expense of disabled veterans and their families.
       Veterans, service members, family members and supporters
     are encouraged to contact their elected officials and urge
     them to oppose the disability compensation offset provisions
     contained in the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I trust the VFW more than I trust the
Republican millionaires' club that basically populate the United States
Congress on their side in this Chamber. The VFW is saying we can do
these benefits without punishing other veterans.
  I find it amusing because the gentlewoman says we need to find
offsets. Well, she voted basically to increase the debt by $4.7
trillion in the big, ugly bill, adding $4.7 trillion to the debt.
  Included in that, by the way, is $70 billion, again, unpaid for, for
ICE and CBP. Again, they have no problem with doing that. They have no
problem with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and now
America's trillionaire, and no problem with tax cuts for them that are
not paid for, but when it comes to providing veterans' benefits, all of
a sudden they have a problem?
  By the way, just for the record, there is a discharge petition that
has been filed to basically bring the Major Richard Star Act to the
floor without cutting other benefits for veterans. Every Democrat is on
that, every Democrat. We can bring this to the floor. We can have this
debate. We can vote on providing veterans additional benefits without
cutting other veterans' benefits. That is the choice.
  When I hear these speeches about, oh, we really are doing all that we
can, and we are on the side of veterans, again, the VFW opposes this
strongly. They showed up in the Rules Committee, filled up the Rules
Committee hearing room yesterday to show their protest, their outrage,
over what Republicans were doing.
  Republicans don't have to do this. Republicans could provide veterans
with the benefits they need without robbing other benefits that
veterans need. It is that simple.
  This is outrageous. This is outrageous what is going on, and people
should not be fooled.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, as I think we can all tell from the ensuing
debate here, there are serious issues that this body needs to be
wrestling with, but the Speaker has chosen to put on the floor this
week H.R. 139, a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent.
  I think there is one thing everyone in this Chamber can agree on:
Americans do not like changing their clocks twice a year.
  The big question isn't whether we should ditch the switch; it is how.
Unfortunately, the bill that the Speaker has chosen chooses the wrong
solution by making daylight saving time permanent nationwide while
denying States the right to enact permanent standard time if they so
choose--not if, but when they discover that Congress made the wrong
choice.
  We can all understand the appeal of an extra hour of sunlight in the
summer, but permanent daylight saving time comes with serious health
and safety concerns with even darker winter mornings.
  If this bill becomes law, winter mornings across the country are
going to look very different. Millions of Americans will wake up during
the winter months in complete darkness, with the Sun not rising until
long after people get up and travel to school or work or have to go
about their days.
  In much of upstate and northern New York, communities will not see
the Sun rise until well after 8:30 a.m. In Michigan, it will be close
to 9 before the Sun comes up. In parts of the Pacific Northwest,
sunrise will be pushed even later than 9 a.m.
  In many parts of the country, children will be waiting for
schoolbuses in darkness. Parents will be driving to work before
sunrise. Morning commuters, students, and pedestrians will be starting
their day in the dark, not because of the seasons, but because Congress
decided to move the clock instead of following the Sun.
  We don't have to speculate about what would happen under permanent
daylight saving time. We already tried it. During the 1974 energy
crisis, Congress made daylight saving time permanent in a failed
attempt to save energy. It lasted less than a year.
  Families found themselves sending their kids to school in the dark,
and there was a rash of fatal crashes involving schoolchildren.
Communities raised serious safety concerns, and public support, which
initially was quite strong, quickly collapsed. Congress repealed the
policy within months.
  The science has only become clearer since then. Medical and
scientific experts have endorsed the move to permanent standard time
because permanent daylight saving time disrupts our natural circadian
rhythms, the internal clocks that regulate when we sleep and wake. That
disruption has been linked to higher rates of heart disease, stroke,
chronic sleep deprivation, and other adverse health concerns. These bad
outcomes are even more serious and long-lasting than the sleep
deprivation, traffic accidents, and heart attacks that follow the
twice-yearly changes that we currently have.
  I have also heard directly from my constituents. Like most Americans,
they are ready to ditch the switch, but when I ask which permanent
system they would prefer if they had to choose, the clear preference
was for standard time. A Gallup poll last year found that Americans
preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight saving time by
2-to-1.
  That is why I have introduced the bipartisan Sunshine for Our Kids
Act with Representative Pat Harrigan. Our bill would end the clock
changes and make standard time the national default.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. SCANLON. Importantly, it would also allow for States to adopt
permanent daylight saving time through State law if they choose.
  If we are going to make a permanent change that affects every
American, we should follow the science, learn from history, and
prioritize Americans' health, particularly that of our children. That
is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 139.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has
16\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great affection and respect for VFW members. In
fact, I have great respect and admiration for every organization that
represents veterans. It is because of veterans that we speak English
here today and that we are the greatest country in the world.
  I would like to set the record straight about which veteran
organizations are supporting this legislation. We have The American
Legion, and I am not going to read the entire quote, but there is a
quote here from Daniel Wiley, American Legion national commander, who
said: ``For over a century, The American Legion has been the leading
veterans service organization advocating for passage of nearly all
major expansions or reforms to healthcare and benefits that benefit
veterans and their families.''

                              {time}  1300