Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, last week marked the retirement of Celia Dollarhide, longtime Director of the Education Service for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Like most people, I don't like telling friends goodbye. And Celia has been an incredibly helpful friend to me and to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs over the years. Most importantly however, Celia has been an unwavering friend to the men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. Mrs. Dollarhide has served veterans faithfully for almost 35 years, all of which have been with VA's Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). She has achieved a remarkable record of accomplishment in the education program. From processing individual education claims for veterans to managing the administration of entire benefit structures, Mrs. Dollarhide's career has been devoted over time to three different GI Bill programs. Prior to her management role at VBA, she began her career at the Chicago Regional Office in 1966 as a Veterans Claims Examiner. She then became an Education Specialist when she moved to Washington, DC in 1972. From 1975 to 1980, Mrs. Dollarhide served as Chief of the Education Service's Program Administration Division. Throughout the 1980's, she assumed the roles of Administrative Officer for VA's Central Region and Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief Benefits Director for Program Management. She returned to the Education Service in 1990 as its Deputy Director. In 1994 our former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, had the wisdom to bring Mrs. Dollarhide into the Senior Executive Service. Since that time, she has excelled in her role as Director for the Education Service. Above all else, Celia Dollarhide has always believed in the power of higher education. As a major proponent of enhanced education benefits for veterans and as a caring administrator, her career stands as a testament to the notion of individual empowerment. Her life's work has focused on empowering the brave men and women who defend this country to become more and achieve more than they ever could have without education. The VA education benefits that Mrs. Dollarhide has so masterfully administered have helped countless thousands of veterans and servicemembers to make their dreams a reality. I can say this from experience, as I myself have directly benefited from VA education benefits under the GI Bill program. In this regard, I want to personally thank my friend Celia--for her tireless energy, for her unwavering advocacy efforts and for her leadership. At VA, Mrs. Dollarhide has spent her working days seated behind the large lawyer's desk that used to belong to her late husband, Charles ``Lew'' Dollarhide. Mr. Dollarhide also served as VA's Director of the Education Service from 1980 to 1986. Mrs. Dollarhide's service and that of her husband have been an exemplary contribution to public service by two remarkable people. For the betterment of veterans and their families, Celia Dollarhide leaves behind an outstanding record of achievement at VA and for this we are all grateful. Thank you, Mrs. Dollarhide, and best regards to you in your well deserved retirement.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining with the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). I am glad to have him back working on veterans' issues, if just for one day. This measure, H.R. 1696, will expedite the construction of the new national World War II memorial in the District of Columbia. I commend my friend from Arizona for his leadership on this issue and am honored to manage this measure with him. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) is one of the heroes of World War II. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the other members of his generation, we all say thank you for your service and sacrifice; it is time to build a memorial to honor your actions. Mr. Speaker, a national World War II memorial will honor all Americans who served in the Armed Forces during World War II, as well as the millions of other Americans who contributed in countless ways to the war effort. Mr. Speaker, the time to construct this memorial is now. More than 50 years after the end of World War II, there does not exist in our Nation's Capital a fitting memorial to the service and sacrifices of millions of Americans who preserved democracy and defeated totalitarianism during World War II. The time to construct this memorial is now. Mr. Speaker, in a longer statement I will submitting for the record at the end of my statement, I review the history of the World War II memorial. The memorial has been the subject of repeated reviews, hearings, public examinations and official actions. It is time to build this memorial now. Mr. Speaker, the national World War II memorial will be located between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. Some critics of the memorial argue the memorial would ``clutter up an already crowded site.'' A prominent memorial to honor those who served and sacrificed, this memorial is not ``clutter.'' The time to build this memorial is now. I expect there will always be some opposition to this memorial by its scope, its location and design or by some individual group. Ironically, the right to oppose this amendment was defeated and preserved by those who fought for and defended this country in World War II. Mr. Speaker, let us expedite the construction of the World War II Memorial, and construct it now. Mr. Speaker, John Ruskin once said ``our duty is to preserve what the past has said for itself, and to say for ourselves what shall be true for the future.'' This statement is an appropriate guide for our deliberations today as we consider H.R. 1696, a bill that will expedite the construction of the National World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia. In 1993, Congress passed legislation authorizing the creation of a National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. President Clinton signed the legislation into law on May 25, 1993. The memorial is intended to honor all who served in the United States Armed Forces during World War II. It is also intended to honor the entire nation's contribution to the war effort. The future National World War II Memorial will be an integral part of the Washington, DC landscape. The memorial will not only appropriately honor and pay tribute to those who sacrificed so much, but will educate future generations to some of the costs of freedom. Mr. Speaker, 14 years after Congress authorized the construction of this memorial, and six years from the first of 22 public hearings on its site and design, the memorial's construction remains delayed by a lawsuit filed by a small opposition group and a procedural issue involving the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), one of the agencies required by law to approve the memorial. NCPC decisions of the past two years, including its approval of the National World War II Memorial, have been placed in question because the former NCPC chairman continued to serve on the commission after the expiration of his term. The legislation that established the commission permitted the chairman to serve until replaced, but when the law was amended this language was inadvertently omitted. The NCPC has scheduled yet another public hearing on the memorial for June 14, 2001. Meanwhile, court action on the lawsuit is on hold pending resolution of this issue, which may take several more months to conclude. Mr. Speaker, more than 16 million Americans served in uniform during World War II. More than 400,000 gave their lives, over 670,000 were wounded, and millions more supported the war effort on the front here at home. Of the 16 million who served, only five million remain alive today. World War II veterans, who saved democracy and served heroically, today are battling the diseases and disabilities of older age. Today, our World War II veterans are dying at a rate of 1,100 per day. With more than 400,000 veterans dying each year, every delay in memorial construction ensures that hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans will never witness the completion of this memorial. H.R. 1696 will expedite construction of the memorial and make it possible for many of our World War II veterans to be able to see the memorial with their own eyes. H.R. 1696 would declare that the National World War II Memorial complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Commemorative Works Act, and any other governing laws pertaining to the memorial's site and design. H.R. 1696 would direct expedited construction of the memorial, consistent with reasonable construction permit requirements of the Secretary of Interior and the National Park Service. In addition, H.R. 1696 would mandate that the decision to construct the memorial at the Rainbow Pool site and decisions regarding the design of the memorial are final and conclusive and shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review. The Commemorative Works Act of 1986 governs the process of establishing memorials in Washington, DC. The Act gives the authority for final site and design approval to the Commission of Fine Arts, the NCPC, and the Secretary of the Interior. In total, eight sites were considered for the memorial. The final Rainbow Pool selection was the consensus choice as the only site commensurate with the significance of World War II in American and World history. Since 1995, the memorial site and design have been the subject of 22 public meetings that resulted in the endorsement of hundreds of Members of Congress, an endorsement from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the District of Columbia, four endorsements from the District of Columbia's Historic Preservation Review Board, five approvals from the CFA, and five approvals from the NCPC. In other words, the National World War II Memorial is the product of an open and democratic process, in full compliance with all applicable laws. The site and design were debated in the media and in 22 public meetings since 1995. No party has been denied the right to be heard, and critics have had full opportunity to state their positions. On May 28th of this year, many of us will attend Memorial Day observances. We will with humility and thanks, pay sincere respect to those whose sacrifices and dedications have protected the ideals on which America was founded. In this spirit, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1696. The time is overdue to begin construction on this meaningful tribute and symbolic monument that will immortalize the defining moment of our history forever. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, while much of the world was focused just a few weeks ago on the crisis in the South China Sea, at the same time a tragedy occurred in that part of the world that should be remembered. On Saturday, April 7th, we lost seven American and nine Vietnamese personnel in a helicopter crash. The accident happened while this joint U.S.--Vietnamese team was on its way to an operation to help find the remains of missing US service members from the war. In many of my visits to Vietnam, I had the privilege to meet the members of the Joint Task Force--Full Accounting, the US military unit tasked with helping to find our missing. I marveled at the stories of their dangerous missions to find the remains of our missing servicemen. They told me of operations done on treacherous mountaintops surrounded by landmines and unexploded ordnance. Intense jungle heat, hazardous weather conditions and insects and animals often made their jobs incredibly tough. In more turbulent times, they even encountered fire from across the Cambodia border. From my exposure to them, it was clear to me that these were truly remarkable men and women. It is a tragedy that we lost these brave soldiers. I think it would be even more tragic if the important work they did was not remembered. They were proud of their mission, which they saw as a sacred duty. It was also a mission that brought our two nations closer together. Many of the Vietnamese who perished in the crash had been deeply involved for much of their lives in helping us find more answers about our missing. The cooperation and friendships forged by this work has only helped to heal the scars of a war that ended some 25 years ago. These men were American heroes and we should remember their sacrifices as well as the Vietnamese who gave their lives in trying to answer the questions about our missing. My thoughts are with all of their families.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House- Senate conference report on the budget for fiscal year 2002. Last week, after excluding Democrats from any meaningful participation in the conference, the House leadership tried to ram this resolution down our throats. Fortunately, they failed because they could not even make the entire bill available for Members' consideration. Under closer inspection it is easy to see why they believe the bill could not bear the light of day. The information we have been able to review to date indicates that in fiscal year 2002 the conferees approved significantly lower funding for veterans programs than the funding levels passed earlier by either the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs or in the House budget resolution. Under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the House managed to almost double the President's meager request for discretionary spending for the Nation's veterans, but that effort now appears to have been for naught. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has not kept its promises to America's veterans. After applauding themselves on the funding increases for veterans programs, my Republican colleagues realized that realistically their numbers just did not add up. They will tell you that they will fix the harm they have done to these programs with emergency spending. But if that is the case, why do they not just do it in this resolution? Ultimately they were not able to reconcile their promises to veterans with the giant tax cut they have promised to America's wealthiest taxpayers. The joint resolution will eliminate the gains made for veterans programs in the House and Senate resolutions for fiscal year 2002. The House added $730 million to the President's budget for veterans programs while the Senate passed two separate resolutions that would have added about $1.7 billion to the Bush request of about a $1 billion increase for veterans programs. So we are now back to Bush, and that is bad news for the Nation's veterans. Veterans groups agree that the Bush budget is inadequate. In a press release this February, the American Legion said, ``The Bush administration's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs is not good enough. Frankly this is a budget that is insufficient to fulfill the campaign promises George W. Bush made.'' In a letter to the Senate from four major veterans service organizations, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans, the increase recommended by the Bush administration was described as an ``amount that would not even cover the costs of mandated salary increases and the effects of inflation.'' I will vote against this inadequate funding resolution for veterans. The American people need to understand the effect of this overblown tax cut. Our veterans will pay the price.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate one of my constituents, Mrs. Gerry Geifman, who will be honored tonight by the State of Israel Bonds at the Quad City Israel Independence Dinner. At the dinner, Mrs. Geifman will receive the Jerusalem Medal. The award is given to those who have a distinguished history of efforts on behalf of Israel, the Jewish people and the community. Considering her deep involvement in issues involving the Quad Cities and the local Jewish community, it is easy to see why she is being so honored. Her charitable works are numerous including: serving as past president of Hadassah, the Tri-City Jewish Center Sisterhood, and B'nai B'rith. She also serves on the boards of the Jewish Federation, Tri- City Jewish center, and the Rock Island YWCA. She has also dedicated much of her time to the Davenport Museum of Art, Friends of Art, the Geifman Endowment Sponsorship of Augustana College, Audubon School, Washington Junior High School, Rock Island High school PTA among others. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Geifman's late husband is not alive to see her receive this important honor. The charitable and volunteer work they performed together over the years was an inspiration to our community. Her continued efforts have served as a true example of the value of leadership and the spirit of volunteer work. Again, I commend her for her work and this well-deserved recognition of years of service to our local Jewish community and the Quad Cities.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, simply stated, H. Con. Res. 83 should be defeated. The budget resolution reported by the House Budget Committee on a straight party-line vote, fails our veterans. It does not provide the discretionary funding needed for veterans' benefits and services, particularly health care. H. Con. Res. 83 falls far short of the $2.1 billion increase in discretionary funding for veterans programs next year which Chairman Chris Smith and I agreed was needed to, ``Help us raise veterans benefits and services to a level at which we can confidently say as a Nation in freedom and at peace, at a time of plenty, we provide for our veterans.'' It is bad enough that this budget fails to provide the funding needed for next fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2001. But adding insult to injury, this budget plan actually calls for a nearly one billion dollar cut in funding for veterans benefits and services in the following budget year, fiscal year 2003. The $24.3 billion in discretionary spending proposed by the Budget Committee will not adequately fund veterans programs for fiscal year 2002. The nearly one billion reduction in funding for 2003 is a blueprint for devastating cuts in benefits and services for veterans. These are the benefits and services our veterans have earned by their honorable service to the Nation. Perhaps even worse, the Budget Committee plan directs the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to achieve ``savings'' in veterans benefits programs of more than $7 billion. I look forward to the Budget Committee members who support this blueprint providing details on the specific veterans benefits they propose to reduce or eliminate. Clearly, Congress should not cut veterans benefits provided in current law to help finance a nearly $2 trillion tax cut. A tax cut that mainly benefits those who are already the richest in our society. That is what this budget asks. I say no. This nation honors its commitments. We have a national obligation to veterans. But it seems some want to ignore our nation's obligations to veterans. For them honoring this nation's obligations to veterans is not a priority. Their priorities include instead a massive tax cut for the wealthiest in our society. Some veterans wait an entire year for a medical clinic appointment. That is shameful. That does not honor the sacrifice and service of our veterans. Some pay lip service to veterans, but veterans need real service. If we do not honor veterans in both words and deeds, then we dishonor their service. I will not ignore America's veterans. They have already given of themselves for us. As a nation, we owe veterans a tremendous debt. Our budget surplus allows that debt to be repaid if veterans are truly a priority. Veterans should be first in line. Today they are being pushed to the back as massive tax cuts for the wealthiest in society are the flavor of the month. Our nation does not fully honor its obligations to veterans when we pause briefly on Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Our nation does not fully honor its obligations to veterans by building monuments. How well our nation honors its obligations to veterans is best measured in the benefits and services we provide those who have served and sacrificed for our Nation. For these reasons and others, I urge the defeat of H. Con. Res. 83.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 801. I commend and thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the committee, for his leadership on this measure. The Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001 provides many improvements to veterans benefits and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I also want to recognize several other Members who have contributed to this legislation, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth); the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle); and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), two outstanding and effective advocates for our veterans. This is a better bill because of their efforts. Mr. Speaker, last September I introduced H.R. 5271, the Veterans' Family Farm Protection Act. That bill made it possible for more wartime veterans and their survivors to qualify for VA pension benefits without being forced to sell their family homes and ranches. I thank the chairman for including these provisions as section 306 of H.R. 801. This legislation will also benefit low-income veterans who seek to obtain health care from the VA. I especially applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his leadership in first proposing an October 1, 2000, retroactive effective date for the $250,000 maximum benefit in the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance. The Reyes proposal would permit increased benefits to be paid under certain conditions to beneficiaries of those servicemembers who lost their lives in the performance of duty. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been strong advocates for improved VA outreach to veterans, their dependents and survivors. Each has authored important legislation to improve VA outreach. I am pleased that this legislation includes many of those outreach provisions. H.R. 801 includes many other provisions important to veterans. Among them are improvements in veterans' health care benefits, improving veterans' access to transition assistance, increases in grants for adaptive housing, and increases in burial and funeral expenses, and the burial plot allowance. I urge my colleagues to approve this measure and include a summary of H.R. 801 for the Record. Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001, H.R. 801, as Amended Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve programs of educational assistance, to expand programs of transition assistance and outreach to departing servicemembers, veterans, and dependents, to increase burial benefits, to provide for family coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, and for other purposes. Mr. Smith (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hayworth, and Mr. Reyes) introduced H.R. 801 on February 28, 2001; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Afairs. Additional Cosponsors: Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Baldacci, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Buyer, Ms. Carson, Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Filner, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Goode, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Honda, Mrs. Kelly, Ms. Lee, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Owens, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Roukema, Mr. Shows, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Solis, Mr. Spence, Mr. Stump, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Ms. Waters. H.R. 801, as amended, would: title i--educational assistance provisions 1. Increase from $2,000 to $3,400 the maximum allowable annual SROTC award for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill. 2. Expand VA's work-study program for veterans to include working in their major academic discipline, working in state veterans homes, and helping State Approving Agencies with outreach efforts. 3. Provide for inclusion of certain private technology entities in the definition of educational institution. 4. Allow the disabled spouse or surviving spouse of a severely disabled service connected veteran to receive special restorative training. 5. Permit veterans to use VA educational assistance benefits for a certificate program offered by an accredited institution of higher learning by way of independent study. title ii--transition and outreach provisions. 1. Provide VA the authority to maintain transition assistance offices overseas. 2. Extend the time that preparation counseling is available to servicemembers leaving the service to as early as 12 months before discharge, and 24 months prior to discharge for military retirees. 3. Improve education and training outreach services by requiring each State Approving Agency to conduct outreach programs and provide services to eligible veterans and dependents about state and federal education and training benefits. 4. For purposes of VA's outreach program, defines an eligible dependent as the spouse, surviving spouse, child or dependent parent of a servicemember/veteran. Require VA to ensure that eligible dependents are made aware of VA's services through media and veterans publications. 5. Require VA to provide to the veteran or eligible dependent information concerning VA benefits and services whenever that person first applies for any benefit.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor of it, I thank and commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on this issue. I think this is about the 30th time today that the gentleman has been saluted, Mr. Chairman, and he deserves each and every one. We know what work he has put into this and his staff has put into this as we introduce the legislation. So we are really pleased that the gentleman has moved it quickly to the floor and has taken his leadership role. The Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act provides an opportunity for needed construction of VA facilities to be completed in a more timely manner. I also want to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for their important contributions to this legislation. This is a better bill because of their efforts. The legislation addresses a serious problem. While the VA reviews facility needs for the future, there has been a virtual moratorium on major construction projects. The VA has 5,000 buildings that on average are 50 years old. Many of these facilities need substantial improvements to continue serving the needs of our veterans. Unfortunately, the de facto moratorium has placed veterans and VA employees at risk to just work in the hospital or to be a patient there. H.R. 811 allows the VA to expedite selection, funding, and completion of smaller construction projects within certain guidelines developed by the committee. Prioritized projects will improve safety and support VA's capacity for the programs most important to its mission. Mr. Speaker, clearly the House should support H.R. 811. I urge my colleagues to approve this measure. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 811 and thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the Chairman of our Committee, for his leadership on this important legislation. As an original cosponsor of the Veterans' Hospitals Emergency Repair Act, I believe this legislation provides for undertaking many existing VA construction needs in a more timely manner. Because of the willingness of the Chairman to fully consider and accept a number of suggestions offered during Committee consideration of this legislation, this bill has been improved and perfected. Our Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Health, Bob Filner, recognized this measure as originally proposed might not enable VA to address the system's many needs for seismic corrections. As a result, the bill now before the House is intended to allow several of the more expensive seismic projects to be undertaken promptly. The Ranking Member of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Vic Snyder also identified the need to address research facility construction needs as research is integral to the VA's patient care mission. As reported, this measure now includes research facilities as candidates for emergency repair and construction activities. This legislation addresses a serious problem confronting VA. While VA is undertaking a process to review its infrastructure needs for the future, known as CARES (Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services), there has been a virtual moratorium on its major construction projects. In a system with 5,000 buildings that have an average age of 50, it is clear that too little investment in infrastructure has taken place in recent years. The effect of this de facto moratorium likely has placed veterans and VA employees at risk as buildings age and deteriorate without necessary renovation and fortification. From my perspective, the current construction funding process has clearly had a dampening effect on both the quality and quantity of projects that have been routed through and recommended by the agency. As major construction funds have virtually evaporated, VA employees have recognized proposals they develop are unlikely to be funded--not because they lack merit--but because of the lack of availability of funds. I believe that the availability of designated funding will encourage more proposals from facilities, thereby enhancing the quality of projects from which VA may select. The legislation we are considering today will allow VA to expedite selection, funding, and completion of ``smaller'' construction projects it believes are in the best interest of the system within certain guidelines developed by the Committee. The Committee has prioritized projects that will improve facilities' safety and barrier-free access and develop its capacity for the programs most integral to its mission--blind rehabilitation, programs for the seriously mentally ill, substance use disorder treatment, other rehabilitation, long-term care, amputation care, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and women's health. These categories are largely consistent with the priority VA's Capital Investment Board now assigns to various construction projects it reviews. Within these priorities, it will be possible for VA to choose a range of projects that need not be held up by completion of the CARES process. I believe it is appropriate to delegate the selection of these projects to VA as an interim approach until the system has results from its CARES process for a number of reasons. CARES will produce guidelines for restructuring system assets within market-basket areas-- ultimately across the country. It is clear that some of the guidance it will produce will have significant implications for local markets, but some areas (those with only one VA medical center and high levels of acute workload) will be largely unaffected. VA also is aware of the areas (those in less populated areas whose mission has largely shifted to outpatient care and areas with more than one medical center) that may have some significant changes brought on by the CARES process. CARES may be a long-term project and projects must not be postponed indefinitely because of it. While it is appropriate for the agency to make investments in locations that are likely to be less affected by the potential outcome of CARES, it is not appropriate to delay construction indefinitely awaiting the outcome of a process that may take a decade to complete. I am concerned that some networks, such as VISN 12, may be delaying any projects pending the outcome of the process there. I am hopeful there will be a reasonable proposal available for the Chicago area soon, however, options for this area have been considered for almost a decade. Viable construction projects, such as replacement of the badly deteriorated blind center at Hines, must be advanced to uphold safety standards and assure quality. I understand that, within the guidelines of this legislation, the Department will have more authority. It is my hope that Headquarters use a centrally guided and administered process, such as the Capital Investment Board, to select those projects it believes best advance the mission of the agency overall. It should not be a process which allocates funds to networks for use at the directors' discretion. We have seen, on too many occasions that allocation of funds requested by the agency for special initiatives, such as waiting times or Hepatitis C, may not be used for these purposes. Any construction planning exercise inevitably leads to the question of mission. What should VA be doing now and in the future? To be sure, the veterans' health care system has undergone many changes in the last few years--some reflect better practices from the private sector; some have redefined long-standing VA programs, such as mental health and long-term care, throughout the system, and perhaps not for the better. To the extent that construction planning and the CARES process do not adequately ``maintain the capacity'' of VA's long-term care programs and services for veterans with special disabilities, I believe VA's planning outcomes will continue to face opposition from Congress and the veterans who have come to rely upon VA for its health care services. We cannot turn back the clock on these services, but we must ensure that adequate resources are available to meet veterans' needs-- if not on an inpatient basis than in the community or home. I have heard from one network director who believes it is not his responsibility to ``maintain capacity''. Unfortunately, it is evident from the October 2000 Capacity Report that he is not alone in believing that the maintenance of capacity does not apply to him. The report shows that VISNs 3 and 21 have not maintained capacity in the number of patients they treat for spinal cord injury. VISNs 3 and 22 have significantly reduced their blind rehabilitation workloads. Only a few networks have bolstered traumatic brain injury workloads or dollars. I am most concerned about VA's substance abuse treatment capacity for mentally ill patients. It's not just about dollars which are overall 64 percent of the funds spent for these services in FY 1996. Very few networks treated as many individuals with serious mental illnesses for substance use disorders in fiscal year 1999 as in fiscal year 1996. This disturbing trend must be reversed now. I am also concerned about long-term care capacity. There is no question that VA has closed a number of its nursing home beds in recent years and diverted the mission of many others to subacute or rehabilitative care. VA is in the process of identifying measures that indicate its maintenance of capacity. VA long-term care programs have been considered one of its finest activities. If VA is to be responsive to veterans needs and not just duplicate services that may already be available to them in the private sector, it must continue to make these services a priority in its infrastructure and resource utilization plans. Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a need for approving H.R. 811 to begin to facilitate addressing some of many existing infrastructure needs within VA. I am pleased to recommend to this body the approval of the Veterans' Hospitals Emergency Repair Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act. This important legislation establishes a national goal of ending homelessness among our nation's veterans within a decade. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe if 40 years ago we as a nation had the resolve and resources to send men to the moon and return them safely to Earth within a decade, today our great nation can end homelessness among veterans with adequate resolve and resources within ten years. The measure I introduced today for myself, and almost 100 of my colleagues, is named to recognize and honor Heather French Henry, Miss America 2000. During her year of service to America, Heather French Henry committed the full measure of her time, talents and energy to addressing the needs of homeless veterans. She was our national conscience, calling on us to do more, to do enough to help veterans escape the prison of homelessness. She encouraged homeless veterans to break free from their chains of homelessness. She seems to be everywhere at once advocating for our homeless veterans. Homeless veterans have no better friend and voice. If we consider how much one young woman accomplished during her year of service as Miss America on behalf of our nation's homeless veterans, there can be no doubt this nation can end homelessness among veterans within a decade. If our nation demonstrates the care, compassion, and fidelity to ending homelessness among veterans as Heather French Henry did during her year of service as Miss America, a decade from now there will be no homelessness among veterans. The end of veteran homelessness and prompt action on the Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act are a high priority for many. These goals are strongly supported, for example, by the National Coalition of Homeless Veterans and its hundreds of member organizations throughout the nation who daily provide essential services to homeless veterans. I am also pleased the Veterans Organizations Homeless Council which represents many major military and veterans service organizations strongly supports the legislation I am introducing today. Homelessness is a complex problem for which there is no ``quick fix.'' Homeless veterans are likely to face more than one serious challenge. They are more likely to have serious chronic mental illness, substance use disorders, significant chronic illnesses or disease, to lack the social networks that help most of us through our difficulties and to lack job and even basic living skills. The programs provided by the Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act addresses these problems with comprehensive solutions. Programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in assisting homeless veterans should be expanded. Better coordination among the services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and those offered by other federal, state and local agencies is also needed. Support for private-sector programs serving homeless veterans must be affirmed. We must also make full use of leading experts to enrich current services to homeless veterans and assess program effectiveness and develop needed innovations. A new VA Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans and an effective federal interagency taskforce on homeless are important parts of the solution. Many programs provided or funded by VA have demonstrated their effectiveness. Mental health professionals agree, for example, that placement in the community can work, but only with careful monitoring and support of vulnerable populations. This legislation creates incentives for VA to make these services--called Mental Health Intensive Community Management programs--more widely available to veterans with serious mental illness. Supportive, therapeutic housing is necessary for a veteran's recovery from substance abuse. These ``safe havens'' must be provided and available to help a veteran in transition from homelessness to a more rewarding life. Community-based providers and more VA domiciliaries are needed to help meet the needs for transitional housing. Comprehensive services for homeless veterans must be more available in our major metropolitan areas to assure that veterans receive services in addition to full information about resources available to them. In our nation's Capital veterans have neither a VA domiciliary nor a comprehensive homeless veterans service program. Both are clearly needed now. Community-based organizations must receive more assistance to achieve the goal of ending homelessness among veterans. VA's Homeless Grant and Per Diem Providers are a critical source of support to the mission of caring for our nation's homeless veterans. Community-based providers use a collaborative approach to funding and caring for homeless veterans--many of the programs draw from a complex array of funding streams. The cost of caring for veterans is often subsidized by the other funding sources from local, state, and private entities these VA can and must do more to establish formal agreements with other agencies in and outside of the government in order to ensure that various agencies carefully coordinate services to ensure that veterans at risk of homelessness do not become homeless. The Departments of Defense, Labor and VA cooperatively provide a Transitional Assistance Program (TAP) for servicemembers who are about to be discharged from the military. This cooperative program could be a model for veterans who are leaving penal institutions or hospital settings. VA should work with a variety of community and other government programs to ensure a safety net is in place. Finally, my bill advocates a small demonstration program to offer transitional assistance to veterans making the very difficult transition from institutionalization to independent living. These veterans must be provided every chance possible to make it on their own. A one-time, limited grant will provide our veterans a better opportunity to obtain work and housing and avoid becoming homeless and living on the nation's streets. Mr. Speaker, a member of my staff recently visited a program in Las Vegas, Nevada, where she was told that VA staff can ``usually'' find a bed for a dying homeless veteran within his or her last week of life. As a nation, we should be outraged and shamed by this treatment of men and women who have served our nation in uniform. Surely we owe our veterans more. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting homeless veterans on their path to recovery and their full integration into mainstream society to the extent possible. Join me by supporting the Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Landmine Elimination and Victims Assistance Act of 2001. I am proud that I am joined in this effort by Representatives Quinn and McGovern. They have been strong leaders in our fight to eliminate the scourge of landmines around the world and I look forward to continuing our work together. We are also joined by a bipartisan group of nearly 30 other Members of Congress. Our legislation is the companion to Senator Leahy's bill which he will be introducing shortly as well with a bipartisan cast of sponsors. The legislation accomplishes four things. It expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should field currently available weapons, other technologies, tactics and operational concepts which provide suitable alternatives to landmines. I believe that alternatives exist that are more effective and less costly than mixed mine systems and that also match more closely our country's doctrine of mobility warfare. This view is shared by many active and retired military officers. It also calls on our nation to end its use of mines, and to join the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon as possible. In addition, it also codifies the Leahy-Evans U.S. moratorium on mine exports, which has been in effect since 1992 and is official United States policy. Finally, it establishes an inter-agency working group, involving the Departments of State, Defense, Health and Human Services, Education and the VA, to develop a comprehensive plan for expanded mine action programs, including programs to assist mine victims. The bill is the latest chapter in the work of many members of Congress to address the tragedy surrounding the proliferation of landmines. The carnage caused by landmines is well-known. Too many poor and developing countries have suffered tens of thousands of civilian casualties. The crisis that has afflicted much of the third world led to an outcry that forced the world to act. The resulting international treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines has gained international acceptance more quickly than any other arms control treaty in history. The treaty, which came into force in 1998, has been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 110. However, our nation has not signed the treaty. It is a glaring absence considering our role as the world's remaining superpower. President Bush has not indicated how he wants to proceed on the landmine issue. However, I hope that he sees that he has a tremendous opportunity in front of him. First he has the chance to reclaim US leadership and achieve the distinction of blazing the way to a truly landmine free world. It is a role that could help achieve universalization of the treaty which in turn would not only limit the threat of these weapons to civilians but also to our own soldiers who too often face landmines in peacekeeping duties around the world. Second, he can eliminate a weapon which actually hinders our forces instead of helps them. Our current military doctrine emphasizes mobility on the battlefield. This will become even more of a focus as we move towards the more mobile forces that the Army has envisioned in its efforts at ``Transformation''. However, deploying ``mixed'' mine systems comprised of anti-tank mines deployed with anti-personnel mines actually restricts the movement of US forces on the battlefield. Even with self destructing mines that destroy themselves within hours, our forces may need to move through an area that was just mined minutes before. That is the essence of mobility warfare--being able to move at a moments notice as the battlefield changes. It is why former Marine Corps Commandant Al Gray once stated ``What the hell is the use of sowing all this if you're going to move through it . . . We have many examples of our own young warriors trapped by their own minefields . . . We even had examples in Desert Storm.'' However, this does not mean we have to give away military capability. We also have ``smart'' weapons currently in the inventory that can more effectively deal with armored threats and that do not have the ``side'' effects of landmines on our mobility doctrine and the safety of our fighting men and women. The US has been developing alternatives with the support of myself and Senator Leahy. While these technologies show great promise, we must remember that we do have the ability today to have a landmine free military that is more capable and effective. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that moving towards a landmine free military is a win-win for our nation and the world. We can help eliminate the scourge that has cost tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children their lives and limbs while better protecting our own military and achieving a more effective fighting force. However, it will take leadership. We will fight hard to move this legislation. It will help demonstrate the will of Congress to show leadership on this issue, make permanent the export moratorium and establish an interagency working group that will more effectively provide the expertise of our own government in dealing with the staggering human costs that mine have already inflicted and will continue to inflict. Above all, I hope it is seen by the President as an invitation to strengthen US policy so we may see the day of a landmine free world sooner rather than later. I look forward to working with the President and his Administration.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, in the 106th Congress, I introduced H.R. 5271, the Veterans' Family Farm Preservation Act, to make it possible for more wartime veterans and their survivors to qualify for pension benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) without being forced to sell their family farms and ranches. I am pleased that the provisions of this legislation have been included in the Veterans' Opportunities Act of 2001, H.R. 801, a bipartisan bill introduced on February 28, 2001. This legislation will also benefit low-income veterans who seek to obtain health care from VA. The productivity of America's family farms is undisputed. Family farms and ranches feed our Nation. Family members and unpaid workers account for 70% of farm labor in the United States. While America's family farmers and ranchers are unmatched in their productivity, they have little or no control over many factors which determine the economic results of their labor. Veterans who have gone in harm's way and placed their lives on the line by serving our nation in the Armed Forces should not be asked to relinquish their family farm in order to qualify for veterans' benefits. Unfortunately, that is what is occurring today. H.R. 801, which House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Smith and I introduced together with J.D. Hayworth, Benefits Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democratic Subcommittee Member Silvestre Reyes, includes provisions to address this problem. I urge Members to support this bipartisan effort. Pension benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are payable to wartime veterans who are totally and permanently disabled due to a non-service connected medical condition. A small, but important number of these disabled wartime veterans own family farms or ranches, which provide the livelihood for their families. Most family farms in the United States are very small. Over 75% of family farms have less than $50,000 in gross annual sales. After deductions for costs of operating the farm or ranch, the net income of the family farmer is much lower. Farmers receive an average of 20 cents for every dollar of produce sold. In 1995, the average net farm income for very small farms was $510. The average net farm income for small farms with gross sales between $50,000 and $250,000 averaged $14,335. Clearly most family farmers have modest annual income. In determining eligibility for pension benefits, VA is required to consider not only the family income, but also the family's ``net worth.'' Currently, unless VA determines that the land can be sold at ``no substantial sacrifice'', the value of farm and ranch land is included in determining net worth. Some veteran farmers are ``land rich.'' While having little or no liquid assets, the value of their land makes their ``net worth'' appear larger on paper. Family farms are important not only for the food and fiber they produce, but also for the values they represent. Family farms should not be considered as simply substitutes for liquid bank accounts or other liquid assets. In good years, family farms and ranches provide an adequate income. In bad times, adverse crop conditions or illness, the income and liquid resources of family farmers and ranchers are quickly depleted. Wartime veterans have made a substantial sacrifice on behalf of our Nation by serving in the Armed Forces. We should not ask them to sacrifice their family farms in order to receive the assistance they have earned by their wartime service. I believe that an operating family farm can never be liquidated without substantial sacrifice on the part of the veteran. It is never reasonable to require a veteran to sell his or her means of future livelihood in order to obtain pension benefits or VA health care. If the farm is sold, the assets which in future years can be expected to generate income for the veteran and the veteran's dependents, are permanently lost. Under H.R. 801, farm and ranch land owned by the veteran and the veteran's dependents would be excluded in determining net worth. The bill would also exclude land used for similar agricultural purposes, such as timberland, Christmas tree farms, or horticultural purposes. During the past century, the number of family farms in our country has declined dramatically. When a veteran is required to sell his or her farm in order to receive necessary VA assistance, another family farm may be lost forever. No veteran should be called on to make this additional sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 801. America's family farmers and ranchers deserve the relief which this legislation will provide.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing H.R. 609, the ``Veterans' Compensation Equity Act of 2001''. This legislation will provide more equitable treatment to approximately 150,000 older veterans who receive service-connected disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs and who are also eligible to receive retirement pay based upon their military service. Under current law, the amount of military retirement pay received by a military retiree is reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the amount of VA service-connected disability compensation the military retiree receives. This reduction in military retirement pay when the military retiree is in receipt of service-connected disability compensation is intended to prevent dual compensation. The notion of dual compensation is simply erroneous. Service-connected disability benefits are paid to compensate a veteran for an injury or illness incurred or aggravated during military service. Retirement benefits are paid to military retirees who have spent at least 20 years of their lives serving our country as members of the Armed Forces. These two programs--military retirement pay and service-connected disability compensation--are completely different programs with entirely different purposes. Payments made by these programs are not and should not be considered duplicative. The current treatment of military retirees who have service-connected disabilities is simply inequitable. A veteran receiving service- connected disability compensation could become eligible for civil service retirement based on his or her subsequent work as a civilian employee of the federal government. This individual, unlike the military retiree, can receive the full amount of both of the retirement benefit which has been earned and the service-connected disability compensation for which he or she may be eligible. The ``Veterans' Compensation Equity Act of 2001'' will reduce and then eliminate the offset in military retirement benefits for veterans who are entitled to both military retirement pay and service-connected compensation benefits. Under this bill the offset will be completely eliminated when the retiree reaches age 65. In many cases, retired military personnel are fortunate enough to have retired from military service unscathed. These military retirees are not eligible to receive VA compensation due to illnesses or injuries incurred or aggravated during their military careers. In addition to receiving military retirement pay they are able to earn additional income through non-military employment and thereby accrue Social Security or other retirement income benefits. Military retirees who were not so fortunate, are required to forfeit a portion or all of their military retirement pay in order to receive service-connected compensation benefits due to illnesses or injuries which were incurred or aggravated during their military careers. Before we consider tax relief for our Nation's wealthiest citizens, we should allow military retirees to receive the full amount of the retirement benefits they have earned through many years of devoted military service and compensation for illnesses or injuries which were incurred or aggravated during their military careers. These veterans, as a result of their service-connected medical conditions, face diminished employment possibilities and therefore a diminished ability to earn additional income through civilian employment. They may completely lose the opportunity to accrue Social Security or other retirement income benefits. In general, Social Security disability benefits received by retirees are offset by monies received under state Worker's Compensation and similar public disability laws. However, the Social Security statute provides that this offset ends when the worker attains 65 years of age. Furthermore, while recipients of Social Security benefits who earn income have their Social Security benefits reduced as a result of their earnings, this offset is eliminated at retirement age (currently 65). While all veterans who are subject to the concurrent receipt offset are unfairly penalized, my bill would begin to rectify the injustice which falls most heavily on our older veterans. This bill will promote fairness and equity between military retirees and Social Security retirees by eliminating the offset at age 65. Military retirees who have given so much to the service of our country and suffered disease or disabilities as a direct result of their military service do not deserve to be impoverished in their older years by the concurrent receipt penalty. I commend Mr. Bilirakis, an original co-sponsor of this bill, for his longstanding efforts to address the problems our military retirees experience due to the statutory prohibition on concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to promote fairness for our Nation's older military retirees.