Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill before us, H.R. 1025, as noted sponsored by Congressman Walz of Minnesota, would ensure that deserving men and women of our National Guard and Reserve receive the honor and distinction of being called veterans. It seems a simple thing, and yet it is denied them. Representative Walz introduced this bill in the last Congress. I'm disappointed to say it didn't clear the Senate, and so we'll have to try again. Our Guard and Reserve comprise a large component of those called to serve in our current wars, and these changing dynamics need to be incorporated into our policies. I think this bill strikes the desired balance. I am in full support of the bill. I would now yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, Congressman Walz, to explain it in more detail.

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. FILNER

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

Mr. FILNER. You asked me yes or no, and now you won't say ``yes'' or ``no.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me first say I do appreciate the efforts that you have made, very aggressively, to keep a bipartisan aura on this committee. And I think you and I have taken a whole new position than the past. We have met regularly for breakfast and for lunch. We have even paid for each other--without taxing others. But you know as well as I do, there are other bills that should have been brought to this floor. You wouldn't bring them up. Sanford Bishop's bill, for example, which came to the committee. I endorsed it. I don't see it anywhere. You wouldn't take it up. You know we can't get any amendments through your committee when you tell them not to vote for them. So, come on, you know the process. You decided that this is the bill that's going to happen. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FILNER. I will say through the Chair that the chairman knows very well how the process works. He knows that we can't get amendments passed. He knows there are other bills--mainly Democratic bills--that are before the committee; some have had a hearing, some haven't, but they haven't been brought to the floor. We get a ``vow'' act, we don't get a ``wow'' act, we get a ``how'' act. That's what has been brought by the leadership of the committee to the floor. Mr. Chairman, you have yielded to me; I will yield back here. Why won't you support mandatory goals for veterans or disabled veterans, as they are in legislation as goals--3 percent sometimes--for hiring? Let's make them mandatory. Do you agree to that? You asked me a question. Do you agree to mandatory goals for disabled veterans for hiring in public projects?

Mr. FILNER. I will yield when I'm finished. You have a lot of time left. We're coming from wholly different places. I believe in the jobs bill that is being voted on in the Senate, that we should actually in fact not only cut programs but increase our revenue from a surtax on the millionaires in our society. So I'm there when I say we need new funds. You're the ones who keep saying, Don't do anything; Don't do anything; Don't increase anything; Don't extend this, don't extend that. You're the guys who are the hypocrites here. So don't confuse my past votes with hypocrisy. In addition, there are bills before our committee, Mr. Chairman, and you know it, that actually increase the jobs that are available for veterans. They actually take steps to increase the ability for our veterans who are defending our Nation, who we owe so much to, to get the jobs. Besides, as you know, we have goals all over the government to hire veterans and to hire disabled veterans. Those goals are not enforced. What if we enforced those goals? We could hire thousands of veterans, because it is the intent of Congress and the intent of this Nation that they be given priority in the hiring process, especially with public jobs. Yet we do not enforce those goals. So let's not say that this is the only way to increase jobs. There are dozens of way, and they're in front of our committee. Let's go for a WOW bill; a wonderful opportunity to work for our veterans. Let's move off the VOW. Let's move off the taxing of one part of veterans to pay for the other. Let's really create jobs for those who have done so much for our Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We know how JPMorgan Chase and other banks overcharged thousands of veterans and then improperly foreclosed on dozens of families, the most notable case being of Captain Jonathon Rowles and his family who testified very movingly before our committee. Now in the news, we have information that some of the biggest banks and mortgage companies have defrauded veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging illegal fees in veterans' home refinancing loans, just, of course, to add to their problems. I think some of those folks who did that did it knowingly, they did it against the law, and they ought to be in jail today. But when a servicemember separates from the armed services, they need sufficient time to establish good economic footing to be successful. We know that at times, military families have had a difficult time making a transition from the military to the civilian world; therefore, we ought to provide enough time for them to work with their lender, get a new loan, if necessary, or, in a worst-case scenario, sell their home. A home is often a veteran's largest financial asset, and they should have an opportunity to capitalize on their equity and avoid a negative mark on their credit history when they have the means to do so with their own home. Mr. Speaker, this is why my bill here will extend mortgage foreclosure protection to 1 year for those who are separating from service, and it extends those protections to our servicemembers' widows. The bill also includes a requirement for lending institutions with over $10 billion in assets to have a compliance officer and a toll-free number for veterans to call. We should require lending institutions to be informed about the protections for our military and to have a number that they can call for information and help with their loan. I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, again, there are some good provisions of this bill. The Hastings provision is especially appropriate. But we owe the American people better than just ideological legislating because I made this promise and this is a constitutional right. I believe in the Second Amendment. But we can regulate the conditions of that amendment, and this is an especially egregious case which needs regulation. The VA has said that someone cannot manage their own affairs, and yet we write in the provision that says, okay, go buy a gun anyway until some judge says you're mentally incompetent. Let's have the judge's decision first. Then if they are judged to be mentally sound, they can buy a gun. That's their constitutional right. They don't have a constitutional right to be 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 balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an omnibus bill that on balance I can't support. Omnibus bills are good and bad, and we have to balance that. Let me tell you why there are two provisions in here that make it impossible for me to support this omnibus bill. Section 2 requires the VA to institute a pilot program to hold employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration to annual testing and to even greater training requirements than their current 80 hours at five regional offices at a cost of $5 million over 5 years. Now, we are all for training of our employees and want them to do a good job and be adequately trained for it. Secretary Shinseki has set a goal of processing all claims within 125 days at 98 percent accuracy. That's a great goal, and we have to get a handle on that and get a handle on the backlog and the claims that are languishing unnecessarily. I think this provision is misguided because it will stand in the way of reaching the Secretary's goal, because I don't think we can test our way out of the claims backlog. Anybody can pass a test. The real question is can they adequately process claims. That's what the VA needs from its employees, not another additional burden resulting in work stoppages, which is what this testing requirement will do. We already have a certification testing program used for the advancement of VBA employees, which was greatly strengthened in the bill that we passed in 2008 with great bipartisan support. I think that this bill has redundant testing and wastes $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 responsible for the bill. It failed. It was withdrawn, but it showed up in the full committee markup and I think violates the spirit of regular order that we supposedly prize. More importantly, there is a provision in this bill which, let me first state in legal terms and then in English, which would prohibit the reporting of those who have an appointed VA fiduciary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system required by the Brady Act. What does that mean in English? That means people who have been judged by the VA 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. Hey, we have a 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 to commit mass murders who are mentally incompetent before we understand that we ought to prevent them from getting a gun 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 they have a determination from a State judge. Well, that's a non sequitur, Madam Speaker. While I agree that some of these people who've been judged by the VA not to be mentally competent to handle their financial affairs may not pose a threat to themselves or others, the prudent course of action, the reasonable course of action, the commonsense course of action, the course of action that will save lives in this Nation is that we not allow these VA beneficiaries to have access to lethal weapons until the legal 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 of the atrocities that have gone on in this Nation over the past 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, Madam Speaker? Come on. This is a scary thought. It's irresponsible legislating. We have got to do a better job of striking a balance on this issue. Everybody on an earlier bill is afraid of Grover Norquist. Everybody here is afraid of the NRA. Come on, let's be responsible. Let's use common sense. Let's protect the American people. Let's not go for these pledges that are made in a partisan way to make sure you're reelected and hurt the American people in the long run. That's what we are doing here. This is irresponsible. You give, by law, by a sentence that you put in, Mr. Chairman, you give them, mentally incompetent people, they've already been defined as that, you give them the right to be exempt from the Brady law's registration. Come on, we can do a better job than that! I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of our Health Subcommittee, someone who has served for 4 years as the chair and who has done so much good for our veterans throughout the Nation, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. FILNER. I have no further requests for time and would be prepared to close once the chairman has no further speakers.

Mr. FILNER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said earlier, this is a bill that has a lot of good things in it, and I wish we had gone further. I met with the GAO this morning. They said they could follow up reports such as this with an investigation of personnel actions, for example, and could report back to us in terms that don't violate any civil service protections that they would provide a third party kind of review of the personnel actions that may have resulted from their recommendations. You don't have to answer now, but I would be prepared to work with the chair to request 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, merely add new reporting requirements. They didn't follow the first ones, so what good are more reporting requirements going to do? There have to be some actions on the part of the Veterans Administration that say to our employees, that say to our veterans that there shall be no sexual assaults on our sites. Yet what we're saying here is, oh, we'll add a few more reporting requirements. That doesn't send a message, because we already had the reporting requirements. Let's try to find a way--and I'll work with the chair to do this--to send a message to our agency, not that we're going to pass another few rules, but that we're going to take this seriously, that we're going to demand that the employees who did not follow what is clearly stated in rules and law about reporting alleged cases of sexual assault be terminated. In my opinion, they ought to have been terminated. This is so serious, and it would have sent such a good message to those who might either perpetrate assault or to those who are victims of such assault. They should have been terminated. I doubt that they were. I doubt that they were removed from their jobs. I would hope the VA might contradict me, but I doubt that there was anything more than a note saying they should do better in the future. I hope I'm wrong, but I will tell you that the history of personnel actions in response to acts such as these has not been one that gives confidence to me that we have sent the right message. So I will work with the chair to do whatever we can to send the right message from this Congress and from the American people that these acts will not be tolerated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously, nothing is more important than the safety of our veterans; and this bill, H.R. 2074, contains many provisions to help improve the safety and health care of our veterans. Because of a report I requested as chair, the GAO presenter ``VA Health Care: Actions Needed to Prevent Sexual Assaults and Other Safety Incidents.'' That report found that veterans and employees were exposed to personal dangers, including sexual assaults, in the very facilities that should be protecting them. And, Madam Speaker, I think we ought to be more outraged given the findings of that report. That report found that there were not just dozens of alleged sexual assaults that went unreported, not even scores of such assaults, but hundreds of them--hundreds of sexual assaults alleged but not reported by those who had the obligation and responsibility to report them. How are our veterans protected when they can't even have a report of an alleged assault? What message does that give to people that the military & the VA care about what's going on here and what's going on with their safety? That's who we should be going after here, by the way. It's very clear who has the responsibility about reporting such assaults, and yet they were not reported in the hundreds of cases, and that was only, by the way, at some selected study places. Who knows what we would have found in the whole institution? I don't know that the VA has ever reprimanded any of those people. I don't know that the VA has ever said to the Veterans Administration that this will not be tolerated, that not only are we going to report on them, but investigate them and bring people to justice. I don't know that any of that has happened. That's what this bill should be trying to focus on. What happens to those people who don't report them? What happens to the cover-ups? What happens to those who protect each other as people are assaulted? I'm not sure that we have come to grips with this issue. This report was outrageous. This report was incredibly, incredibly tragic. And all I find is we are going to do some process changes in here--and I support those, and we'll vote for the bill. But we're sending a message here to the entire 250,000 working people of this VA that we're not really concerned about them, we're not reporting them, we're not getting to those people covering up, we're not getting at those people who protect each other, we're not getting at those who have violated the law by not reporting such incidents. Let's go after them. Let's give our veterans some comfort that their safety is protected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I endorse the arguments just made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 744, I was away from the Capitol due to a prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 743, I was away from the Capitol due to a prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 742, I was away from the Capitol due to a prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, thousands of Iranian-Americans from 41 states across America attended a rally outside the Department of State on August 26, 2011, calling on the Secretary to remove the principal Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which acts as Iran's Parliament-in-exile, addressed the rally via satellite from Paris. Excerpts of her remarks follow: Honorable and brave Iranians, I salute your protest and gathering, which symbolizes an uprising for the freedom of the Iranian people and in defense of the persecuted and besieged Ashraf; an uprising against a discredited label against the Iranian Resistance. Today, your calls echo the calls for justice emanating from an enchained nation, which rejects the velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule) dictatorship. Ashraf is proud to have such admirable representatives and defenders like you; And the Iranian people are proud to have stored in your being the most prized possession required for the attainment of freedom and democracy. Dear Compatriots, It has been more a year since the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which ordered the State Department to review the terrorist listing of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK). The Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance have paid the price for this unjustified delay with the blood of their most courageous children. Political prisoners in Iran, like Ali Saremi, were hanged by Khamenei's henchmen. And, the 36 heroes of freedom in Ashraf, who were martyred on the orders of the velayat-e faqih regime, were all part of this bloody price. The terror listing in the U.S. is openly used as a justification to legitimize such bloodletting, both by the cruel mullahs in Tehran as well as their proxy government in Iraq. Therefore, the Iranian people are asking the United States, ``Why are you not annulling the license to kill our children?'' The decision of the appeals court in Washington stated that the State Department violated due process rights during the listing process. And, 20 judgments by European courts against the terrorism charge leave absolutely no doubt that this label is completely discredited. Thousands of parliamentarians and human rights advocates in the Arab world and in Europe, joined by a large number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, forming a great global voice in defense of the freedom-loving Iranian Resistance. This constitutes an exceptional consensus in the face of 14 years of injustices committed against the PMOI and the Iranian Resistance. Dozens of the most honorable former senior officials serving in the country's administrations over the last two decades have taken a clear stance in the course of their multiple international conferences in Washington, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London and Rome, leaving absolutely no credibility for this listing. Hail to their sense of justice and clear-sightedness through which the great historical symbols of America like Jefferson and Lincoln are resurrected. We have seen how the mullahs' regime and the insignificant factions directed by Tehran utilize cruelty and insolence to attack and avenge these dignified personalities. But, these officials have shown extraordinary courage by placing their credibility and political reputation in support of this Resistance. We recognize the United States in the image of these noble human beings and not those who have succumbed to religious fascism. They represent an America that recognizes democracy and human rights in Iran as the precondition for global peace and security and guarantor of the American people's genuine interests. This is the United States that is standing by the Iranian people. For the past 170 days, your courageous and resilient friends have staged a sit-in across from the State Department. They echo the Iranian nation's call for the upholding of justice for the protection of Ashraf and removal of the PMOI from the terror list night and day, both under the summer heat and the winter chill. Letters from more than 800 religious leaders and 2,000 priests across the U.S. in support of this Resistance. Thirteen hearing sessions in the U.S. House and Senate to pursue the issue of protecting Ashraf and annulling the discredited terror label against the PMOI Passing of multiple resolutions in Congress, and especially the amendment passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month about the imperative to prevent the displacement of Ashraf residents inside Iraq And thousands of political, parliamentary, media and social initiatives, all of which have inspired the admiration of everyone. The evil forces that have laid a siege on your sisters and brothers in Camp Ashraf seek to destroy and annihilate Ashraf and its freedom-seeking residents. But, you have spread the flames of Ashraf in your society and hoisted its flag. Hold onto this flag more powerfully, because this is the banner of freedom and democracy in Iran. Clearly, the U.S. bears special responsibility for ensuring the protection of these residents on the basis of its agreements with every single one of the residents in Camp Ashraf. We urge the U.S. to listen to Congress and the resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and abandon the idea of displacing Ashraf residents within Iraq. We call on the U.S. to support the European solution instead of this dangerous idea which will have no results other than a humanitarian catastrophe. Similarly, we want the United Nations to rise up to its irrevocable obligations in ensuring the protection of Ashraf . . .

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Chair, on rollcall 695, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Carney

Mr. FILNER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 696, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proclaim that organized labor is often the sole source fighting for the rights of not just union members, but all workers. Today, we are recognizing a great leader of working men and women in Randy Cammack. Randy currently serves as the Vice President at Large of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Executive Board President Joint Council 42, and the Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 63. Randy Cammack began his Teamster career in Los Angeles, California as a UPS truck driver in 1967. He has logged over 31 years as either a business agent or officer with the Teamsters International. As the Vice President at Large of the Teamsters International, he represents over 1.4 million workers; and as President of the California State Federation of Labor, he is the voice for over one million workers. Randy has served on several collective bargaining teams at the local, state and national levels. He is frequently brought in to help solve many complex, tough grievances and wage negotiations sessions. It is basically in this area of his vast experience that he has earned numerous local, state, and national recognitions. Among the many awards he has received are the Hispanic Community Service Man of the Year Award, twice won the Community Service Man of the Year Award, 2011 Inaugural Labor Award and the 2011 Gladys Mason Labor Award for Patriotic Leadership presented to him by my colleague, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. It gives me great honor to join with the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council in honoring Randy Cammack as the 2011 Labor Leader of the Year.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proclaim that there are very few public servants who are as deeply committed to the plight of working men and women than San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald. For the past several decades, Marti could usually be found at numerous rallies and public forums strongly advocating for decent wages and adequate healthcare benefits for the working men and women in our community. In fact, Marti Emerald excelled as a broadcast journalist for 30 years before taking the oath of office for the San Diego City Council in 2008. Most notably Marti was the Consumer Advocate or ``The Troubleshooter'' at San Diego's ABC television affiliate for 22 years, earning more than 100 awards for community service and journalistic excellence. Marti has deep roots in the San Diego Community. She served on the Boards of Directors of Catholic Charities, the Better Business Bureau, and the Glenner Alzheimer's Family Centers. Marti graduated Magna Cum Laude from National University. During her tenure on the San Diego City Council, Marti has focused on repairing the image of City government through fiscal restraint, pension reform and increasing transparency in City government functions. Marti is serving her third year as the Chair of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. It gives me a great honor to join with the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council in honoring San Diego City Councilwoman, The Honorable Marti Emerald, with the 2011 Johns Fellowship Award.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, from 1961 to 1971, approximately 19 million gallons of fifteen different herbicides, including 13 million gallons of Agent Orange, were sprayed over the southern region of Vietnam. Many, including Agent Orange were based with the toxic contaminant, known as dioxin. It is estimated that between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese people were present during the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides and many more were or continue to be exposed through contact with the environment and food that was contaminated, or as offspring of those exposed who now suffer from illnesses and deformities. Today there are still dozens of environmental hot spots in Vietnam which contaminate the food, soil, sediment and wildlife and continue to expose Vietnamese to dioxin. Agent Orange exposure continues to negatively affect the lives of men and women in Vietnam and in the United States. Many victims' lives are cut short and others live with disease, disabilities and pain, often untreated or unrecognized. Therefore, Congress resolves to address and remediate the ongoing problems and concerns that arose or will arise from the use of these deadly Agents during the Vietnam War in both the United States and in Vietnam. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2634.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1383, as amended. I thank Chairman Miller for the work he has done on the bill to make sure it was palatable in both the House and the Senate. Let me just say, though, for the record, the GI Bill updates which we passed last Congress were passed with the full support of virtually every veterans service organization in the Nation, the majority of which submitted letters of support and strongly advocated for the bill, which included this tuition cap which we have been talking about. Everyone was well aware of the effect of the tuition cap, so I was sort of surprised when these same folks started talking about what they called ``unintended consequences.'' I think everybody knew the consequences. I know that many of our veterans made plans about their education based on the laws in effect before they started. And while most States ended up getting an increase with the new national average, a few States also saw a decrease. It is in these States that H.R. 1383, as amended, seeks to hold harmless our veterans from the so-called ``unintended consequences'' of the tuition cap. Our veterans have indeed, as Chairman Miller pointed out, earned their education benefits, and I firmly believe that we should seek to avoid any actions that may interfere with the use of their benefits. I am pleased that we are here today taking action to alleviate this potential burden on a small population of these student veterans. The start of the new school year, of course, is right around the corner, so I hope that with our quick action today we will have this issue solved in time for the new academic year. We have made quite a few changes to improve the so-called Post-9/11 GI Bill, and more changes are still being contemplated. As a veterans' committee and as a Congress, we must continue to work hard to ensure future changes do not delay or diminish benefits. Veterans are our priority, and we will protect their interests. I have no further requests for time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave