Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would name the chapel in the national cemetery located in Los Angeles, California as the Bob Hope Veterans Chapel. Bob Hope has entertained American servicemen and women throughout the world. During the nearly 60 years of goodwill tours and USO shows, Bob Hope entertained an estimated 10 million members in the armed forces. In recognition for his support for America's armed forces in 1997, he was designated an honorary veteran. With the passage of this legislation, Bob Hope will receive another well-earned recognition. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their bipartisan leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), our committee chairman; and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), our Subcommittee on Benefits chairman; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), ranking member, for their important bipartisan work on this important measure. This is a bill strongly supported by Members of both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4085, the Veterans' and Survivors' Benefits Expansion Act of 2002, provides a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans receiving service-connected disability compensation and the survivors in receipt of DIC. This ensures the value of their hard-earned benefits will not be reduced because of cost-of-living increases. The bill contains provisions derived from measures introduced by my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), two outstanding advocates for our Nation's veterans. The bill also includes a provision of H.R. 2095, which I introduced. For the next 3 years, the additional funding fee now imposed upon members of the Selected Reserve for the use of the home loan guarantee program will be eliminated. In addition, the bill increases the maximum amount of VMLI to $150,000. This will enable about 90 percent of veterans' families to have their mortgage paid off in the event of a veteran's death. I am pleased to support additional funding for State approving agencies provided in this measure so that they can fulfill their responsibilities to ensure the quality of education and training provided by the Montgomery GI Bill. I want to thank the gentleman from new Jersey (Mr. Smith), our chairman; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), our vice chairman; and our chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson); and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for their contributions to this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here today is the best of bipartisanship under the leadership that we have come together on to help our veterans. It not only is a reflection of this committee and its leadership, but also I think an example for the other committees; and I salute again our chairman and I thank him for his hard work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 am pleased to rise in strong support of this legislation that renames the Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas, in honor of Robert J. Dole, a tireless advocate for our Nation's veterans. This honor is certainly well-deserved. During his sophomore year in college, Bob Dole set aside his studies to enlist in the Army. Like many others of his generation, Bob Dole set aside personal plans to fight in World War II. Though severely injured in action in Europe, after 3 long years of convalescence in 1948 Senator Dole was separated from the service and returned to Kansas. In 1950 he was elected to the State legislature. The rest, as they say, is history. I thank and want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), for his leadership on this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 of H. Con. Res. 314. This measure recognizes the members of AMVETS for their service to our Nation, provides important support for AMVETS National Charter Day. AMVETS has designated July 23 as AMVETS National Charter Day to encourage greater public awareness of their commitment and service to veterans, the families of veterans, and the Nation as a whole. I commend and applaud the members of AMVETS for their past, present, and future service to our country. As a lifelong member of that organization, I strongly support this concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize with gratitude the contributions made to the work of our committee by Kathleen Greve. Kathleen has been a pinchhitter with our Democratic staff and has earned the respect and help of the Republicans as well. I am grateful for her assistance to the veterans of this country. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this welfare re-authorization legisation does nothing to prepare welfare recipients to leave welfare and enter the workforce and it is an profound fiscal burden on our state governments. I believe that since we reformed welfare six years ago, we have been successful in transitioning millions of people off of assistance. But, this remaining group of beneficiaries will be much harder to prepare to enter the workforce. That is why I do not support this ``one size fits all'' program whose only goal is to drop beneficiaries. Welfare reform should give beneficiaries the tools they need to enter the workforce. Missing in this Republican legislation is a program that allows welfare recipients to receive a GED and if necessary, learn or improve their English. It also lacks a real increase in child care assistance and the necessary flexibility for innovative state programs to reach out to those on welfare who are least prepared to get a job. Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable this Republican welfare bill will only lead to more families falling between the cracks. Further, this legislation lacks alternatives to abstinence-only education. We should not put money into these programs before we have real debate on their actual effectiveness. This money could be more wisely spent on education and child care benefits. This legislation will also cost our state governments $11 billion by imposing costly new mandates and it will force Illinois to direct a much larger share of resources to welfare. My state of Illinois currently has a $1.35 billion budget shortfall. The Governor has threatened to cut student aid, empty prisons, and close mental health centers in order to make up for the shortfall. Illinois simply cannot afford this. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Democratic alternative because it is a serious attempt to move welfare recipients into jobs and does it humanely without shifting the burden to the states. It provides a real increase in child care benefits and allows beneficiaries to earn a GED and learn or improve their English language skills if needed. The Democratic alternative also allows states the flexibility needed to provide innovative programs to get people into the workforce. We cannot throw millions of people into the streets when our economy is limping into a recovery and not even give them the incentives and tools they need to enter the workforce. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation and vote yes for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, Congress has long supported the sharing of scarce Federal health care resources between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In fact, Congress vested both Departments with broad authority two decades ago to do just that and has since repeatedly encouraged more effective and efficient use of this sharing authority by DoD and VA. President Bush noted in the Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 budget submission to Congress that only a negligible portion of the nation's scarce Federal health care resources are actually being shared between the two Departments. While sharing between DoD and VA exists technically, sharing remains the exception, not the rule. Without future legislation there is little reason to believe that VA and DoD will develop a culture that values mutually beneficial sharing. Until this occurs, taxpayer dollars will not be spent as effectively as possible. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for his leadership with this amendment. How much of what kind of sharing is possible? It is my hope that the provisions of this amendment will forge thoughtful answers to this question and achieve the goals long sought by Congress. Particularly noteworthy are the incentives endorsed in this amendment, which are intended to promote innovation and effective, new approaches to achieving the goals of sharing between DoD and VA. I also applaud the joint oversight provisions of this amendment, introducing shared accountability for the effective use of the resources provided in the amendment and shared accountability for assessing and reporting program outcomes. The Smith amendment allows the Secretaries of DoD and VA to terminate programs that are ineffective or demonstrate inefficiencies or a questionable use of scarce resources. VA adoption of DoD's Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) will provide benefits to veterans receiving VA medical care. Although this data system integration will no doubt present VA with some initial challenges, I believe the integration of these two systems has the potential to greatly improve the quality of patient care, eliminate harmful or dangerous drug interactions and bridge the information technology gaps that persist between the two agencies--on at least one front. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, making last years tax cut permanent endangers our ability to fund many of our shared priorities and is fiscally irresponsible. I joined many of my fellow colleagues in opposing last year's tax cut because we knew it would cause a budget deficit and fleece Social Security. And we were right. Now we are being asked to make these extravagant tax cuts permanent. Many of my colleagues whom used to preach fiscal responsibility in this house, now blindly vote to bankrupt our government further and burden our children with a mountain of debt. These tax cuts were the wrong remedy for an ailing economy and now making them part of our fiscal sustenance is just bad medicine. We all know these tax cuts grossly benefit the rich. We had an opportunity to pass a Democratic alternative which would have greatly increased the tax relief for working families. Instead we chose to steal from our senior citizens by robbing from Social Security and dumping off more debt on our children. And today the Republican leadership asks us to continue on this reckless fiscal path. When I was first elected, I told my constituents I would fight for our common interests and priorities. I promised our seniors that I would protect Social Security and support a prescription drug benefit. I promised our veterans there would be money for their health care. I promised our soldiers and sailors a well deserved pay raise. And I promised our young people that I would expand their educational opportunities and not rack up more debt. I am still fighting for them, and making these tax cuts permanent makes it even harder to meet these priorities. While, the Republican Congress is running the government's budget on a credit card spending plan, I am explaining to my constituents why their government cannot pay the bills. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down making permanent these fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. Let us consider our children, our working families, and our senior citizens before increasing the national debt, raiding Social Security, and cutting the taxes of the very wealthy.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have recently introduced H.R. 4042, the ``Veterans Home Loan Prepayment Protection Act of 2002'' to protect veterans by prohibiting additional and unfair interest charges to veterans when they prepay their Department of Veterans Affairs Guaranteed Home Loans in full, such as during loan reduction refinancing. Imperfections in existing law currently permit residential mortgage lenders under title 38 to select cutoff times for acknowledging receipt of prepayments in full for veterans. These cutoff times sometimes occur early in the business day and can permit interest to accrue on two different mortgage loans simultaneously until the prepayment in full is recorded on the following business day. This can be up to 90 dollars in extra cost to the veteran for a 24-hour delay and hundreds of dollars over an extended holiday weekend. This amounts to unfair enrichment for the lender. At least one case exists where a lender established a cutoff time for prepayments BEFORE the start of their business day. This lender was guaranteed at least one day of extra interest on every prepayment action without any additional risk! The provisions of H.R. 4042, require lenders to accept and record prepayments in full whenever the lender is open for business and an officer of the lender is present in an official capacity. If these conditions are met, the prepayment in full is recorded on that calendar day. There were over 77,000 VA loan refinances in 2001, and almost every one involved a prepayment in full. The amount of money involved is not overwhelming, yet we must ask, is this additional interest fair and should this burden be borne by those who have served? I urge my colleagues to support the ``Veterans Home Loan Prepayment Protection Act of 2002.''

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, this is truly an Enron budget. The Republican Budget Committee has cooked the books and produced the most seriously flawed budget in my career. The accounting gimmicks are spectacular. We have a 5-year budget instead of the customary 10-year budget. This is because it hides dwindling revenue from the gradually implemented Bush tax cut. If refashioned, a 10-year budget would show much larger deficits. Republicans also chose to use the politically crafted OMB numbers, instead of the non-partisan CBO numbers. Whether we insert political or non-partisan numbers into this resolution, the story is no different at the end of the day. Because all of the accounting tricks in the world cannot hide that we are still raiding Social Security and Medicare. And we are still growing the national debt. The Republican Party is trying to hide a budget deficit of $257 billion next year and that is just plain wrong. In this budget, providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit and increasing provider payments do not reflect half of what is necessary according to reasonable forecasts. And this budget does not even take into account the additional spending and further tax cuts proposed by the President. This time next year it is very likely we will have a budget deficit double or triple what is reflected in this resolution. Mr. Chairman, we need an honest budget, one that provides a prescription drug benefit to our seniors, keeps Social Security solvent for the baby-boomers, and does not further saddle the national debt we are leaving to our children. We can provide a budget that does all this by simply ending the greed. So much of our revenue surplus was squandered on a tax cut that benefitted the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. And last week, the President invited them back to the feeding trough. We must not pay for this giveaway on the backs of our seniors, children, and all those looking to Social Security for their retirement needs. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep your promises to your constituents and vote down this budget.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support and solidarity with the people of Columbia in their pursuit of stability and peace. Along with my colleagues, I condemn the horrible violence that has been inflicted on the Columbian people by the AUC, ELN, and the FARC. But, I cannot in good faith support a resolution that expresses praise to Columbia for improving it's human rights record, when in fact it has eroded. Many Member of Congress have joined me in expressing their profound concern to the Columbian Government over the many murders of trade union leaders that have gone without investigation or prosecution. The scourge of murders of trade unionists in Columbia is the highest in the world, thereby making Columbia notorious as the most dangerous place in the world to be a union member. The government of Columbia has over and over again demonstrated their unwillingness to pursue prosecution of these attacks on organized labor. Columbia's de facto immunity extended to these assassins has been clearly condemned by the International Labor Organization, United Nations Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, and our own Department of State. Columbia can drastically reduce the violence against trade unionists. It begins with effectively halting the impunity enjoyed by these perpetrators, many of which have credible ties to the military and police. Columbia must aggressively prosecute these criminals and restore its people's confidence in justice. Mr. Speaker, this resolution fall short in condemning the impunity enjoyed by human rights violators and the violence perpetrated against all levels of society, including organized labor. Many of my fellow Members have actively engaged the Columbian Government with these concerns but without success. Passing a resolution basically congratulating Columbia on improving its human rights record is wrong and counterproductive. It is my hope that Columbia will choose to aggressively improve it's human rights record, so in the future we may pass a similar resolution, with unanimous consent.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. I believe it will harm competition within the telecommunications industry and reduce oversight of this growing and important sector of our economy, resulting in less service and choice for all Americans. Broadband internet access is rapidly becoming a necessity for individuals and communities trying to keep up with trends in education and economic development. The internet is a tremendous resource for information, communication, and commerce. Understandably, individuals living in communities without access to broadband are frustrated by their inability to take full advantage of all the internet has to offer. H.R. 1542 is the Bell Companies' proposed solution to the so-called ``digital divide.'' They claim onerous regulations established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have prevented them from deploying broadband to underserved communities. Actually, the 1996 Act merely required the Bell Companies to meet a 14 point competitive checklist before offering long-distance service in their home markets. The promise of lucrative long-distance markets was to serve as an incentive for the Bell Companies to open their markets to competitors. By exempting Bell Companies who wish to offer broadband services from competitive requirements, H.R. 1542 essentially guts all of the competitive elements of the 1996 Act. Bell Companies will no longer have to guarantee network access to upstart telecommunications companies who have provided consumers with alternatives. Additionally, the bill will make it impossible for the FCC and states to regulate costs and customer service standards, which could send prices skyrocketing and leave consumers with no recourse for substandard service. Given our recent experiences with deregulation of essential consumer services, it seems foolish to believe that further deregulation of the telecommunications industry is the answer for rural America. Over the past few years, the Bell Companies have developed a shockingly poor record of customer service. In order to spur competition, the 1996 Act requires the Bell Companies to allow Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) access to their lines when consumers choose to do business with CLECs rather than a Bell. The Bells frequently refuse to comply with these requests in a timely manner. Since 1996, Bell Companies have paid over $2 billion in fines. They clearly believe it is to their advantage to pay penalties for violations of the 1996 Act rather than open their markets. Instead of taking steps to aggressively enforce the 1996 Act, Congress has proposed a bill that would eliminate the FCC's and states' ability to regulate costs and protect consumers. There is no reason to believe that passing H.R. 1542 will speed broadband deployment to rural America. The fact is, the Bell Companies have chosen not to provide even basic services in many of the rural communities they claim will be helped by H.R. 1542. Since they are only required to upgrade infrastructure for communities they already serve, many rural consumers are left out entirely. Another problem is that the broadband service requirement only applies to consumers that live within three miles of a Bell Company central station. Those living outside of a three mile radius are given no guarantees of broadband access at all. Again, rural America is being left out. As for being shut out of the broadband market, the numbers speak otherwise. BellSouth tripled its DSL customer base in 2001. SBC, Verizon, and Qwest have similarly built and maintained a network of broadband customers. A large majority of Americans already have access to broadband, but very few have chosen to subscribe because of the cost. The FCC has concluded that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner. HR 1542 is not about offering broadband services. It is about eliminating competition and oversight in the telecommunications industry for the Bell Companies. The list of organizations opposing HR 1542 grows longer every day. The Public Utility Commissions of 31 states, AARP, the Gray Panthers, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Retail Federation have all opposed the bill. HR 1542 will not speed the delivery of broadband to rural America but it will undermine consumer rights nationwide. Americans deserve better.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, recently I introduced H.R. 3733, the Veterans' Claims Continuation Act. This important measure would allow the families of veterans to continue claims for benefits which are pending at the time of a veteran's death. This measure would also allow for continuation of other claims, such as a claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) by surviving spouses or claims by children eligible for benefits because of birth defects attributable to their parent's military service during the Vietnam War. This important legislation would assure that families receive the full benefits which would have been paid, if the claimant had survived. Currently, if a veteran or other claimant dies while a claim is pending, the claim is extinguished. Under some circumstances, a new claim can be filed for ``accrued benefits.'' However, payment of accrued benefits is extremely limited. Benefits can only be paid to a limited category of survivors and only if all of the evidence supporting the claim is in the claimant's file at the time of death. No more than two years of retroactive benefits can be paid. The need for a change in law has been recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims. In a particularly egregious case, Marlow v. West, 12 Vet. App. 548 (1999), the court noted that the daughter of a combat wounded World War II veteran who had been erroneously denied benefits between 1946 and 1980 was precluded from pursuing his claim because the claim terminated at the veteran's death. In its decision the Court noted that the original decision in the case was a clear and unmistakable error, but because of the veteran's death, benefits otherwise due were not paid. The Court stated: ``This is a case that causes one to understand the frustration of Charles Dickens' character Mr. Bumble, when he proclaimed, `The law is an ass, an idiot.' '' 12 Vet App. At 551. Veterans and their families are not served well by idiotic laws. Currently, the Veterans' Benefits Administration has a backlog of almost 600,000 claims and another 100,000 appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals are awaiting action. While efforts are underway to reduce this backlog, it is inevitable that some claimants will die while their claims or appeals are pending. In some cases, veterans' families have incurred substantial expenses and suffered financial hardship while the claims have been pending. If benefits are justified, these families should be made whole. Older veterans have expressed concern that VA uses delaying tactics, hoping that the veteran will die before the claim is allowed. I have no evidence that this is so. However the inability of family members to continue the claim and the limitation on any benefits payable to a two- year period in current law, may erroneously give veterans this impression. Claims for other government benefits, such as Social Security benefits are not extinguished when a claimant dies. The families of veterans, who have served our Nation honorably, deserve no lesser rights than Social Security claimants. Mr. Speaker, I also note that the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 had called upon Congress to eliminate the restriction on payment of accrued benefits. The Veterans' Claims Continuation Act will accomplish that end and I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support H.R. 3733.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the procurement of medical and surgical items is a major expenditure for the Department of Veterans Affairs. During fiscal year 2001, for example, VA reported spending more than $1.3 billion for medical and surgical supplies and equipment. The procurement of medical and surgical supplies and equipment by VA is also an activity in need of significant reform and improvement. To achieve these reforms, I am today introducing ``Veterans Health Care Items Procurement Reform Improvement Act of 2002.'' I urge my colleagues to support and promptly enact this important legislation. A major provision of the ``Veterans Health Care Items Procurement Reform and Improvement Act of 2002'' directs the Department of Veterans Affairs, when procuring medical/surgical supplies and equipment, to buy these items from the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) or from national contracts negotiated by VA. By requiring most VA health medical/ surgical supplies and equipment to be purchased from the FSS or national contracts, VA can better leverage the tremendous purchasing power of its annual budget in excess of $1 billion for medical/surgical supplies and equipment. When enacted, this legislation is expected to reduce VA procurement costs by tens of millions of dollars annually. This legislation also provides for certain limited exceptions to the centralized procurement requirement. For example, it allows emergency purchases of medical/surgical supplies and equipment from other than FSS or national contracts and permits purchases of needed items not listed on the FSS. Other limited exceptions should facilitate greater financial savings from--and greater use of--important initiatives such as VA/DOD sharing and small business procurement. In a May 15, 2001 assessment entitled, ``Evaluation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Purchasing Practices``, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported, ``The Department of Veterans Affairs is not leveraging its buying power to obtain the best prices for items purchased.'' Among the recommendations of the OIG were, ``VA facilities be required to purchase items that are on national contracts, such as FSS, and that the FSS and other national contracts be mandatory sources of medical/surgical supplies and equipment'' and local procurement contracts be specifically prohibited with very limited exceptions. This measure will provide strong encouragement to vendors who wish to do business with VA to list their health-care items on part 65 and 66 of the Federal Supply Classification as appropriate or as part of a National contract. This legislation will eliminate existing inefficiencies from the current acquisition system that allows for multiple, locally-negotiated contracts with national vendors and distributors. Despite the enormous volume of health care items procured by VA, these local contracts often do not provide VA purchasers with the best price offered by vendors to other buyers. In addition, this bill strengthens the contractual management and oversight tools of the Department of Veterans Affairs, It makes pre- and post-award contract audit clauses mandatory for almost all types of procurement contracts for health-care items. This will enable procurement officers, supervisors, the VA Office of the Inspector General, and the GAO to review the true value and cost of an item and assure compliance with contract provisions. In fiscal year 1997 when audit clauses were more common, audits accounted for the recovery of over $35 million dollars--last year with audit clauses less common the total recovery was less than $12 million dollars. Other important provisions of this legislation will require most VA procurement contracts to include a price reduction clause. With the inclusion of a price reduction clause, when a vendor offers a health- care item at a lower price to another buyer in a commercial contract, VA will benefit from the purchase price reduction and receive the new lower purchase price for a health-care item it has previously agreed to purchase from the vendor. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support ``The Veterans Health-Care Items Procurement Reform and Improvement Act of 2002,'' and seek its quick approval by Congress on behalf of our nation's veterans and taxpayers.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, the remarks that I made in support of H.R. 2561 were made in the context of the measure as it was originally introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon. The measure passed by the House under suspension of the rules, however, was an amended version of H.R. 2561. As amended, H.R. 2561 did not embody certain provisions that had been included in the original bill. With regard to H.R. 2561 as amended, I want to express my strong support for this legislation that demonstrates our continued commitment to recipients of the Medal of Honor. In the name of the Congress, the President presents the Medal of Honor. It is the highest honor that can be bestowed upon any American citizen. Only 3,455 Americans have been awarded Medals of Honor, and today only 149 of them are living. As the Ranking Democrat on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and as a United States Marine, I feel strongly that these heroes deserve special recognition and consideration. Their valiant contributions must be honored and supported by all Americans. Accordingly, I am pleased that H.R. 2561 would increase from $600 to $1,000 the monthly amount paid to recipients of the Medal of Honor and provide for retroactive, lump-sum payments to such recipients to reflect this increase. In addition, the bill would provide an additional medal for use in display or exhibits to those recipients who desire one, and increase the criminal penalties associated with the unauthorized purchase or possession of a Medal, or with the false representation of its awarding. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2561 and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our Medal of Honor recipients.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I am pleased to support H.R. 2561, the Living American Hero Appreciation Act. The bill was crafted to demonstrate our unequivocal support for Medal of Honor recipients, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing this today. In the name of the Congress, the President presents the Medal of Honor. It is the highest honor that can be bestowed on any American citizen. Only 3,455 Americans have been awarded Medals of Honor, and today only 149 of them are still living. As the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services, and as a United States Marine, I feel strongly that these heroes represent a rare breed. Their vigilant contributions must be honored and supported by all Americans. Accordingly, I am pleased that this measure would increase from $600 to $1,000 the monthly amount paid to the recipients of the Medal of Honor. In addition, the bill will provide an additional medal for use in display or exhibits to those recipients who desire one. The bill would also permit space-available travel for medal recipients and their accompanying spouses, and directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to grant appropriated amounts for the Congressional Medal of Honor Society in order to operate that society's primary office. H.R. 2561 would also provide criminal penalties for the unauthorized purchase or possession of a medal and also for making a false representation as a medal recipient. This bill deserves the support of all our colleagues. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3423 as amended. Again, I want to thank the chairman of this committee for his leadership on this issue, as well as so many others during the course of this year. I also want to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member, for their outstanding efforts during what has been a demanding legislative year. Recent events have highlighted for us that America's veterans continue to exemplify bravery, courage and conviction. Quite simply put, our veterans remain our heroes. I am pleased that this measure would revise the Department of Army's current eligibility requirements for burial at the Arlington Cemetery to better reflect today's military force structure. This bill would eliminate the 60-year-age requirement for grade zone retired reservists. The need for these changes was highlighted by the death of Charles F. Burlingame, III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. He was a navy reservist for 17 years and was ineligible to be buried at Arlington. After much debate, I was pleased that the Army finally agreed to provide a hero's burial for Mr. Burlingame, but the need to eliminate this arbitrary rule still remains. This bill would also provide Arlington burial for reservists who die in the line of duty when performing active or inactive duty training. I feel strongly that a member of America's military who was killed in the line of service deserves a hero's burial at Arlington. The military and veterans organizations that appeared before the committee at our hearing unanimously supported the bill. Finally, this bill also provides discretionary authority to the Secretary of the Army for constructing and placing a memorial in the Arlington National Cemetery to all the innocent victims who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. As a general rule, Arlington's memorials are largely restricted to honoring military history. However, past Congresses have provided for exceptions in order to memorialize the victims of extraordinary tragic events in America's history. For example, Congress has provided for memorials at Arlington honoring the Space Shuttle Challenger crew and the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill for America's veterans. I salute the chairman for bringing it quickly to the floor before the end of this year. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3423, as amended. I want to commend and thank the Chairman of the Committee, Chris Smith, for his leadership on this issue and his successful efforts to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to so quickly bring this measure to the House floor today. I also extend my thanks to the Chairman of the Benefits Subcommittee, Mike Simpson, and the Ranking Democratic Member, Silvestre Reyes, of their outstanding efforts during what has been a demanding legislative year. As a Marine and as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee since 1983, I know very well that Arlington National Cemetery is a cherished parcel of this Nation's most hallowed ground. In bringing this measure before the House for a vote today, every member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has been unequivocal in their personal commitment to honor and revere Arlington National Cemetery on behalf of the brave men and women of America's military and our veterans. Recent events have highlighted for us that America's veterans continue to exemplify the bravery, courage and conviction that are pillars beneath America's freedom and success throughout history. Quite simply, our veterans remain our heroes. I am pleased that H.R. 3423 would revise the Department of the Army's current eligibility requirements for burial at Arlington National Cemetery to better reflect this fact. As reported unanimously by the Veterans' Affairs Committee, H.R. 3423 would revise the current burial rules that govern Arlington National Cemetery. Specifically, the bill would eliminate the requirement for reservists who are eligible for retirement pay and otherwise eligible for in-ground burial to be 60 years of age. H.R. 3423 would also provide for in-ground burial eligibility for members of the reserve components who die in the line of duty while serving their country performing active duty or inactive duty training. Madam Speaker, when we consider Arlington's in-ground burial restrictions, we are immediately faced with conflicting needs. On the one hand, we must do our best to preserve Arlington Cemetery's limited space for those men and women whose level of commitment and heroism to the Nation has been truly extraordinary. On the other hand, we want to make a hero's burial available, to the fullest and most uniformly fair extent possible, to all our heroes who are so deserving of this honor. Whether the rule should remain intact as it is now or whether we should reform the rule in some way is a question that required the careful thought and consideration of the Committee. After deliberating over H.R. 3423, the Committee found it quite difficult to find justification to distinguish between sacrifices and contributions to the Nation of a career reservist and those of an active duty servicemember. There are increasingly dynamic and pressing demands on today's modern military. As such, I believe strongly that our active duty and reserve forces should share equally when it comes to America's grateful show of final respects. Similarly, I feel strongly that no reasonable grounds for distinction exist between the deaths of our active duty servicemembers and the deaths of our reservists who are engaged in active duty or inactive duty training. There is no question in my mind that a member of America's military who is killed in the line of duty deserves a hero's burial at Arlington National Cemetery. Moreover, the various military and veterans' organizations that appeared before the Committee at our hearing on H.R. 3423 were unanimously in favor of this provision of the bill. Madam Speaker, on the morning of September 11, 2001, America experienced several tragic terrorist attacks in which thousands of civilians and military servicemembers perished. The terrorist attacks of September 11th were attacks against the United States and its citizens. They were acts of war that defined a day of violence, of horror and of profound sadness that can never be forgotten. It was also the greatest single loss of human life on American soil that we have ever had to endure in our history. The victims of the terrorist attacks are heroes in every sense of the word. As ordinary people on an ordinary day, each would go on to display great courage in the face of disparity and unthinkable violence. Through our memories of them and their ultimate sacrifices, they live on to lead our current war against a faceless enemy. H.R. 3423 is dedicated to honoring some of America's heroes. Whether at Arlington National Cemetery, or at one of our many other national, state or private cemeteries that span the globe, this Nation has chosen through time to honor its heroes with proper resting grounds and grateful recognition of their contributions and sacrifice. In light of America's recent tragedies, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3423 during the Committee's markup of the bill that was subsequently passed and made part of the bill. As it has now been amended, H.R. 3423 provides discretionary authority to the Secretary of the Army for constructing and placing a memorial within the Arlington National Cemetery to honor all innocent victims who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee, I consider Arlington National Cemetery to be especially appropriate for this purpose as hundreds of the thousands who were killed on that day were active duty servicemembers and veterans. Under current law, memorials at Arlington are largely restricted to honoring military history. Congress has provided for a number of exceptions to this restriction, however, in order to memorialize the victims of extraordinarily tragic events in America's history. For example, Congress provided for the placement of memorials at Arlington in honor of the crew of the space Shuttle Challenger, as well as the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 who were lost to terrorism over Lockerbie, Scotland. In remembering the tragedies of September 11, the Nation will undoubtedly choose to memorialize its victims in countless and different ways. President Bush acknowledged on Tuesday of last week that permanent memorials would surely be constructed in their honor. I agree with the President, and I believe we should act today to move forward toward achieving this goal. Arlington National Cemetery is an entirely fitting option for the placement of one such memorial for the victims of the tragedies of September 11. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3423, as amended. December 18, 2001. To: House Veterans' Affairs Committee Attention: Deborah Smith From: Lawrence Kapp Analyst in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Subject: Definitions of Inactive Duty For Training and Active Duty For Training This memorandum is written in response to your request for a definition of ``Inactive Duty Training'' (IDT) and ``Active Duty for Training'' (ADT) as the terms are used in reference to the training status of military reservists. In accordance with your request, the definitions provided are general ones suitable for the non-specialist. I have also attached an extract from DoD Directive 1215.6, Uniform Reserve, Training, and Retirement Categories, which provides more comprehensive definitions. Inactive Duty Training is training conducted by members of the Selected Reserve \1\ when they are not on active duty. This type of training is often referred to as ``drill,'' and is usually conducted one weekend per month. Typical duties include individual task training, collective task training, and completion of administrative requirements. Less frequently, IDT is used to support the operational missions of the active component. Active Duty for Training (ADT) is one of several different types of active duty. ADT is typically used to fulfill individual or unit training requirements for reservists. For example, a reservist who is sent to a military school to become qualified in a specific military occupational speciality would normally attend the school in an ADT status. An important type of ADT for members of the Selected Reserve is Annual Training (AT), sometimes referred to colloquially as ``summer camp.'' Members of the Selected Reserve are usually required to participate in AT for two weeks each year. If you have further questions about training categories for reservists, please do not hesitate to call me at 202-707- 7609.

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

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) for any remarks she may make.