Timothy Walz

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my good friend, the vice ranking member of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who is also from a great vacation State.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), my good friend, a long-time champion of veterans, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a good friend and new member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is also on the Maine Tourism Board.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as you heard here today from numerous members of the committee and others, this is how business should be done: looking out for our veterans, compromises being made. I do want to extend my thanks to Senator Isakson; Senator Tester; Secretary Shulkin; the DAVs and the other VSOs; and the staff on both sides of the aisle who are the ones who are carrying out late-night negotiations. I think the gentleman from Tennessee, Chairman Roe, did bring up a good point: this is the beginning of tough decisions that need to be made, tough negotiations. I hope everyone here understands that the continued good will and bipartisanship is going to be needed, because we have an opportunity to transform the VA into that 21st century VA, one that is more responsive to the needs of veterans, one that takes into account the realities of modern-day medicine that involves many outpatient clinics and different ways of delivering service, especially to rural veterans who we represent. This is a great start. It is one that I think we go from a stop on Monday to what I hope can be a unanimous vote for a good, smart piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 95, as amended, offered by the Subcommittee on Health Ranking Member Julia Brownley. Mr. Speaker, to increase access, we must eliminate barriers, and this amendment in the nature of a substitute does exactly that. The Veterans' Access to Child Care Act assists those veterans who are also parents to access the healthcare they need by allowing the VA to provide childcare assistance to eligible veterans. Representative Brownley's bill is essential to ensuring all veterans have that access, and I appreciate her hard work to make it a reality. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), the author of this piece of legislation.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, the Chair heard the reasons for this. I thank the gentlewoman for authoring this needed piece of legislation and urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, as you heard, I urge my colleagues to support this smart piece of legislation. But I would like to close by adding, also, a thank-you to the chairman and to the majority side, once again showing bipartisanship offering two bills introduced by our side of the aisle that are being heard here on the floor which can be signed into law. It is greatly appreciated. It shows that the care of veterans always comes first. We on the minority side are appreciative of that courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 3262, as amended, the GOOD Act of 2017, which was introduced by a good friend, someone who has proven herself to be a dogged champion of veterans, the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Ms. Kuster. This important piece of legislation will allow veterans who served as medics and corpsmen in the military to receive scholarships to train as physician assistants. The VA has over 45,000 provider vacancies to fill so that veterans are not waiting too long for care. In the United States, we face a provider shortage in general, especially in our rural communities, where most veterans live. This bill will help address these critical shortages by providing veterans with an incredible opportunity to aid their communities and their fellow veterans. Ms. Kuster's hard work on this legislation and on behalf of veterans is admirable, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), the author of this piece of legislation, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2772, the VA Senior Executive Accountability Act. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill that has received bipartisan support as it moved through regular order of our committee. This bill requires that any reassignment of a senior executive at the VA have the Secretary's written approval. It also requires an annual report to Congress to help us in our oversight ability. I have dealt with this issue myself in Minnesota and know firsthand how important this is. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Taylor and our vice ranking member, Mr. Takano, for developing this legislation. I support and encourage Members to join in its support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close at this time. Mr. Speaker, again, commonsense bill, bipartisan, does the right thing, and, as the gentleman so clearly explained, providing that trust to our veterans is absolutely critical. I believe this will do that. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 2772. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I feel so strongly about this, I am going to support it again today. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2006, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, you are going to hear today and we have a series of bills, many of them historic in nature, many of them--all of them-- worked in a bipartisan manner. There has been a lot of talk lately of the one place in Congress that is really functioning well, and that is in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I would echo that. It is because of the commitment, the dedication, and the end state that all of us agree on is the best possible care for those warriors willing to put their lives in harm's way, their families, and the care that was pledged to them. Also, with that being said, democracy is hard. It requires us to do the work here, with the stakeholders, and there is no issue that has a more committed group of stakeholders than the veterans' community. Some of the names you are going to hear of veterans service organizations are a hallmark and a bedrock of not just veterans' issues, but of our communities. We work with them hand in hand to make sure that this Congress understands exactly what they need. And democracy is hard. It is that old sausage-making adage sometimes. It is a disappointment to me that we are on the floor because I think we are just a little bit early; I think we are about a day. Like we have before, we stood on this floor when we had a very important accountability bill forward, and I said at that time we were going to have to work with the Senate to make sure we got something passed. We did that, it passed, and I am proud that we were able to do that. It happened with the GI Bill that is coming up. The first run we went at it did not work because we had not built that collaboration, and I am disappointed today that I believe S. 114 has fallen into that. This is a very fast-moving problem, because I want to be clear. What this does is it extends veterans' access to care in the community through the Veterans Choice Program without providing additional resources for the Department of Veterans Affairs to enhance its internal capacity. I agree with my colleague who was very clear about the capacity of the VA, what Choice does, and I would absolutely echo not funding this program before we leave for the August recess is unacceptable. But not getting a bill that the Senate can agree on, not getting a bill that the President can sign, and not getting a bill that actually does what we are supposed to do is also not acceptable. The gentleman is also right: we have quadrupled the VA budget, and I am proud of that. I also think it is probably not lost on anyone that that started in 2001 at the same time that we fought America's longest war and are still engaged around the world, with an aging population of Vietnam, Korean, and World War II veterans. As it became apparent that the Veterans Choice Program was facing a funding shortfall earlier this summer, nine veterans service organizations--Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and Vietnam Veterans of America--issued a letter which provided very clear guidance to House and Senate leadership and House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees in terms of a solution, and I include in the Record the letter from these organizations. June 28, 2017. Hon. Johnny Isakson, Chairman, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Jon Tester, Ranking Member, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Phil Roe, M.D., Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Tim Walz, Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen Isakson and Roe, Ranking Members Tester and Walz: As leaders of the nation's largest veterans service organizations, and on behalf of our combined five million members and auxiliaries, we write to urge you to expeditiously reach agreement on and advance legislation to ensure continuous access to health care for millions veterans enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, including care provided through the Choice program. Specifically, we call on you to reach agreement on an emergency appropriation and authorization bill that would address urgent resource shortfalls endangering VA's medical care programs--including Choice, community care and medical services. Further, in order to prevent these problems from recurring in the future, we call on you to equally invest in modernizing and expanding VA's capacity to meet rising demand for care, as well as finally address the glaring inequity in law that prevents thousands of family caregivers from getting the support they need to care for their veterans severely disabled before September 11, 2001. In recent weeks, VA Secretary David Shulkin has repeatedly made clear in his public statements and congressional testimony that current funding is no longer projected to be adequate to meet the needs of an increasing number of veterans seeking medical treatment directly through the VA system as well as through community care programs, particularly the Choice program. Secretary Shulkin has made clear that rising demand for care by veterans has consumed more VA resources than previously anticipated, threatening the ability of VA to meet all of its obligations to ill and injured veterans both this year and next. Although Public Law 115-26 extended the Choice program beyond its prior sunset date of August 7, 2017, VA now projects it will likely run out of funding prior to the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017 unless additional funding is made available. Further, based on recent utilization trends, VA projects a higher demand for both community care and Choice next year (FY 2018), and anticipates additional funding requirements above the budget request made just weeks earlier. In order to ensure continuation of the Choice program--and absent an infusion of new funding--VA has stated its intention to take extraordinary budget actions, including pulling back unobligated funding from VA medical facilities and utilizing funding in FY 2017 that had been designated as carryover funding for its FY 2018 budget request, thereby further reducing available medical care resources for next year. Messrs. Chairmen and Ranking Members, our nation has a sacred obligation to ensure the men and women who served and sacrificed to defend our way of life receive timely, high- quality health care through a fully-funded VA health care system, which includes community care or Choice options whenever and wherever necessary. With the Choice program rapidly running out of funds and its successor community care program still many months away, it is imperative that Congress not allow veterans to go without needed care before this transition is completed. We note that VA's FY 2018 budget submission included a request for $3.5 billion in mandatory funds to continue the Choice program. In order to meet Congressional PAYGO requirements, VA also included two legislative proposals we vehemently oppose which would cut billions of dollars from veterans disability compensation through changes to Individual Unemployabilty eligibility and rounding down cost- of-living adjustment (COLA) increases to ``pay'' for the new Choice funding. We find it absolutely unconscionable to cut benefits for disabled veterans to ``pay'' for their medical care. Congress imposed these PAYGO rules on itself and Congress has the authority to waive them by designating new funding for the existing Choice program as emergency spending, just as it did when the Choice program was created in 2014 through Public Law 113-146, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (VACAA). It is our understanding that the actual need to continue the Choice program for the balance of this year and through the end of FY 2018 is approximately $4.3 billion. We remind you that the primary reason the Choice program was created was to address gaps in access due to the lack of clinicians and clinical space necessary to provide timely access to health care for all enrolled veterans. As such, VACAA not only included emergency funding to allow additional access to community care outside VA, it also contained funding to rebuild and expand capacity inside VA. Therefore, we call on you to continue this commitment to strengthen and modernize the VA by providing equal emergency funding to address VA's infrastructure and personnel gaps. There are at least 27 VA health care facility leases awaiting funding in order to be activated. In addition, there are dozens of minor and major construction projects that require billions of dollars in funding to sustain and expand VA's capacity to provide timely care to enrolled veterans. Furthermore, VA has tens of thousands of vacant positions which will require not just funding, but innovative new programs to recruit and retain hard-to-fill clinical positions in many areas of the country. Therefore, we call on you to include an equivalent level of funding--$4.3 billion--to support VA's internal capacity to deliver care. Finally, since enactment of the Public Law 111-163 in 2010, which created the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC), eligibility has been restricted to caregivers of severely disabled veterans injured or made ill on or after September 11, 2001. The clear intention of the law was to initiate this program rapidly for post-9/11 veterans to address their urgent needs, thereafter working to expand the program to meet the critical needs of family caregivers of seriously disabled veterans of all generations as soon as feasible. However seven years later, Congress has yet to begin addressing the blatant unfairness facing caregivers of severely disabled veterans injured prior to September 11, 2001. As Secretary Shulkin and other experts agree, supporting caregivers who allow veterans to remain in their homes will save VA money that would otherwise need to be spent for long term institutional care. Therefore, we call on you to include both authorization and funding to eliminate this indefensible inequity based on existing bipartisan legislation in the Senate (S. 591) and the House (H.R. 1472,

Mr. WALZ. In their letter from June 28, they wrote: ``Specifically, we call on you to reach an agreement on an emergency appropriation and authorization bill that would address urgent resource shortfalls endangering VA's medical care programs--including Choice, community care and medical services. Further, in order to prevent these problems from recurring in the future, we call on you to equally invest in modernizing and expanding VA's capacity to meet rising demand for care. . . .'' Choice means choosing to go to the VA hospital and choice means choosing to use community care. Both are equal opportunities for our veterans to get the care they need. The current bill before us does not meet the requirements asked for by our veterans service organizations. In fact, in order to keep the Veterans Choice Program going, House leadership and the Budget Committee have refused to see this as an emergency and are requiring $2 billion in offsets to pay for the bill. While the actual offsets being offered are noncontroversial and are the ones the committee has used in the past, the fact that the leadership is requiring offsets from VA programs to pay for private care is wrong--all of this to appease a small vocal minority who simply sees any spending as unnecessary. On Friday, a number of the same VSOs listed above issued a joint statement, which noted: ``Veterans healthcare benefits have already been `paid for' through the service and sacrifice of the men and women who wore our Nation's uniform, millions whom suffered injuries, illnesses and lifelong disabilities.'' I agree with them. Without emergency funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, an analogy used by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, is not a viable path. It is actually robbing future Peter to pay current Paul. Had it been apparent VA would be facing this shortfall, Congress maybe would have never extended the Veterans Choice Program beyond its sunset of August 7 and would have, instead, begun working on legislation that would have consolidated VA's multiple community care programs into one easy-to-understand and -use program. I reiterate: Choice is not a permanent VA program. Now, it may end up being that. It may be someone's wish, but it is not. It was a short- term fix that was testified we need to extend the program. Several weeks later, leadership of the VA came back and told us they are 4- point-whatever billion dollars short and asked us to fix it. That is not the chairman's fault; that is not the Members of this House's fault; but it is our responsibility. Now, the question is: How do we ensure that the care is continuous? How do we make sure care is not interrupted? How do we make sure a veteran who is getting chemotherapy in the private setting right now is not told to not come back because we are not going to pay it? The sense of urgency is with all of us. What I ask is that we try and come back, take a look at what we can do. And I will say this: the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House has made as good faith an effort to do this as anyone could possibly ask. I understand the challenges coming from a broader caucus and asking for this. This, where we are at today, is significantly changed from where we started, but it is apparent, in the Senate, that it will not pass. We will not have money for the Veterans Choice Program, so we need to decide: Do we stand and make a statement of ideological, fiscal, whatever they want to call it, or do we come together, unanimously agree on something we can move forward, build capacity into the VA to assure that Choice is there, everything from the research into the VA to the care in the communities, and come together to find that? Moreover, these shortages are further reinforced in Choice when you take into account veterans' reliance on VA's system for care has steadily increased. While enrollment has been flat in fiscal years 2014 through 2016, the total number of veterans utilizing VA healthcare has grown by 3 percent. The total appointments in VA increased by more than 5 percent during this period. In order to address that need, since the Veterans Choice Program was implemented, the total number of community care appointments has increased by 61 percent, and more than 25 million appointments were completed in fiscal year 2016. Over one-fifth of this care was completed in the Veterans Choice Program. No disagreement. Community care has always been there, and community care is an absolute staple of the VA. What is also not debatable is capacity inside the VA must remain there. Any shortfall in capacity is going to distort where people are getting their care. While we are not here to oppose the premise of veterans having access to care, members of my Caucus, as this stands right now, cannot go forward until we figure out how we are going to come to a compromise that gets the capacity as it should be in the VA and also allows us and everyone--we should never have this discussion in this House. If we can't find compromise that gets something across the finish line that actually does something for veterans, everything else is just messaging for politics. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the chairman's words, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to respond to the chairman. I, too, have not made the argument on privatization. I do not believe that is the goal here. I do not believe that is what we talked about. If there are those that have that, that is not the intention of this committee, the chairman, his staff, or anyone involved with this. And when we did talk--and I think this could be an interesting way for this House to listen to how we do this. There was transparency in these negotiations, and we sat in front of people and did them. And one of the issues in there was we had to build the capacity amongst the VSOs. We need to stop for a minute. There may be times we need to take those hard votes against it, but I ask all of the Members to think about this, Madam Speaker. All of the veterans service organizations have lined up in opposition to this. Now, that doesn't mean that they are totally right, and it doesn't mean that there isn't something here we can talk and debate about. The question is trying to get their goodwill. I think when we talked the last time, we had some leases, and I am not calling them token, but in the budget of the big VA, which I do think in many cases is adequately funded, trying to get some of that to show the sense of goodwill. If I were counting on the decision being made strictly by the VA Committee, I would encourage people to know this would get done, but I am deeply concerned we are going to see a Frankenstein monster of appropriation process this week that in no way resembles regular order. That has nothing to do with this committee. Again I would say, if it were left to us, bifurcating this issue and coming back and fixing it, I have faith in that. In this House of Representatives and the leadership now, I do not have that, nor do the veterans service organizations. So the question here is not questioning the motive, the question here is not a false canard of privatization versus inside-the-VA care, it is not even the discussion we are having right now of the adequacy overall of the whole budget; it is a case of the VA leadership running a program, running out of money way before they had, and coming to the House and telling us that. And this is not and cannot be made that the idea is you are going to go home without funding the VA. No one will say that about you, and no one should say that about us. Everybody in this House will get this thing done and get it funded. So it is not the case. I do understand this: we are against the wall, we are under the gun, because they just handed us this. So it is our job to figure out how to build everybody into this. So the things that are being asked to do with the Choice Program, I support that. The offsets and pay-for, I disagree with. To make that work, our side was willing to say: Can we show some good faith and fund some of these leases and get some payments for these folks in terms of an emergency spending? But I understand the difficulty is if a spending bill comes, there is going to be a vocal group of folks who are going to make the case, as we have seen, that makes it very difficult to move legislation. Madam Speaker, you have witnessed it with healthcare, you have witnessed it with other things, that we are going to have to compromise. If we get into our corners, it is not going to work. So I want to be very clear. The motives of the chairman to care for our veterans is unquestioned, Choice being funded is unquestioned. Making sure there is capacity and goodwill and the funding needs in these leases and some of the things we are asking for is a necessity to make sure the Senate can pass this, and that it shows them that we are moving in the right direction. So I would ask, give us a day, have us come back at this. Don't put this thing on the board to fail and then let everyone else take the message. Everyone here knows we are going to end up here and pass something that can be signed into law, and that will happen. The questions are: Do we do damage amongst ourselves; do we keep the goodwill and the collaboration; or do we decide we need to make a message first, then come back and then blame someone because they are not funding the veterans? No one in here wants that to happen. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, to be clear, we are very aligned on the goals here. I am not implying that wait times went down if we didn't have Choice. I was on the conference committee that created Choice as part of it. There is community care that has been there. There is also a $12 billion shortfall in facilities rated D and F. We had sewer lines breaking and running feces back into hospitals, those types of things. I am not saying that maybe the money is not already there or they are not using it correctly. The fact of the matter is this was a program that was created out of the crisis of Phoenix. It did not stand up as quickly as it could have; it was plagued with tons of problems that many of us heard about. We kept committed to it. I would argue that they are getting their legs under them and providing care in a timely manner. It grossly overspent where it was at. We have had no audit. And I think we need to keep this in mind, that on this side of the aisle, I will be the first to talk to anyone who grandstands this and makes this as a case that this is a failure at the VA or the administration. I don't know that yet. What I would say is we are all in this together, so we want to get it done. I am simply making the case today that in light of opposition that is rarely seen from the VSOs in such opposition to this, that even though the outcome is there, and nothing the chairman said was incorrect, it is the spirit of what it takes to legislate that is missing around here. You can go to the White House after passing a bill in the House, and if the Senate doesn't do anything, it is not a law. So we have other people to deal with: constituents, veterans, veterans service organizations, Democrats in the Senate, Republicans in the Senate, Democrats on this side. So what I am asking is, just give a little on the side of what it takes to build the coalition, get the thing passed, and then let's go back and fund VA care and end this ridiculous argument of privatization versus nonprivatization. Wherever a veteran can get the care and access it as quickly, timely, and quality as possible is what we are trying to shoot for. In many cases, that is in the VA; in other cases, it is in the community. So this is not a drop-dead. My hope on this is, is that a debate, when it comes to emergency spending of money and depending on the Senate, is not going to split the goodwill, the good work, and, I would argue, the fair democracy and execution of how the House of Representatives is supposed to work. So my final statements on this would be, I am in virtual total agreement with the chairman on what needs to be done here. Our differences lie in, he is right, when I went back and talked to people, I could not sell to the VSOs the plan as it is, and they have every right to speak out on that. And we could not sell the Senate at this point. So what I would ask the gentleman again is, don't make us oppose this piece of legislation simply to make a statement for a few members. Bring it back when we can have the Senate, the VSOs, and everyone in and accomplish our goal. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), my good friend, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the voice of our Pacific Island veterans.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in unwavering support of H.R. 3218. It is interesting, we may prove a couple of things. One is that the universe needs to be balanced, or God has an incredible sense of irony, or our democracy is resilient and strong because, after our debate over the last piece of legislation, I can tell you that, in the time I have had the privilege of representing the people of southern Minnesota, I am not sure there is a day that I feel more of that sense of pride and honor than to be here today. Much of that thanks goes to a humble man who won't say so himself. The Colmery GI Bill, in any years past, and maybe with a different chairman, would have been the Roe GI Bill, as the Sonny Montgomery GI Bill; but the chairman is a man of humbleness and passing on thanks to others, and it shows in giving the credit to so many Members who wrote and were part of this legislation. This is a real historic piece of work. It is hard to get big pieces of legislation like this done. I saw somebody had written up recently and said: Well, the VA Committee is moving a lot of things because it is easy. I think, after that last little debate and how this one has gone, there is nothing easy about it because it is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be a challenge building the coalitions necessary. It is supposed to be thoughtful because we are impacting generations going forward. There are so many people to thank, and the chairman started hitting on them; but I want to again as someone who, if not for the GI Bill, would not have received my education, and our lives and the trajectory of our lives are changed dramatically for that. Somebody stood in these chairs years ago and thought about putting a GI Bill in place that ended up benefiting me; and the idea of being able to pay it forward from one veteran to another, or from this House to another, is something that seems like it is lacking too much around here. When we get together, there is much we can do for this country. The improvements in the bill are wide-ranging. I just want to mention a couple because I think they need to be said and I think veterans are paying attention, Madam Speaker, and maybe some of the folks watching this. I am happy to say we are able to remove the 15-year expiration date. The idea of a lifetime GI Bill just goes to the reality of modern-day warriors; many of them serving at different times, serving later in life, not going right away when they get out, or even changing professions; and having that benefit there and holding it and enhancing their education is not only benefiting their lives, it benefits our economy. We know that when these wars started we had very high veteran unemployment rates. We are trying to figure out different ways. And as the chairman pointed out, using the GI Bill for STEM research and other ways to get a skill set is just smart legislation. I want to thank a few folks on the other side about understanding that we have one force now. We do not have an active Army and a Guard and Reserve that are two separate things. These warriors fight side by side, and their call up, when they get called up, means the same thing. Because of the way regulation was written, there were things in here that created an inequality among them. And we were happy to have a general with us in General Bergman, Representatives O'Rourke, Banks, and Radewagen, along with someone who is not a member of this committee but is a co-chair on the Guard and Reserve Caucus. Mr. Palazzo worked to make sure that we offset those things to make sure our Guard and reservists receive those same benefits from when they were deployed. So this is a rare opportunity, Madam Speaker, to pass a significant piece of legislation that is fully paid for, compromised to in a bipartisan manner. The Senate is going to pick this up, I think. And I look forward to that day when President Trump, hopefully here towards the end of summer or early fall, picks that pen up and signs this and makes a difference in veterans' lives today and going forward. So my thanks once again to the chairman and his leadership for bringing together and building this coalition that made something that many of us thought about for many years; we would like to have seen got done. It is going to get done today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), my good friend and a stalwart supporter of veterans, the ranking member of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs.