understand $2.5 million has already been designated in H.R. 2264 for homeless veterans under the Department of Labor pilots and demonstrations, and I appreciate the committee's concern for veterans. Nonetheless, the problem of homeless veterans is so severe that additional funding is necessary. There is virtually no disagreement that one-third of the homeless men in this country are veterans, and that approximately 60 percent of those individuals are veterans of the Vietnam war. This means, Mr. Chairman, that every night in this great country of ours more than 280,000 veterans are sleeping in homeless shelters or on our streets. Since 1987, this program, a modest, cost-effective program designed to help homeless veterans reenter and succeed in the job market, has proven its worth. More than 41,000 homeless veterans have received help and support from the community-based organizations funded under this program, and many were placed in jobs at a cost of less than $15,000 per veteran. Few government programs can claim to have achieved so much with so little. Our amendment provides $2.5 million for this needed program, the funding level authorized under section 11448 of title 42, United States Code. Rather than increasing spending in order to fund this important program, our amendment would simply earmark this $2.5 million of the more than $5 billion provided for the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Earlier this year the Committee on Veterans' Affairs voted without dissent to fund this program. Republicans and Democrats came together, as they are doing tonight, to show their support for the men and women who served honorably in our Nation's Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their commitment to America's veterans and support the Evans-Filner amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], and to wish him a happy birthday, as well.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.