[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7162-H7166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              DISABLED MILITARY RETIREE RELIEF ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from Missouri 
has 16 minutes remaining; the gentleman from South Carolina has 16\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a very, very important bill, particularly important to 
disabled American veterans. I notice we have had two adjournment 
motions already. I hope we can take this bill up because those young 
and young women deserve it.
  Special thanks to the Speaker, Leader Hoyer, Chairman Towns, Chairman 
Spratt, Chairman Rahall, Chairman Gordon, Chairman Waxman, Chairman 
Markey, Mr. Lynch, Susan Davis, and Mr. Edwards for all the help that 
they have given us on this very complicated, very important matter for 
our disabled veterans.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 2990. I am pleased the legislation 
we are considering today will assist the men and women of our Armed 
Forces by permitting disabled military retirees to receive both their 
disability compensation and their retired pay concurrently.
  Let me pause and thank Chairman Skelton for working closely with the 
Oversight Committee on title II of this legislation. Title II makes 
several positive changes to the retirement system for Federal 
employees. These changes will enhance the system's efficiency and 
effectiveness as a recruiting and management tool when we need to be 
attracting the best and the brightest to the Federal workforce.
  Most of title II's provisions were included in H.R. 1804, a bill I 
sponsored that passed the House by a unanimous voice vote on April 1. 
After passing the House, the retirement provisions were added to the 
landmark tobacco legislation that President Obama signed into law this 
week. Unfortunately, they were removed for procedural reasons in the 
Senate version of the tobacco bill that President Obama signed.
  I am delighted we have the opportunity to consider these measures 
again today. Title II includes provisions to eliminate inconsistency in 
the way part-time service, breaks in service, and unused sick leave are 
considered in calculating retirement benefits. These provisions will 
help employees and managers plan for a wave of upcoming retirements and 
encourage highly talented individuals to return to government service.
  I thank the staff of both committees. I thank Chairman Skelton for 
his support. And I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this very 
important legislation. And I hope that the other side stops calling for 
adjournments because this bill is very, very important and we need to 
move it forward.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand here to speak on this bill. 
I have some misgivings about it. But I intend to vote for this bill. I 
can't vote against this bill because it benefits people that have 
served this country and that have suffered for this country. And I have 
never, in the 28 years I have been here, voted for a bill that affected 
adversely any veteran or any person that stood up for this country, and 
I admire and respect Mr. Skelton, the author of this bill. I disagree 
with the way he has funded it and want to point that out.
  I would also point out that I have a letter addressed to Mr. Skelton. 
He has not had the time to receive it because this bill was introduced 
yesterday, and it is on the floor today. That is a little hasty. But 
this is an important bill, and it is a bill that needs to be passed. 
But I'm torn today as I rise to speak on H.R. 2990. On the one hand, I 
support the revisions in the bill, retired pay benefits for Reserve 
members and compensation and benefits for servicemembers. But where I'm 
torn is how the chairman, my good friend, Mr. Skelton, chose to pay for 
the compensation and benefits provided under the bill.
  I will first point out that this is a bill for the veterans, and this 
is a bill for those that probably without this bill would not have the 
assistance that they need, that they deserve and that they are entitled 
to.
  I would also say that as a veteran of World War II, and probably one 
of about four or five on this floor still here, five or six over in the 
Senate, there are not very many of us left, but I take no backseat to 
anybody in supporting veterans. I have a veterans' hospital that my 
predecessor, Sam Rayburn, provided and benefited. And I have had the 
pleasure of walking in a mass of walkathons to preserve that hospital, 
from Bonham, Texas, where Mr. Rayburn lived, to Dallas, to protest cuts 
in it, as anybody here would. Anybody on this floor has to support the 
purpose of this bill, which is for those that are suffering.
  The major desire of those that have served in any war is that no 
other generation would have to fight such a war and that we remove the 
causes of war. And probably the greatest duty of a Member of Congress 
is to prevent a war. And how do you prevent a war? You prevent a war by 
removing the causes of it. And energy itself, or the lack of it, has 
been the cause of most wars that I know anything about. Japan didn't 
hate this country. Japan loved this country. But our country had cut 
off their access to oil. They had 13 months' national existence. We had 
to know that Japan would break out somewhere. That was a war over 
energy, not the hatred of the United States of America. Twelve or 
fourteen years ago, George Bush, Senior, sent 450,000 of our troops 
over to Kuwait. That was not a battle for the emir of Kuwait. We don't 
care anything at all about the emir of Kuwait. That was to keep a bad 
guy, Saddam Hussein, from getting his foot on half the known mineral 
reserves and energy of that area over there. That was a war for energy.
  So I have a bill that I passed. I passed it as a Democrat once, it 
failed, it didn't get through. I passed it as a Republican with 
Democratic and Republican support. It passed this body. The chairman, 
Ike Skelton, voted for it at the time. And that bill is now underway. 
And I want to say a few words about that bill because I think you're 
entitled to know, and I'm very hopeful that the other body will look 
closely at this. And I'm going to be working toward that. I haven't had 
the time or the opportunity to work toward it, and neither did I have 
the incentive to do anything to kill this bill.
  I urge everybody within the sound of my voice to vote for this bill 
and to commend Ike Skelton for his leadership and his devotion to the 
men and women that fight for this country and care for this country.
  I think unfortunately regarding this bill, he chose to redirect the 
funds which by law, Public Law 109-58, a law that passed the House 275-
156, a law that Chairman Skelton voted for, are reserved for the Ultra-
Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum 
Research and Development Program, also known as section 999.
  Now the hard, cold facts about it that brought that bill into being 
was that we can get energy up from the coastal waters. We can get it up 
to around 80 or 90, 900 feet. And this bill, without the technology, 
could not get it to the surface where we could benefit from it. But we 
knew that the energy was there. And we knew that technology was there. 
And the bill I introduced is not an energy bill nor a technology bill. 
It puts the two together. And it pays universities, and there are 26 
universities in this country, and I'm going to mention some of those in 
a few minutes, that stepped forward, that are working within this bill 
and have put 3 years work into it.
  I just think that we need to remember section 999. It has achieved a 
lot since its enactment. It passed, and it passed the bill. It was in 
the bill that

[[Page H7163]]

we passed, what, a year and a half ago, a consortium that administers 
the program has grown to achieve over 140 entities in 28 States, 
including 26 universities. Those 26 universities, I'm not going to 
recite all those universities, they are available and people know where 
they are and which they are, but I do want to point out just some of 
the universities: MIT--this is a list of them here--MIT; Florida 
International University; Louisiana State University; Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology; Mississippi State University. It goes on down: 
Rice University; Texas A&M Texas Tech; Universities of Kansas, 
Oklahoma, Texas, Tulsa, Utah, Alaska-Fairbanks, Houston, Michigan, 
South Carolina, Southern California, West Virginia, and West Virginia 
State. Those are just some of the many institutions that are working 
within the confines of the bill that we passed.
  The consortium has awarded dozens of projects. These are underway. If 
you divert this money from this bill to support the bill that Mr. 
Skelton has, these are the things that you're knocking out, an effort 
to find energy for 100 years that this country needs, that would 
prevent us from having to pay foreign agents, Arab nations that we 
don't trust and don't trust us, those millions and trillions of dollars 
could stay here in this country. And the consortium has awarded dozens 
of projects, including 43 research projects currently underway, with a 
total project value of nearly $60 million.
  Also, Madam Speaker, the value of the projects over and above the 
amount of annual funding for the projects, $37,500,000 was achieved 
because industry believes in the value of the program and has invested 
substantially in it, a testament to the work that the program has 
achieved to date. These projects were selected on a competitive basis 
from over 180 proposals totaling nearly $415 million. This program is 
underway and the projects awarded by the consortium include components 
that benefit dozens of universities throughout the country. In fact, 
the research and development projects undertaken through the program 
have included the participation of nearly 1,500 energy researchers from 
coast to coast. These are not the majors. These are little people. 
These are for little people. These are for the American people. These 
are to prevent a war in the future by providing the energy of today.
  Nearly 80 percent of the awards made through the section 999 program 
have gone to universities, nonprofit organizations, national 
laboratories, and State institutions.

  Program awards have created high-tech and innovative domestic jobs. 
The National Energy Technology Laboratory has estimated that the awards 
would create 1,300 job years from research alone. All the while, Madam 
Speaker, the research projects are aiding the development of cleaner, 
safer, and more environmentally responsible domestic energy sources, 
and yes, hundreds of years of energy that is there, we can bring to the 
top now that we couldn't before.
  We get the technology. It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. We pay 
for the energy we get by the technology that gives us the ability to 
bring it up, ability we didn't have--we couldn't get the energy. With 
that technology, we can get that energy, and that is the thing that 
really breaks my heart to see us kill a program that is underway and is 
working. It is hundreds of years of energy.
  I want to just point out one other thing. Section 999 does just the 
type of research that the Secretary of Energy, the Honorable Steven 
Chu, feels that the Federal Government should be supporting, as he 
stated in a hearing earlier this year as he testified before the House 
Science and Technology Committee.
  So this is a bill that is a wonderful bill. For the purpose of the 
bill, I support it. I'm going to vote for it. I urge everybody else to 
vote for it. But I urge you to work and look forward and find out for 
yourself the funds that are being utilized to take its place, already 
underway successfully and producing for us, not to throw it aside. 
There are surely other areas that we can find. And I will join Mr. 
Skelton in that, as this thing goes to conference, if it goes to 
conference, or as it works its way through the other body.
  I thank you, and I thank Chairman Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, my colleague, the gentleman 
who is the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Spratt.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing the 
bill to the floor and I rise in strong support of the Disabled Military 
Retiree Relief Act of 2009.
  This bill accomplishes several important things. It enhances the 
benefits of Federal civil service retirees. It extends the bonuses 
available to our military recruiters to ensure that they have the tools 
needed for recruitment and retention. But most importantly, this bill 
restores the benefits earned by a group of veterans who are 
particularly deserving. The group I speak of is comprised of veterans 
who were medically retired with a disability and less than 20 years of 
service. These disabled veterans tend to be younger, and as a result, 
they tend to be less well off financially.
  Reducing their earned benefits by offsetting the receipt of one 
benefit against the other, retirement pay against VA disability 
benefits, does not strike them as fair. And we can understand why.
  We first recognized their cause in the Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008, when the Congress, Democratic Congress, fought to 
include them in the Combat Related Special Compensation program. Now 
President Obama has asked us to take the cause one step further. He has 
asked us to provide concurrent receipt, phased in over a period of 5 
years, for those veterans who are medically retired with a disability 
rating and for whom no longevity requirement applies. This bill moves 
to fund the first year of that proposal.
  This legislation will go a long way towards showing these veterans 
that they have not been forgotten, their service has not been forgotten 
nor has their disability which they incurred in service. Specifically, 
this bill will repeal the offset, which has prevented medically retired 
veterans from concurrently receiving their retirement pay and their VA 
disability compensation at the same time.
  Despite its high importance, please bear in mind that this is a 1-
year solution. And there is a reason for that. We have a rule here 
called the PAYGO, pay-as-you-go rule, which basically says when you 
enhance or expand eligibility for an entitlement program, you have to 
pay for it so that it will not worsen the deficit.
  In order to provide the offsets to keep from worsening the deficit as 
we undertook this very just adjustment of the veterans benefit program, 
we have had to look across the spectrum for different items. You just 
heard some of them read off by Mr. Hall a few minutes ago. We will have 
to, next year, do the same thing to continue this benefit. And to 
expand the benefit we will have to look for even more. So it is not 
easy. It is not easy by any means. But it is worthy of these veterans 
who have done a yeoman service for their country, who have sustained 
wounds that they will bear for the rest of their life, and which have 
disability benefits which should not be offset.
  So this is a significant step forward, but it is a step that we have 
not yet completed. It is a step in the right direction, but we still 
have a way to go. And next year we will have to revisit this again in 
order to renew this benefit and in order to expand it for another year. 
Nevertheless, this is a well-worked piece of legislation for a veterans 
group that dearly deserves the benefits that it provides.
  I urge support for the bill.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my dear 
colleague, the chairwoman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

                              {time}  1200

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2990, the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009.
  I would like to echo the comments of Chairman Skelton on the merits 
of this bill and to congratulate him for bringing this important 
measure to the floor.

[[Page H7164]]

  The process of identifying and coordinating the spending offsets was 
a long, hard struggle which demonstrates the resolve of the chairman 
and the Armed Services Committee as a whole to end the disabled 
veterans tax.
  The disabled veterans tax has been an economic burden on our military 
retirees for far too long. This is especially true for the severely 
disabled military retirees that were denied to serve for a full 20-year 
career, and this bill provides immediate protection for the most 
severely disabled with ratings of 190 percent.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect solution. The chairman and I and 
all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee want a full and 
permanent fix, but the task to find the needed offsets from entitlement 
accounts was a very difficult one. But no one, no one should doubt our 
resolve to bring full benefits to our disabled retirees.
  I want to assure other groups with issues that face the same daunting 
challenge to find entitlement funding offsets, that we have not 
forgotten your causes. Today we have focused on disabled retirees, but 
we are fully aware that more needs to be done to (1) fix the SBP/DIC 
offset; (2) enhance reserve retirement benefits; (3) protect health 
care benefits; and (4) eliminate the disabled veteran's disability tax 
for those disabled retirees who are not addressed by H.R. 2990.
  We will continue to search for the necessary offsets to resolve each 
and every one of these programs as soon as possible.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats have much to be proud about in our efforts 
to eliminate the veterans disability tax. We are again taking a 
leadership role in providing the benefits that our disabled military 
retirees deserve. H.R. 2990 is a good bill that keeps faith with our 
veterans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Disabled Military Retiree Relief 
Act of 2009.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, this bill is a tribute to excellent Armed 
Services Committee staff work, and I wish to acknowledge the fact that 
so many, supporting both Democrats and Republicans, did yeomen's work 
on this: Erin Conaton, Bob Simmons, Debra Wada, Mike Higgins, John 
Chapla, Jeanette James, and Eryn Robinson did a masterful job in gluing 
a very complicated and difficult bill together, and I want to publicly 
thank them.
  At this time, I want to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Georgia, who is also a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Marshall.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the staff, 
and other Members for the work that has been done in order to provide 
this relief to the disabled veterans tax. I would like to encourage all 
Members and all veterans to call the failure or the inability of those 
who are entitled to concurrent receipt of retirement benefits and 
disability benefits to call this the disabled veterans tax, a term that 
was coined about 6 years ago. More and more veterans are using that 
term. And as we use at that term and get this thing labeled the way it 
should be, as a disabled veterans tax, I am convinced that over the 
years we will find the offsets that are needed in order to completely 
eliminate this unfair tax on disabled veterans.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Without your due diligence here and 
an awful lot of work by staff, we wouldn't be able to make the inroads 
that we have made this time around. An awful lot of credit goes to you.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  At this time I yield to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) 2 minutes, who is also the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of 
Columbia on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Towns and 
Chairman Skelton for their leadership on this bill, H.R. 2990, and I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. There is a saying which is 
true, that we can never fully repay our men and women in uniform for 
what they have given to our Nation. We can never fully repay them for 
their sacrifice and their service. But I am happy to say that Chairman 
Skelton is trying his best, along with Chairman Towns and the ranking 
member, to do just that.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal 
Service and the District of Columbia, I am delighted that key civil 
service retirement provisions are also approved by this Chamber 
included in the measure being considered today.
  Federal employee and postal unions, as well as employee retiree and 
management groups, all support these provisions. These provisions will 
improve the Federal Employee Retirement System by providing workers 
with retirement credit for unused sick leave. Additionally, the civil 
service retirement annuity calculations problem for those employees who 
wish to phase down to part-time work at the end of their Federal 
careers will also be rectified. The Office of Personnel Management has 
long supported this fix as a way to retain the skilled and 
knowledgeable employees who are nearing the end of their careers at a 
time of a more mature Federal workforce. The government, as an 
employer, must take the lead in addressing these workplace realities.
  This bill will also provide retirement credit for hundreds of D.C. 
Government employees who now serve as Federal employees. I would like 
to make it clear that these retirement provisions are paid for by 
treating Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands the same as all other 
Federal employees, and I look forward to working with the respective 
delegates of those areas on this issue.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my 
friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) who is the 
vice chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism and 
Nonproliferation and International Trade.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank Chairman Skelton for giving me this 
opportunity to speak on behalf of this very important and timely bill. 
I also want to commend President Obama and Speaker Pelosi for the 
leadership they have provided.
  This is my 8th year in Congress, and for each of these 8 years I have 
worked hard on this bill of concurrent receipts. I can't think of a 
more important bill that we could offer at this time as we approach the 
Fourth of July when this Nation celebrates its independence and 
freedom. At the forefront of that, the reason we are able to celebrate 
this independence and freedom is because of the soldiers and our 
veterans. And we have long felt that it is not fair nor right if our 
soldiers are injured and disabled, and if they have to leave service, 
why should they have to choose between a retirement pay and disability.
  What we are saying with this measure is the right thing to do, is to 
make sure our soldiers have both. I urge a unanimous vote for this. 
Every Member of this Chamber should vote ``yes'' on this important 
bill.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, again I 
would like to commend the chairman for H.R. 2990. This is a step 
forward, but I am confident that all of us, that we can work together 
for more.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I have no more requests for time on our 
side and I wish to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) 
for his excellent cooperation and hard work to make this bill a 
reality. We are most appreciative. Again, I thank all of those who 
worked on this very complicated piece of legislation, and other kudos 
to the Armed Services staff on both sides of the aisle. It is very 
important. It is very important for our veterans, particularly those 
disabled veterans who have had less than 20 years of service. It treats 
them as they should be treated.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2990 
to provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the Armed 
Forces, expand concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA 
disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other 
purposes. I want to thank my good friend from Missouri, the Chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee Mr. Skelton, and

[[Page H7165]]

all the cosponsors of this important legislation. I want to thank you 
especially for including in this bill, provisions to extend locality 
pay to federal employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories.
  Mr. Speaker, federal employees in American Samoa are not getting fair 
treatment. To date, American Samoa is the only non-foreign area in 
which federal employees do not receive a cost-of-living allowance. 
Notwithstanding that by law, federal employees in the U.S. Territory of 
American Samoa are eligible to receive COLA payments, under OPM 
regulations American Samoa is not listed as a COLA-designated area. 
Given that American Samoa faces many of the same issues driving higher 
prices for goods, services, and travel that face other territories in 
similar situations, it seems discriminatory that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has chosen not to provide COLA to federal 
employees in American Samoa.
  Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that ``post 
differential'' compensation is paid to federal employees who are 
working in American Samoa who have come in from other areas of the 
country. And so the only non-foreign area federal employees who do not 
receive any additional compensation are those federal employees from 
American Samoa, working in American Samoa.
  All current and future employees in the non-foreign areas who are 
eligible to receive a COLA, whether or not they actually do receive it, 
are covered by this legislation and would therefore receive locality 
pay under this bill. Under this measure, federal employees in American 
Samoa will receive 12.9 percent locality pay received by the rest of 
the US.
  Locality pay will be extended to GS employees, administrative law 
judges, members of the Senior Executive Service, senior level and 
senior technical (SL/ST) employees, administratively determined 
employees, GS employees that do not receive COLA, and employees in 
agencies with unique personnel systems such as the Transportation 
Security Administration, DoD, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and those agencies covered by the 
Financial Institution, Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act.
  This is a very important legislation for all federal employees and 
especially my constituents in the U.S. Territory of American Samoa, and 
I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2990.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2990, 
the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009. This important 
legislation will finally address the issue of concurrent receipt, as 
well as other significant issues that plague public employees. One key 
issue affecting federal employees in Hawaii is the long-awaited 
transition from a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to locality pay, as 
is currently used on the mainland United States.
  Equitable retirement pay for federal employees outside the contiguous 
48 states is a concern shared by the approximately 50,000 civil 
servants living in Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. territories. The current 
cost of living adjustment (COLA) provided to federal employees outside 
the continental United States has created a retirement inequity between 
them and their mainland counterparts. If federal service in non-
contiguous areas is seen as a detriment to future financial security, 
our government will have an increasingly difficult time attracting and 
retaining the very best personnel. Further, federal workers should not 
have to resort to completing their final years of service on the 
mainland just to earn adequate retirement pay.
  I think this bill is an important step in addressing the inequality 
between those serving in the continental United States and those in 
more remote locations, such as Alaska, Hawaii and the territories. 
Federal employees throughout the nation are making an equal 
contribution to the health, well-being and security of our nation. 
Regardless of where they live, they deserve equal treatment and should 
not be penalized in their retirement for choosing to contribute to the 
local communities outside the 48 contiguous states.
  I believe that all federal employees will be better off under this 
bill than under the COLA system because their entire pay will now be 
counted toward their retirement benefits. Moreover, with COLA rates 
scheduled to decrease for many locations this year, and territories 
such as American Samoa receiving none, now is the time to act.
  Please join me in supporting H.R. 2990 and ensuring retirement equity 
for all federal employees regardless of their location.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, whenever an opportunity arises for the 
Congress to step forward and act to ensure that our veterans receive 
the full benefits they have earned, this Member is at the front of the 
line.
  So when I was made aware of the need for monies to offset the cost of 
H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Relief Act, I was proud to find the 
funds within the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee which 
I chair.
  Most Americans, I believe, see it as deeply unfair and certainly 
counter to American values that disabled veterans would be penalized 
with cuts in benefits when they also receive retirement pay. That 
policy does not reflect the thanks of a grateful nation. That is a 
practice that must be stopped.
  Toward that end, I have been glad to support the use of $50 million 
in receipts from the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and 
Other Petroleum Resources Program to help in the short-term provide our 
veterans with full access to the benefits they so rightly deserve. 
While this legislation represents a temporary one-year fix, I look 
forward to the opportunity to support a permanent solution.
  There are those who may decry the use of those funds to pay for 
veterans benefits and who will complain that this offset is too costly 
to the oil and gas industry.
  In response I point out an Associated Press article from earlier this 
month, which reported that the oil and gas industry has accelerated its 
spending on lobbying during this year faster than any other industry. 
In fact, Big Oil spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal 
agencies in just the first three months of this year.
  Madam Speaker, if those lucrative, multinational firms would simply 
call off their highly paid, smartly dressed lobbyists for three-and-a-
half-month, this offset would be entirely covered. In essence, this 
amounts to a choice between three-and-a-half months of pay of deep-
pocketed lobbyists and the debt we owe our veterans.
  Madam Speaker, I stand with America's veterans.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my concern with 
Subtitle B of Title II of H.R. 2990, entitled ``Non-Foreign Area 
Retirement Equity Assurance.'' This Subtitle would transition federal 
employees in certain non-foreign areas, including Puerto Rico, from 
non-foreign cost-of-living allowances (``COLAs'') to locality pay. The 
legislation is no doubt the result of a well-meaning effort to create 
uniformity in how various areas of the contiguous and non-foreign areas 
of the United States are treated. However, because the legislation 
would significantly change the system governing pay and benefits for 
affected federal employees, a full vetting of this issue--including the 
holding of a hearing--is necessary before the House can prudently 
consider the legislation.
  More than 41,000 white-collar federal civilian employees are 
stationed in the following ``non-foreign'' areas outside the contiguous 
United States: Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern 
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These 
employees receive non-foreign COLAs, in addition to their regular pay, 
to compensate them for the higher living costs they face in the non-
foreign areas.
  Replacing non-foreign COLAs with locality pay would represent a 
significant change to the manner in which pay, retirement, and other 
benefits are calculated. First, non-foreign COLAs and locality pay are 
calculated according to two different measurements. Non-foreign COLAs 
are based on cost-of-living differences between the affected areas and 
Washington, DC. By contrast, locality pay is based on cost-of-labor 
differences between federal and nonfederal workers in the same 
geographic area. Second, a non-foreign COLA is not added to an 
employee's basic rate of pay when calculating retirement and other 
benefits. Locality pay, by contrast, is counted toward those benefits. 
Third, COLA payments may not be taxed at the federal level; locality 
pay is federally taxed.
  Because these differences between non-foreign COLAs and locality pay 
would have a substantial impact on the manner in which a federal 
employee's pay and other benefits are calculated, it is imperative that 
Congress carefully examine this legislation. In particular, concerns 
have been raised that the legislation may not sufficiently address the 
varying labor markets in the territories, which could result in 
decreased locality pay levels or reduced locality pay rates being 
applied in the territories. At this time, I am not in a position to 
fully assess the merits of these claims. However, this is precisely why 
a hearing by the committee of jurisdiction is necessary. The House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and its Federal Workforce 
Subcommittee are well-positioned to address the concerns that have been 
expressed. However, by considering this legislation under suspension of 
the rules and outside the House's normal procedures, the House has 
taken away this important opportunity.
  Too much is at stake for the Congress to act in such a hasty manner. 
I urge my colleagues to reconsider the House's approach to this 
legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2990.

[[Page H7166]]

  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________