Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am today introducing H.R. 320, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act of 2001, with my good friend Congressman John Dingell, the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. Our legislation will provide important and needed improvements in education benefits for veterans under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program, a key recruiting tool for the armed services and a key readjustment benefit for the men and women who honorably serve our Nation in uniform. Substantial MGIB enhancements are long overdue. The 106th Congress passed an important, but modest increase in MGIB benefits late last year. While I supported and was pleased by the MGIB amendments approved last year, those changes were clearly only an interim, first step toward revitalizing one of America's most successful and effective programs. It is widely known and agreed that the true purchasing power of veterans' education benefits remains inadequate. MGIB benefits today still do not provide our servicemen and women the resources they need to pay for the ever-increasing costs of higher education. The GI bill is rightly regarded by many as the greatest social program ever enacted by Congress. Its impact on post World War II America was profound. Millions of America's veterans who might not have been able to afford a college education received college degrees from some of our country's greatest institutions of higher learning. The GI bill helped spark our Nation's post war economic boom and contributed to the development of our cultural heritage. Although not considered an investment at that time, the World War II GI bill was a great investment in both individual veterans and in our Nation as a whole. Overlooked too often is the fact that the cost of this investment has been repaid many times over. It was an investment in our Nation that we can and should make again. The time is right to make the same commitment again to America's men and women in uniform. We now face a crisis in recruiting high ability young Americans to serve in our Armed Forces. With a booming economy and an overworked and sometime under-appreciated military force, young men and women are not choosing military service and too few of those who have joined are not re-enlisting. This trend cannot continue if we are to maintain a viable fighting force. President Bush has expressed his strong support for revitalizing our Nation's military forces. The surest way to achieve this goal is to recruit and enlist our most able young men and women. Operation Desert Storm is a stunning example of the importance of attracting the most able of our young men and women to serve in the military. Ten years ago, Iraq has the fourth largest standing army in the world and the highly touted and elite Republic Guard. Iraq's despotic leadership had used these overwhelming forces to invade neighboring Kuwait. America and her allies determined this bald aggression would not stand. Precipitated by Iraq's hostile actions, the war to free Kuwait was to be the mother of all wars. In truth, Iraq's massive Army and elite Republican Guard units were routed in 48 hours. Clearly, America and her allies had technological superiority, but technological superiority did not win the war. The war was won because American forces had high ability young men and women who could make effective use of the war- fighting technology available to them. The troops won the war. Operation Desert Storm is a strong and clear demonstration of the fundamental importance of recruiting and enlisting the most capable young men and women to serve in the Armed Forces. Our military relies on education benefits to recruit quality soldiers, sailors--airmen and marines. To be an effective recruitment tool, the educational readjustment benefits provided to our veterans must provide the range and quality of education benefits that will attract and retain quality young people in a growing economy. That was also the conclusion of our newly confirmed Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi, when he chaired the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance in 1999. Mr. Principi, in the Commission's final report, recommended an education benefit much like the original GI bill--with full payment for tuition and books for those enlisting for 4 years or more and a substantial increase in educational assistance for those who enlist for a shorter time period. The Principi Commission was right. Like its recommendation, this legislation would provide benefits for two tiers of service members; those who enlist or reenlist for a minimum of 4 years (Tier I) and those who enlist for less than 4 years (Tier II). In addition, this bill would increase the stipend level under Tier I and increase the basic benefit under Tier II to reflect increases in the costs of education since enactment of the MGIB program. For servicemembers who enlist or reenlist for a minimum of 4 years, the bill would: Pay the full costs of tuition, fees, books, and supplies. Provide a subsistence allowance of $800 per month (indexed for inflation) for 36 months. Eliminate the $1,200 basic pay reduction required under current law. Permit payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities other than educational institutions. For those who enlist for less than 4 years: The MGIB basic benefit would be increased from the currently authorized level of $650 per month to $900 per month. This benefit level would be close to the amount that would be paid if the basic benefit had kept up with increases in the cost of education. The $1,200 basic pay reduction would be eliminated. Trainees would be eligible for accelerated lump-sum benefits and would receive payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities other than educational institutions. Some may say the cost of this measure is too much. The first year cost, for example, is approximately $800 million in fiscal year 2002. The cosponsors of this bill understand that this is an investment--in a strong military and a stronger America. It will attract more high ability young people to the Armed Forces while providing the economy with highly skilled, college educated veterans. More importantly, the brave men and women who serve in America's Armed Forces deserve, and have indeed earned, far better than the inadequate educational assistance program now available to them. I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to support this bill and the policy it represents of demonstrating a continued national commitment to our veterans. For the first time in 40 years, America is enjoying a significant on- budget surplus. This week the Senate Budget Committee estimated the surplus could reach $5.7 trillion over the next ten years. In comparison ten-year cost of H.R. 320 is likely to be $5.7 billion--or one-tenth of one percent of the current budget surplus projection. It is clear that we can indeed make this investment now. If our goals are to have a strong military and a strong economy, America cannot afford to fail to make this investment. The MGIB served veterans of the second half of the 20th century very well. However, the MGIB must now be re-examined in the context of a January 1999 report by the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Education, the Small Business Administration, and the National Institute for Literacy. This report, entitled ``21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs,'' has important implications for veterans entering the civilian workforce following their military service. Emphasizing the importance to the nation of investing in education and training, the report concluded changes in the economy and workplace are requiring greater levels of skill and education than ever before. It predicted eight of the ten fastest growing jobs in the next decade will require college education or moderate to long-term training, and jobs requiring a bachelor's degree will increase by 25 percent. The report also noted workers with more education enjoy grater benefits, experience less unemployment and, if dislocated, re-enter the labor force far more quickly than individuals with less education. It also reports that, on average, college graduates earn 77 percent more than individuals with only a high school diploma. If America's veterans are to successfully compete in the challenging 21st century workforce, they simply have to have the ability to obtain the education and training critical to their success. As noted by the Transition Commission, ``. . . education will be the key to employment in the information age.'' Although the current GI bill provides some degree of assistance, it is a key that opens very few doors, and it is my belief that all the doors of educational opportunity must be open to our veterans. According to the 1997 DOD report entitled ``Population Representation in the Military Services,'' 20 percent of the new enlisted recruits for that year were African-American, 10 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were other minorities, including Native-Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders, and 18 percent were women. The report further notes that, although members of the military come from backgrounds somewhat lower in socioeconomic status than the U.S. average, these young men and women have higher levels of education, measured aptitudes, and reading skills than their civilian counterparts. These young people, most of whom do not enter military service with financial or socioeconomic advantages, have enormous potential, and it is in the best interests of the nation they be given every opportunity to achieve their highest potential. Access to education is the key to achieving that potential. It is also important to remember that, through the sacrifices required of them through their military service, this group of young Americans-- more than any other--earns the benefits provided for them by a grateful nation. Of equal concern to me as a member of the Armed Services Committee is the MGIB's failure to fulfill its purpose as a recruitment incentive for the Armed Forces. Findings of recent Youth Attitude Tracking (YATS) Studies confirm recruiters are faced with serious challenges, and these challenges are likely to continue. These surveys of young men and women, conducted annually by the Department of Defense, provide information on the propensity, attitudes and motivations, of young people toward military service. Recent YATS show the propensity to enlist among young males has fallen from 34 percent in 1991 to 26 percent in 1998 in spite of a generally favorable view of the military. In addition to a thriving civilian economy, which inevitably results in recruiting challenges, the percentage of American youth going to college is increasing and the young people most likely to go to college express little interest in joining our Armed Forces. Interestingly, these same youth note that if they were to serve in the military, their primary reason for enlisting would be to earn educational assistance benefits. The study concluded the propensity to enlist is substantially below pre-drawdown levels and, as a result, the services will probably not succeed in recruiting the number of young, high-ability men and women they require. High-ability young men and women are defined as those who have a high school diploma and who have at least average scores on tests measuring mathematical and verbal skills. The Department of Defense tells us about 80 percent of the recruits will complete their first three years of active duty while only 50 percent of recruits with a GED will complete their enlistment. GAO notes that it costs at least $35,000 to replace a recruit who leaves the service prematurely. The report states these findings underscore the need for education benefits that will attract college-bound youth who need money for school, a segment of American young people we conclude are now opting to take advantage of the many other sources of federal education assistance. The current structure and benefit level of the MGIB must be significantly enhanced if these high quality young men and women are to be attracted to service in our Armed Forces. Many factors have come together to create what could soon develop into a recruiting emergency. First, our thriving national economy is generating employment opportunities for our young people. Additionally, young Americans increasingly see a college education as the key to success and prosperity. In 1980, 74 percent of high school graduates went to college but, by 1992, that percentage had risen to 81 percent and has been steadily increasing. As a result, the military must compete head-to-head with colleges for high-quality youth. As I have mentioned already, the percentage of young Americans who are interested in serving in the Armed Forces is also shrinking. Make no mistake about it--the strength of our Armed Forces begins and ends with the men and women who serve our nation. Just as education is the key to a society's success or failure, it is also key to the quality and effectiveness of our military--and the MGIB increases provided by this legislation are a big step in the right direction toward providing that key. Some will say there is no recruitment problem and recruitment goals are being met by the various services. With notable exceptions, in most cases recruitment goals have been met in recent years. I urge my colleagues, however, to look behind the numbers. It is clear to me that standards have been reduced in order for recruitment goals to be met. Clearly this is not the course to take to revitalize the nation's military. I strongly encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support America's veterans and the military by supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this omnibus bill. I am pleased that after months of hard work, we are prepared to pass a Balanced Budget Act (BBA) package that will bring long awaited relief to our nation's hospitals. It has long been apparent that the savings that have resulted from the 1997 BBA package have far exceeded expectations. These savings have been realized at the expense of the health care industry, particularly hospitals. I have seen the effects of these cuts first hand in the hospitals of western Illinois, where hospitals are in danger of closing their doors to those in need. Today, we are taking action to lift this financial burden from the backs of hospitals. I am particularly pleased to see that this bill includes provisions to address the unique needs of rural hospitals. Of particular importance to patients in Illinois is the increase in DSH payments to public hospitals who serve a disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Without these provisions, the state of Illinois was poised to lose $500 million per year in federal Medicaid funding. The inclusion of this provision will allow Illinois' hospitals to continue their mission of expanding health care services to low income and underserved populations. While this bill makes great strides in restoring the cuts made by the 1997 BBA bill, we still have work to do. This year, I have heard from hundreds of Medicare patients and their health care providers who have suffered from severe lung and heart disorders and are unable to get the treatment that they need to restore their health because Medicare does not cover cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. Evidence is ample that cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation services result in increased longevity and quality of life. But even more telling are the stories that I have heard from cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation patients, who are discarding their wheelchairs and canes to resume the lives they enjoyed before being afflicted with their conditions. It is for those patients that have not been able to benefit from these services that I will continue my work in the 107th Congress to bring this sensible coverage to the Medicare program. On the whole, this bill will bring meaningful relief to our nation's health care institutions and move us closer to a day when every American will have access to affordable, quality care. I am proud to support this bill.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a great man, a real American hero. My statement today is a formal ``Thank You'' to Mr. Monte Blum, a proud veteran from World War II. It is a thank you he has never expected or asked for from his country. The middle son of Russian immigrants, 19-year old Monte Blum enlisted in the Army and volunteered for the hazardous duty of disarming underwater mines as a deep sea diver in the 106th Engineering Corps. Clearing the way for ally shipping lanes off the coast of France in 1944, Cpl. Blum's attempt to disarm an enemy mine was disastrous when the explosive detonated. With little chance for survival, Cpl. Blum was transported to a military hospital in Wales. His oldest brother Herman Blum, who received medals for heroism in the Battle of the Bulge, traveled from his post in Germany to take his younger brother back to America to live out his last days. Herman was determined not to let his brother Monte die overseas. After months of prayer, a miracle occurred--Monte Blum survived. He was subsequently awarded both the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. Monte Blum will be turning 75 on February 26. He has been married to Helene Englander for 49 years and raised a son, Murray and a daughter, Robin. His children say that affection for their father gave them strength as Mr. Blum was in and out of the hospital during their youth. After dozens upon dozens of operations, medical technology finally was able to stem the constant discomfort they saw him endure while they were growing up. Helene was a constant rock and loving companion in tough years that would have sent most weaker wives packing. In spite of his disability, Monte Blum was a hard working and successful business man all his life. No one but his immediate family ever knew that he had health problems. He held his head high, and provided a happy home or a well-loved family. He not only sent his two children to college but was instrumental for the education of 2 neighborhood kids. When there wasn't a synagogue in Baltimore where he bought his family a home, he pitched in and built one. He taught his children about sacrifice and his undying love of our country. He emphasized the values of family, Judaism and kindness. His wife and children watched him laugh when he should have cried and never, never ever to this day, did he once complain. His family has endured many tragedies. His older brother Lt. Senior Grade, Murray Blum, at 22, was killed in action as he dove overboard from a Merchant Marine vessel to rescue a drowning Swedish sailor, the only man to have perished on the ship, the SS Leonardis Polk. Murray Blum is buried in Cambridge, England at the beautifully tendered U.S. Military Cemetery. His brother Simon who worked stateside in the service because of a disability, died of a heart attack, after the war. Retired Major Herman Blum, who received a Bronze Star, died September 23, 2000 at age 82 and received a full military send-off befitting a retired Army Major and now rests with his parents and brothers. At this point in is life, Monte Blum is a frail health, but still walks with dignity and the step of a man half his age. He is surrounded by those who adore him. Monte Blum and his youngest brother Calvin, who was in the 67th Flight Corps, remain the best of friends. He is a living monument and the embodiment, the heart and soul of the greatest generation. With Veterans Day approaching, we would do well to recount the service and sacrifice of veterans like Monte Blum.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the VA/HUD/Energy and Water Appropriations Act. During the 106th Congress, the Administration and Congress have significantly increased appropriations for veterans' health care. For fiscal year 2000, the administration requested a $1 billion increase in appropriations for veterans' health care and Congress eventually approved a $1.7 billion increase. This increase recognized the adverse consequences of four consecutive years of flat-line budgets for the Department of Veterans Affairs medical care system. The only increase in funding had come from a stream of non-appropriated revenues including veterans' health insurance and copayments, sharing agreements and other funds--the increase in appropriations also signaled the failure to provide adequate funding for veterans' health care from non-appropriated sources. For a number of reasons--some beyond its control--VA has not been successful obtaining the full amount of these projected revenues. For fiscal year 2001, the administration requested a $1.35 billion increase in appropriations for veterans' health care--a record administration increase in VA health care appropriations. While we have made some real progress in funding our veterans' health care, we must continue this progress in the future as VA health care is not immune to rising costs of providing health care, particularly pharmaceutical costs. I do want to address one concern about a modification made to the House bill in the conference agreement. In this regard, I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, and the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan for addressing concerns which the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Bob Stump, and I noted in our views and estimates submitted to the Budget Committee and which I later shared with them in testimony to the subcommittee. In particular, we expressed concern about a legislative proposal to return to the U.S. Treasury revenues anticipated from new resources collected using authorities in the Veterans Millennium Health and Benefits Act. I appreciate the subcommittee's rejection of that legislative proposal. When this Congress passed the millennium bill, it was clearly understood that its promise lay in allowing new funding streams, primarily from veterans' increased cost sharing, to augment VA's long- term care program. This proposal would, thus, compromise VA's funding for new long-term care programs. The House initially rejected a proposal by the administration to return to the U.S. Treasury revenues anticipated from these new resource collection authorities. As veterans age, finding acceptable long-term care alternatives grows increasingly important to ensuring their health. Without expanding these options, VA will be forced to reduce others services it offers veterans. In conference, however, these funds were made subject to appropriation--I am hopeful that this will not mean that any additional revenues collected will be used to offset any program growth these funds might have allowed. This would constitute a real breech in the compact Congress has made with our veterans to use additional funds from their increased copayments for VA programs. On the floor, the House added $30 million to VA's Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities, bringing the total House request to $90 million. I am pleased the Senate has also seen fit to add funds to the Grants for Construction of State Extended Care account. Additional funds will ensure a smooth transition from VA's current funding methodology to an improved formula that will allow more renovation projects to be considered and ensure that veterans' needs are addressed. It will allow all of the ``grandfathered'' projects to be addressed and, thus, allow VA to determine its new priorities with a clean slate. VA Research was also in need of additional resources. While other federal research programs have recognized significant gains in recent years, VA research has been frozen in the last four budgets. The ranking member of the VA Committee's Health Subcommittee, Mr. Gutierrez, recommended an additional $30 million for VA Research for FY 2001 in an amendment that was accepted on the House floor. These funds would allow the program to accommodate inflation and fund additional areas of interest. I understand the Senate's bill also supports this level of funding for medical research and I'm pleased that this level of funding was approved by the Conferees. I am extremely pleased to note both House's strong support for new centers of excellence in the treatment and research of motor-neuron diseases, such as Parkinson's Disease. In fact, VA has recently shared with me an excellent proposal for six new Parkinson's centers. I had an opportunity to visit the VA Centers' prototype in San Francisco. VA is accomplishing great things there and I am pleased that this experience may soon be duplicated to the benefit of veterans in five additional sites around the country. I also believe VA would be well served by developing centers of excellence in Multiple Sclerosis as referenced in both of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee reports. I am pleased that the resources, as outlined by the Conference Agreement, will allow funds for the successful operation of all VA programs. VA must continue to allow for responsible growth in each year's budget. Just like other health care providers, VA has inflationary costs beyond this control. In recent years, as VA has shifted to outpatient care that increasingly relies upon pharmaceuticals to manage health care conditions, VA's prescription drug costs have increased at rates from 15-25% annually. Likewise, the cost of medical supplies and capital equipment continue to increase at rates above general inflation. Employee payraises must be accommodated. VA nurses, some of whom have gone without any payraise for several years, were long overdue for increases in pay. Fortunately, Congress has just approved a bill that will correct this problem, but we must also give VA the ability to use the new pay rates we have authorized by providing needed resources to recruit and retain highly qualified health care providers in an era of fierce competition for their skills. Just like other health care providers, VA also has significantly transformed the way it does business in the past few years. It has closed many beds, even while adding significantly to its patient workload. I am convinced the organization is committed to reforms that will bring about greater efficiencies. Even with these changes, however, it is impossible for VA to meet all of its challenges without a healthy annual increase in its budget. The VA health care system must also contend with the significant challenge of Hepatitis C that is disproportionately affecting its users. The San Francisco VA Medical Center estimated that, including the costs of screening for veterans with negative tests and candidates who are not well-suited to treatment, it costs up to $100,000 for each ``cure'' (or each case in which viral counts are reduced to untraceable amounts). Last fall, the Inspector General indicated that in each of the eight facilities it visited, employees believed addressing Hepatitis C would require between two and seven dedicated employees. This constitutes an enormous new challenge for VA. In addition to this new epidemic, VA must continue to effectively manage the many other chronic conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, AIDS, and pulmonary disorders that its veteran patients have in higher proportions than the general population. VA health care must also restore some of the capacity it has reduced under financial duress for seriously mentally ill veterans. Congress and veterans have grown increasingly concerned with waiting times--the time that it takes VA to offer veterans its next-available appointment. Long waiting times have been a clear indication to many Members of Congress that there has been significant stress on the system. In addition to requesting additional funding for VA health care for this fiscal year, the Administration now has many initiatives underway to address the problems. I have requested that the General Accounting Office study the issue and report to me about the problems with data that hamper VA's ability to understand waiting times and initiatives, including ``best practices'', underway to address waiting times. We also know that certain services and regions have been drastically affected by VA's Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation model. A few of the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks have had to request budget supplements--even with the significant increase we provided last year-- and even with optimistic future funding scenarios, expect significant funding shortfalls in the future. The network that serves many veterans in my district in Western Illinois, is one example. I know the belt- tightening that has occurred throughout Nebraska, Iowa, and the rest of the areas that comprise that network. They have actually closed some inpatient facilities and now contract for care from local community facilities. This is a practice that as few as 10 years ago would have been considered untenable. Even if it closes most of the remaining medical centers in the network, the network will continue to have fiscal obligations that outstrip its projected budgets. I recently requested the General Accounting Office to look at allocations to determine if some regions are more adversely impacted than others under the new methodology. I have also been concerned that the new funding methodology has adversely impacted mental health and other programs that address chronic disease or disability. In moving toward a community and outpatient-focused approach, VA has closed literally thousands of psychiatric inpatient beds--about 40% of the beds it operated five years ago. I remain concerned that VA has not replaced the beds with meaningful programs in the community designed to help the veterans that have been displaced from inpatient programs. I understand that, as a result of its commitment to moving forward on VA's Capital Assets Restructuring for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative, there is a de facto moratorium on major construction for VA's health care system. It is important to realize, however, that even as VA considers changing the mission of its facilities or even closing some of its buildings, there is still an aging health care infrastructure to maintain. On top of the needs for modification to ensure the safety of the patients and staff who use its buildings, a moratorium could impede VA's ability to perform its missions. Many of the buildings from which VA operates are aging and need significant renovations. There are also needs for significant modifications in order to address new missions and to accommodate new technology. I am concerned that any moratorium will compromise VA's ability to make adjustments to its instrastructure to accomplish its goals in an evolving health care environment. VA cannot stand still and also have the modern facilities that are critical to higher quality, more timely patient care and more efficient use of limited resources. These continuing concerns set the stage for the debates we will soon have about the fiscal year 2002 budget. Still, it is clear from the fiscal year 2001 budget submission that communication between Congress and the Administration has greatly improved and that this has translated into a strong budget request for this year--the strongest an Administration has ever made. I am also appreciative that Congress has seen fit to address shortfalls that could have undermined VA's ability to be the type of health care provider we want for our veterans.

Mr. EVANS

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 myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this bill's amendment. This legislation contains many important provisions, a few of which I will highlight at this time. Among the most important is an increase in the Montgomery GI Bill basic benefit of $650 a month. This will provide qualifying veterans more than $23,000 to pursue their higher education goals. We are very pleased that the former chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, is in the Chamber with us today. He deserves the credit for the initiation of this program and its continued support. This is an increase of $4200, or more than 23 percent, than the benefit available when this year began. For VA nurses, an annual pay adjustment is provided. At long last, VA nurses will now receive an annual pay adjustment like other VA employees. I am very pleased that the measure also requires the VA to carry out a new study on Vietnam veterans and post- traumatic stress disorder. Importantly, this provision also recognizes the increased occurrence of birth defects in children born to women veterans who served in Vietnam during that war. Madam Speaker, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) not only for his leadership on this issue and the other veterans' issues being considered here today, but for his stewardship of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs during the past 6 years. It has been a good run, and we appreciate the gentleman's strong support for the veterans of our country. We know he will be a continued fighter for their benefits and compensation. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1402, the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation will benefit our nation's veterans, their dependents and survivors, and strongly deserves overwhelming approval by this House. This legislation contains many noteworthy education provisions which will benefit not only those who serve in uniform, but our nation as a whole. As the author of this legislation, with my good friend, Congressman John Dingell, to provide a meaningful increase in veterans' education benefits. I strongly believe this measure is an important first step toward revitalizing one of the most successful and important programs in modern history. Under this measure, effective November 1, 2000, the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) basic education benefit for veterans will increase to $650 per month for those who serve three years in the Armed Forces and to $528 per month for a two-year period of service. For those serving three years, this increase will provide qualifying veterans more than $23,000 to pursue their higher education goals. This is an increase of $4200, or 23%, over the benefit available when this year began. It is a needed step in restoring the purchasing power of the Montgomery GI Bill benefit. In addition, an increase in MGIB education benefits for eligible survivors and dependents is provided. For the first time, an annual cost-of-living increase will also be provided for educational benefits being received by eligible survivors and dependents. Under this legislation survivors' and dependents' education benefits would be increased from $485 per month to $588 per month for full-time students, and by lesser amounts for part-time and other types of training. For the first time, servicemembers on active duty who are particularly determined to achieve their educational goals are provided the option to elect an enhanced MGIB. Under this provision, eligible servicemembers could elect to make voluntary contributions while still on active duty, up to a maximum additional contribution of $600. This contribution would be in addition to the $1,200 reduction in pay that is required of every servicemember who elects to participate in the MGIB. In return for a maximum additional contribution of $600, the servicemember would be eligible for up to $5,400 in additional education assistance benefits under the MGIB program. Other important provisions provide for a uniform requirement for a high school diploma or GED before applying for MGIB benefits and the repeal of the requirement for initial obligated period of active duty as a condition of eligibility for MGIB benefits. Further, the legislation provides that up to $2,000 in MGIB education benefits which may be used for civilian occupational licensing or certification examination fees that are necessary to enter, maintain or advance in employment. In addition, survivors and dependents who are eligible for MGIB benefits are authorized to use those benefits for preparatory courses including standardized college entrance examinations. Veterans are not using the MGIB benefits they have earned through honorable military service. High-ability, college-bound young Americans are choosing not to serve in the Armed Forces. The significant changes in the MGIB readjustment program embodied in this compromise agreement should help to increase program usage and enable the military service to recruit the higher ability young people they need. Several important changes regarding burial benefits are also included in this legislation. Eligibility for burial in a VA national cemetery is provided to Filipino veterans of World War II if, at the time of death, the veteran was legally residing in the United States. In addition, full-rate funeral expenses and plot allowances to survivors of eligible Filipino veterans of World War II are authorized. With the aging of our World War II population, an estimated 1,000 veteran burials occur each day and by the year 2008, it has been estimated that 1,700 veterans' funerals will take place each day. Importantly, this legislation includes a provision that would amend the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) to expressly require employers to grant reservists an authorized leave of absence for performing funeral honors duty. This provision would ensure that civilian employers support both reserve component servicemembers and America's veterans to whom we all owe our gratitude and final respect. Another significant provision of this legislation regards veterans' employment. This provision would add recently-separated servicemembers as veterans to whom affirmative action must be extended, for purposes of employment and advancement in employment, by Federal contractors and subcontractors. For VA nurses, an annual pay adjustment is provided. At long last, a serious pay inequity affecting the largest group of employees in the VA--its nurses--is addressed and VA nurses will now receive a annual pay adjustment like other VA employees. Most experts agree that we have entered or are on the threshold of another critical nurse shortage. The current nurse workforce is aging and many nurses will retire within the next five years. At the same time, the American Nurses Association indicates that enrollment in nursing schools has dropped precipitously just as we will be attempting to address the needs of an increasingly large elderly population. Older people use far more health care services than younger people do. In addition, nurses have had to shoulder even more responsibility as health care delivery is transformed. Nurses are continually asked to work more independently, work additional shifts, and change the manner in which they have practiced medicine to reflect current health care delivery practices, which often means updating or learning new skills. This very important nurse pay provision will correct a problem that has been demoralizing our VA nurse workforce and I thank my colleagues for supporting this provision. Over the last five years, VA's dental workforce has literally been decimated while VA has enrolled more veterans who require their services. I want to commend the Ranking Member of our Benefits Subcommittee, Bob Filner for recognizing this problem and for authoring legislation that served as the framework for a provision contained in this legislation. This measure will allow VA to shore up its dental staff by providing VA with the authority to extend ranges of pay for dentists who work full-time in the VA, who have special hospital-based training, and who have dedicated their careers to VA. It will help VA recruit and retain its dentists who have unique skills in working with veterans who are often medically indigent or have experienced traumatic service-incurred injuries. These valuable personnel have learned from working with veterans, and VA should take dramatic steps to revise the damage that has been done to this workforce over the last few years. Further, this legislation also provides VA physicians assistants long-sought representation within VA Headquarters along with better training opportunities. It will also help VA retain social workers, pharmacists and medical support personnel. These measures are crucial to sustaining a highly skilled health care staff. This year marked the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. I am very pleased this measure requires VA to carry out a new study on Vietnam veterans and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This legislation recognizes the increased occurrence of birth defects in children born to women veterans who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Appropriately this measure provides health care, vocational rehabilitation and monetary benefits for children with birth defects attributable to the service of their mother in Vietnam. Earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4488 to provide these benefits. I am pleased S. 1402, as amended, authorizes these benefits. Further, this measure also provides eligibility for special monthly compensation for women veterans for service-connected loss of one or both breasts. This legislation also calls for a new focus on ``military service'' in assessing factors that may affect veterans' health. This ``Veterans Health Initiative'' is supported by many of the members of the Vietnam Veterans in Congress Caucus as well as by the Vietnam Veterans of America. Earlier this year we asked Secretary West to promote this orientation within the Department. This initiative will promote this activity by allowing VA to live up to its promise to be a system focused on the specific needs of veterans--a true veterans' health care system. Veterans are often required to travel some distance to the nearest VA facility and are often accompanied by family or friends. For many years, VA has attempted to accommodate veterans who are not sick enough to stay in the hospital, but who may be unable to meet early appointment times with their physicians unless they stay nearby. If the veteran travels with family, the family member usually must find other accommodations. Fisher Houses are a source of lodging that have been available to servicemembers for some time. There are some Fisher Houses already accommodating veterans and their families. I am pleased this provision will authorize a regularized approach to operating them in concert with veterans' health care. I am pleased that we are allowing VA to extend its buyout authority for two additional years. This authority will allow VA to restructure its workforce to bring in health care professionals and others with an appropriate mix of skills to contribute to the changing needs of the system. This authority is not without strings. In the health care system, VA has had to replace each worker with another professional. This has enabled VA to move appropriately skilled workers into areas where they are needed. Buyouts are greatly preferable to employees than the reductions-in-force that VA might otherwise have to employ. They are also tailored to allow VA flexibility in updating the skills within its workforce. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 which deserves the strong support of every member of the house, is the product of the hard work of many people. In particular I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Democratic member of our three Veterans' Affairs Subcommittees--Cliff Stearns and Luis Guiterrez, Jack Quinn and Bob Filner, and Terry Everett and Corrine Brown--for their important contributions. I also applaud the significant contributions by our colleagues Bart Stupak and David Minge. Bart Stupak authored legislation authorizing service-connected disability for diseases manifest during inactive duty for training. A provision based on his proposal is included in this legislation. David Minge proposed legislation to increase the amount of resources an incompetent veteran with no dependents, may retain and still qualify for payment of benefits while being provided institutional care at VA's expense. Contributions made by members of the other body, by veterans, veteran service organizations, representatives of the Administration, our House Legislative Counsel, particularly Bob Cover, and the members of our Committee staffs are also acknowledged and certainly appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank the Chairman of the Committee, Bob Stump, not only for his leadership of this measure and the other veterans measures being considered today, but also for his stewardship of the Veterans Affairs Committee during the past six years. A member of the Committee since 1979, Bob Stump assumed the Chairmanship of our Committee at the beginning of the 104th Congress. Under current House rules, having served as Chairman during the 104th, 105th and 106th sessions of Congress, Bob is precluded from serving as Chairman of Veterans Affairs during the 107th Congress. For the last four years I have served as the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee. I am indebted and grateful to Bob for the courtesy and cooperation that he has extended to me and to other Democratic members of the Committee. We have not always agreed on public policy, but our disagreements have never prevented us from working together on behalf of veterans. It has been my privilege to work with Bob to develop legislation to address the most important needs of our veterans, their dependents and survivors. During his six-year tenure as Chairman, our Committee has enacted significant legislation. We have accomplished much and assisted and benefited many. A man of few words, Bob Stump would rather solve problems than talk about them. Thank you, Bob. I salute you for a job well done. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

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 myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, H.R. 4864, and I thank every individual who helped perfect this measure, particularly the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump). This has broad-based bipartisan, bicameral support; and it is worthy of the support of every Member of this House. Last fall, after the Department of Veterans Affairs implemented the Morton versus West decision of the United States Court of Appeals for veterans claims, I introduced H.R. 3193, the Duty to Assist Act. This legislation was introduced to correct erroneous interpretations of the law. Judicial review was intended to continue VA's long-standing obligation to assist all veterans develop their claims. Under this decision, the exact opposite has occurred. On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Benefits held a hearing on my bill. Following that, a bipartisan compromise, H.R. 4864, was introduced. I am especially pleased all critical providings of H.R. 3193 have been perfected and incorporated into H.R. 4864's amendment. These include the removal of the well-grounded claim requirement, specific notice requirements, duty to assist all claimants, additional specific requirements for service-connected disability claims. I strongly believe in judicial review. However, the courts can, and do, make erroneous decisions. When those decisions affect the fundamental rights of veterans, it is Congress' responsibility to correct the problem. I believe this measure will do this. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, H.R. 4864. Madam Speaker, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, H.R. 4864, is the product of hard work of many people. Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committees of both bodies, Democratic and Republican committee staff from both bodies, representatives of veterans service organizations and the administration have all contributed to this measure. I thank each individual who has helped perfect this measure and I particularly thank Chairman Stump for his leadership in crafting H.R. 4864, which has broad bipartisan, bicameral support. Last fall, after the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented the Morton v. West decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, I introduced H.R. 3193, the Duty to Assist Act. This legislation was introduced to correct erroneous interpretations of law. Judicial review was intended to continue VA's long standing obligation to assist all veterans with the development of their claims. Under the Morton decision, the exact opposite occurred. On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Benefits held a hearing on my bill and the problems experienced by veterans under the well-grounded claim requirement. A number of suggestions were made during this hearing and in subsequent meetings with representatives of the VA and veterans service organizations. As a result, a bipartisan compromise bill H.R. 4864, was introduced. The other body also addressed this problem in a provision included in S. 1810. The compromise bill we are considering today, H.R. 4864, as amended by the other body, includes elements of bills passed by both houses of Congress. I am especially pleased that all of the critical provisions from H.R. 3193 have been perfected and incorporated into H.R. 4864. These include: removal of the well-grounded claim requirement First and most importantly, the bill eliminates the requirement that a veteran submit a well-grounded claim before VA is required to offer any help to a veteran in the development of his or her claim. Unfortunately for veterans and their survivors, the requirement to submit a well-grounded claim gradually increased from the concept of a uniquely low threshold, to a significant barrier, requiring veterans to purchase medical evaluations and opinion before their claims could be considered on their merits. Claims of combat-injured veterans were denied before VA adjudicators even obtained copies of the veterans' service medical records. Veterans who were being discharged from military service because of a disability had their claim for service- connected disability benefits for that disability denied as not well- grounded. In some of these cases, the veteran later supplied copies of their military and other medical records and had benefits awarded after multiple decision concerning the ``well-groundedness'' of various parts of the claim. In other cases, I fear that deserving veterans have just gone away, feeling betrayed by the government they have served so honorably. By removing the well-grounded claim requirement, I expect that the VA will proceed in a fair and reasonable fair manner to identify and obtain all of the relevant evidence necessary to make an accurate decision on the claim when it is first presented. While some claims may ultimately be denied, by obtaining and reviewing all of the relevant evidence first, veterans will be assured that their claims have been fairly and fully considered. specific notice requirements I am particularly concerned that the notices sent to veterans often do not contain clear information that enables the veteran to understand what actions VA has taken or will take and what information or evidence the veteran should provide. If VA is requesting the veteran to supply information such as employment information or school records of children, the notice should provide enough information in clearly understandable language for the veteran to understand what is being requested. Following the Morton decision many veterans received virtually indecipherable notices advising them that their claim was ``not well-grounded''. I encourage the VA to continue developing communications using plain English which the majority of beneficiaries can be expected to understand. The compromise bill expands upon the notice requirements specified in H.R. 3193. duty to assist all claimants The compromise bill makes it clear that VA has a duty to make reasonable efforts to assist all claimants in obtaining evidence needed to substantiate their claim. What is reasonable will depend upon the nature of the claim being pursued and the evidence which is needed to establish that claim. If a medical examination or opinion is needed VA is required to provide it. If private medical records are needed, VA should request the records from the treating source with the consent of the veteran claimant. additional specific requirements for service-connected disability claims The compromise bill contains specific special requirements for the adjudication of service-connected disability claims. These requirements recognize that certain actions are always necessary to the proper development of claims for service-connected compensation benefits and are therefore mandated. The Committees have determined that because of special responsibility of the government for claims for service-connected compensation benefits that there are certain circumstances when VA may not proceed to decide a claim without first obtaining a medical examination or opinion. If the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or symptoms and indicates that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the claimant's military service, but the medical evidence is insufficient to make a determination on the claim, VA must obtain a medical evaluation or opinion. If the evidence is sufficient to decide the claim, VA may proceed to decide it. I am particularly concerned with the number of cases reviewed by Committee staff in which VA has evidence of a current disability and an indication of a potential in-service incident or series of events which may have caused or aggravated the disability, but VA has failed to obtain a medical opinion concerning the relationship between the two. For example, under this provision, I expect that if a veteran's military records indicate he served as a paratrooper, making multiple jumps during service in Vietnam and the veteran now has evidence of arthritis of the knees he indicates was due to these jumps, VA will be required to obtain a medical opinion as to whether it is as likely as not that his current arthritis is related to his military service. I recognize that some concerns have been raised that because the bill mandates certain procedures in some circumstances and not in others, VA will refuse to comply with its general duty to assist contained in the amended section 5103A(a)(1) of title 38. I do not believe that in implementing this law, VA will refuse to comply with its general duty to assist. The general duty to assist section is intended to provide VA with the flexibility to make whatever reasonable efforts are needed in order to properly adjudicate the particular claim. If a pension applicant needs a medical examination to determine disability, I fully expect VA to provide a medical examination. If a medical evaluation or opinion is needed to resolve conflicts in the medical evidence related to a service-connected claim, I fully expect VA to obtain the requisite examination or opinion. the special provisions mandated for service- connected claims in some circumstances is not, and should not be interpreted by VA, as a license to ignore the general duty to assist provided in the same bill. I strongly believe in judicial review. However, courts can--and do-- make erroneous decisions. When those decisions affect the fundamental rights of veterans, it is Congress' responsibility to correct the problem. H.R. 4864, as amended, will do this. Veterans seeking to establish their entitlement to benefits they have earned as a result of their service to our country deserve to have their claims decided fairly and fully based upon all relevant and available evidence. Where it is as likely as not that a disability was incurred or aggravated during military service, the benefit of the doubt rule dictates that the disability will be service-connected. Passage of H.R. 4864 will help to assure that their claims are properly considered and fairly decided. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4850, as amended. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) once again for his leadership on this important legislation and for his continued efforts on behalf of this Nation's veterans. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee for their hard work on this measure. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. It protects the purchasing power of service-connected disability benefits which our Nation's veterans have earned by virtue of their military service, and it affords similar protection for the recipients of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). Under the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2000, effective December 1, a cost-of-living adjustment will be provided for service-connected disability compensation and DIC benefits. This adjustment will be the same as that provided to Social Security recipients. I call on every Member of this body to support this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4035.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5139. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has brought forth a measure that is a good deal for the VA, a good deal for veterans, and a great deal for the State of Georgia. It will allow the VA to gain the benefit from two parcels of land which are no longer needed. The first parcel will be conveyed to the State Board of Regents to expand Middle Georgia College. The second will go to Middle Georgia's Community Service Board to provide mental health services. In addition to helping the VA in the cost of maintaining unnecessary grounds and obsolete buildings, the State will also assume the cost of remediation of hazardous materials. In exchange, the VA will be able to provide veterans and its employees with some good new benefits. Middle Georgia College will provide free tuition and fees to employees, their spouses, and dependents, and to any veteran receiving treatment at the Dublin VA Medical Center. It also offers the VA priority consideration to offer the Board of Regents maintenance and food services. This may allow the VA to develop new funding streams that will allow improved health care services for veterans. I am pleased to lend my support for this measure, and ask my colleagues to join with me in giving it favorable consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his leadership on this important legislation on behalf of the Nation's veterans and their family. As one of the House authors of the law that mandated standards for honor guard participation in the funerals of veterans, I believe this bill will help our Nation live up to its commitment to those veterans. Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend title 38, U.S. Code, to require employers to give employees who are members of the ready reserve a leave of absence to participate in honor guard funerals for veterans. It is sad when a veteran of the armed services dies. Often his or her family wants a simple honor guard to accompany that service. It is sadder still when no such honor guard can be provided. This bill would make provisions for such an honor guard without requiring the Department of Defense to send active-duty personnel for the task. Members of the reserve components, veterans themselves, can volunteer to provide those honors. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 284 is a bipartisan effort to honor our Nation's veterans and their families for their sacrifices. I strongly support H.R. 284, as amended, and urge my colleagues to approve this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored today to introduce the Heather French Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2000. The homeless veterans of our nation have no better friend, no better advocate than Miss America 2000. During the past year, Heather has given generously of her time, talent, energy and self to challenge this nation to meet the unmet needs of our homeless veterans. The value of her advocacy for our nation's homeless veterans this past year cannot be calculated--it is priceless. From coast to coast and border to border, Heather has taken her message of our national responsibility to provide homeless veterans the assistance they need and deserve. It is an honor for me to, in some small way, recognize what Heather French has done and what she means for our homeless veterans and our nation. The legislation I introduce today is intended to recognize and honor Heather French, but it is not a ceremonial measure. Nearly four decades ago, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth before the end of a decade. He said we would do it not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Our nation spent billions of dollars, some $21.3 billion in 1969 dollars, to meet this challenge. Today, the cost would be an estimated $110 billion. The crew of Apollo 11, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, will always be American heroes. The men and women who have served this nation in uniform and who are now homeless are also American heroes. They are the real survivors. If we were capable of achieving that goal set by President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago, then we are capable of achieving this goal now-- before the end of a decade eliminate homelessness among veterans. We must honor the service of our women and men who have served in uniform by providing the resources and opportunity they need to regain their future and again become productive citizens. This is our challenge. Like generations before us, we can and will succeed. Let us never forget that every homeless veteran in America today served as a member of our Armed Forces. Today's homeless veterans were the once eager, excited and maybe a little frightened young men and women who came forward to serve our nation in uniform. In real terms, they defended our nation. They were our national defense. They came forward by the tens of thousands to serve our country. It is time for our country to come forward to fully provide the services they now need. The Heather French Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2000 is comprehensive legislation. It contains both innovative and proven programs. It provides, for example; expanding successful grant programs, extending the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide dental care, and authorizing individual grants to veterans at risk for homelessness. Mr. Speaker, I ask that a summary explanation of the Heather French Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2000 be included in the Record following my statement. Some may question the need for enacting comprehensive homeless veterans legislation. They may ask, ``Don't programs to help homeless veterans already exist?'' The answer is a qualified yes. VA offers a wide array of special programs and initiatives designed to help homeless veterans live as self-sufficiently and independently as possible. VA's specialized homeless veterans treatment programs have grown and developed since first authorized in 1987. In addition, other federal and community based programs exist throughout the nation to offer support and provide assistance to homeless veterans. Homeless veterans are receiving assistance and support from many programs that have demonstrated their effectiveness. The question then remains, ``Why are veterans still homeless?'' The answer is simple. We have not done enough. The problem is not ineffective programs. The problem is too few programs and too many homeless veterans. If our goal is to end homelessness among veterans, we must do more. Existing programs must be continued and expanded when possible. New programs must be established. For some, the first question will be, ``How much will this cost?'' The question that should be asked instead is, ``What are the costs of failing to end homelessness among veterans? What are the costs of failing to provide what they need to regain their future and again become productive citizens and members of society?'' I strongly support the specialized programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs intended to meet the needs of homeless veterans. These are worthwhile, effective programs. For fiscal year 2000, the total amount expected to be spent supporting these programs is $152.5 million dollars. This is clearly not pocket change, but neither is it enough funding. In fact, it is far from enough. Over the course of a year, 345,000 homeless veterans will experience nearly 126 nights of homelessness. To meet the needs of nearly 126 million nights of homelessness among veterans a year, $152.5 million really isn't very much. In fact, the total spending this year for VA's specialized programs for homeless veterans amounts to approximately $1.25 per day, per homeless veteran. No matter how effective or efficient, $1.25 per day, per homeless veteran can't be expected to be enough. On average, this is about $450 per year, per homeless veteran. The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), of the Department of Labor, provides even less support. The purpose of HVRP is to assist homeless veterans gain employment and become or move toward self- sufficiency. Again, HVRP is a good program which has demonstrated its effectiveness. But how effective can HVRP be in eliminating homelessness with an annual budget of $10 million? If the homeless veteran population is 345,000, HVRP can spend, at the utmost, less than $30 per year, per veteran, on average. For some, eliminating homelessness among veterans is simply a question of economics. A formerly homeless veteran who becomes a computer programmer earning $40,000 a year is a contributing member of our society who will repay many times over in taxes the assistance he or she received. It is in our national economic interest to once again use the skills and values learned in military service and to productively use new skills to benefit everyone. For me, this is not simply a question of economics. Morally, there is no other choice that we can make. We must make use of the full arsenal of programs and tools to help homeless veterans regain their self- worth, their dignity, their pride and their self-sufficiency. We can end homelessness among veterans if we have the will to do so. As the richest nation on earth, we can afford to do no less. President Reagan once asked, ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' I ask these same questions today. We cannot afford to wait any longer. More importantly, America's homeless veterans cannot afford to wait any longer. If we simply maintain the status quo, over the next decade there will be more than one billion nights of homelessness among veterans. Let me repeat that--more than one billion nights of homelessness among veterans over the next decade if we simply maintain our current efforts. If our The most recent assessment of the Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups (CHALENG) was issued in May 2000 by the Department of Veterans Affairs. That assessment reported that there were an estimated 344,983 homeless veterans during 1999, an increase of 34 percent above the 1998 estimate of 256,872 homeless veterans. Veterans continue to constitute a significant and disproportionately greater percentage of homeless men than their non-veteran peers. Twenty-three percent of the homeless male population are veterans while thirteen percent of the general male population are veterans. The CHALENG assessment issued in May 2000, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), also reported there is a need now for more than 110,000 additional beds to meet current needs of homeless veterans. Those additional beds will not be enough, however. Food, clothing, social services, medical services, job training and readiness programs and so much more will also be needed. It can be done and we must do it. This same assessment of the needs of homeless veterans issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reported VA and community partnerships during 1999 were responsible for establishing 4,943 total beds for homeless veterans which included emergency, transitional and permanent beds. If 5,000 additional beds are provided annually to meet the needs of homeless veterans, more than two decades will be required to meet the current need for additional beds to serve homeless veterans. According to an informal cost estimate provided by VA, $1 billion will be required to establish the new beds now needed by homeless veterans. The Congressional Budget Office forecast a federal budget surplus totaling $268 billion for fiscal year 2001 and a budget surplus of over $4.5 trillion over the next ten years. We are the most powerful and richest nation on earth. Economically, we can afford to end homelessness among veterans. Morally, we must. Morally, there is no other choice that we can make. We must make use of the full arsenal of programs and tools to help homeless veterans regain their self-worth, their dignity, their pride and their self-sufficiency. I am pleased the Heather French Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2000 has already received support from the Veterans Organizations Homeless Council. The members of the Veterans Organizations Homeless Council represent ten major national veteran service organizations. These organizations are The American Legion, AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America. The Veterans Organizations Homeless Council ``strongly supports the comprehensive recommendations advanced by Congressman Lane Evans, Illinois, in a legislative proposal that will offer a strategic program to break the vicious cycle of veterans homelessness in cities and towns across this Nation.'' In addition, I am also very pleased this legislation has won the support of Miss America 2000. Heather French has carried a torch of compassion which has shown light on the plight of America's homeless veterans. She has given voice to homeless veterans who have been voiceless and visibility to homeless veterans who have been invisible to society in general. Her efforts have raised the awareness of the American people regarding the struggles and circumstances of the thousands of homeless men and women who have served our nation in uniform. By her words and deeds Miss America 2000 has demonstrated her steadfast commitment to leaving no homeless veteran behind. From the halls of Congress, to homeless shelters, and to communities across America, Heather French has inspired us to a single goal--ending homelessness among America's veterans. As Miss America 2000, Heather French has well represented the Miss America Organization--the largest provider of scholarship assistance, exclusively for women, in the world. As an advocate for our homeless veterans, Heather French has maintained The Miss America Organization tradition of many decades of empowering American women to achieve their personal and professional goals, while providing a forum in which to express their opinions, talents, and intelligence. Her year of service as Miss America will end next month, but her commitment will not. She will continue to speak for those who are voiceless, seek shelter for those who have none, and remind us of our obligation to those who have served. Heather French has said, ``homeless veterans want to be able to regain personal pride by taking personal responsibility to remove the barriers that have prevented their transition to productive citizenship.'' ``I applaud this legislation that focuses on a comprehensive package of proposals that will lead to ending homelessness among our nation's veterans so they can once again be proud citizens.'' The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) has also endorsed this legislation. NCHV executive director Linda Boone has said ``this bill will become the platform to address homeless veterans' issues in the 107th Congress and we look forward to a continued active relationship between Ms. French and Mr. Evans towards the goal of ending homelessness among our nation's veterans.'' I am proud to have the support of Ms. French, major veterans organizations, and community based providers of services to homeless veterans. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor H.R. 5311, the Heather French Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2000. Heather French Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2000 summary of H.R. 5311 1. Findings 2. National Goal to end homelessness among Veterans within a decade 3. Establish the Homeless Veterans Advisory Committee, Department of Veterans Affairs 4. Requires annual meeting for Interagency Council on Homeless 5. Evaluation of homeless programs 6. Changes in veterans equitable resource allocation methodology 7. Grant program for homeless veterans with special needs 8. Coordination of services for veterans at risk of homelessness 9. Centers of Excellence in integrated mental health services delivery 10. Expansion of authority for dental care 11. Programmatic expansions 12. Various Authorities 13. Temporary Assistance Grants 14. Emergency Homeless Grants 15. Technical Assistance Grants 16. Manufactured Housing Loans 17. Increase Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program annual authorization to $50 million

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on September 25, 2000, 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. 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. The Veterans' Family Farm Preservation Act addresses this problem. 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 family 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. On May 25, 2000, Senator Grassley and I wrote to VA's Under Secretary for Benefits, Joseph Thompson, requesting that he recognize the unique nature of a family farm and take immediate steps to address the need for a fair evaluation of the eligibility of our Nation's family farmers for veteran's pension benefits. On June 27, 2000, Mr. Thompson replied indicating that VA viewed a family farm in the same light as interest- producing bank deposits or securities. 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. The Veterans' Family Farm Preservation Act would exempt farm and ranch land owned by the veteran and the veteran's dependents from being counted 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. 5271, the Veterans' Family Farm Preservation Act. America's family farmers and ranchers deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I request the response which the Honorable Joseph Thompson, Under Secretary for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs, sent to me and Senator Grassley concerning VA's valuation of farm lands be included in the Congressional Record at this point. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Washington, DC, June 27, 2000. Hon. Lane Evans, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Evans: This is in response to your letter of May 25, 2000, concerning the issue of net worth as it applies to the non service-connected pension program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In order to qualify for our pension program, a veteran is required to be permanently and totally disabled. Generally, there are relatively few instances where an individual who is operating a working farm meets the basic requirements for pension eligibility. Although there is no such disability requirement for surviving spouse claimants, it is our belief that an individual operating a farm or other business with assets that could be converted to substantial amounts of cash should not qualify for pension. We view the operator of a business in the same light as an individual owning rental property or an owner of interest-producing bank deposits or securities. VA pension, similar to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), is intended to provide an income supplement for needy individuals and not to allow beneficiaries to build up substantial assets. Although countable income limitations for VA pension are in the same range as those for SSI, our net worth guideline of $50,000 for the preparation of an administrative decision is more generous than SSI's $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple. As you pointed out, our procedural manual, M21-1, indicates that a determination of excessive net worth is a question of fact for resolution after the consideration of the facts and circumstances in each case. The $50,000 guideline is not to be interpreted as a strict, mechanical limitation. We will issue clarifying guidance on that point. We are also conducting an analysis of our recent net worth determinations. Based on these results we will decide whether additional changes to our rules and procedures are appropriate. At that time, we will also consider whether the $50,000 guideline should be increased. You will be apprised of our results. In April 2000, representatives from the Veterans Health Administration and the Veterans Benefits Administration met with Senator Grassley, members of his staff, farmers and their representatives in Des Moines, Iowa. We understood their concerns and informed them about our efforts to address their concerns. Our reports show that between December 1997 and December 1999, an average of 213 beneficiaries had their pension benefits terminated for excessive net worth. In FY 1999, there were 131 terminations for excessive net worth. Unfortunately, no data are available on the number of claimants who are disallowed for excessive net worth, or the number of administrative decisions made annually on the issue of net worth or the type of assets involved. I hope this information is helpful to you. I am providing Senator Grassley a similar response. Sincerely, Joseph Thompson.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, for working with me on an important pay provision contained in the legislation now before the House, H.R. 5109. As many of my colleagues know, my mother was a nurse, a fact of which I am very proud. I understand well the pressures nurses face as the backbone of our health care system. I understand, too, that nurses have had to shoulder even more responsibility as health care delivery is being transformed. From my perspective, it was grossly unfair to maintain a pay system under our jurisdiction that allowed hospital directors to balance the budget on the backs of VA nurses. This bill comes at a time when competition for skilled health care personnel is fierce. Besides nurses, the bill addresses pay inequities for dentists. It provides physician assistants long-sought representation within VA headquarters along with better training opportunities. It will help the VA retain social workers, pharmacists and medical support personnel, to retain them as well. This legislation also supports a pilot project that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) just talked about. It will allow the VA to manage VA's health care system in their own communities. The concept of this pilot brought to my attention by two health care professionals, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is simple, the VA will preapprove certain veterans who are distant from VA medical centers, but who rely on VA outpatient clinics to receive certain general medical and surgical hospital in- patient services in their own communities. Mr. Speaker, far from being the end of the VA health care system as we know now it, this is a project that is consistent with VA's goals to bring veterans' health care into our communities. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) is offering a strong bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from the American Federation of Government Employees: American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO September 21, 2000. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Cliff Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. Hon. Lane Evans, Ranking Member, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Stump, Chairman Stearns and Ranking Member Evans: On behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO and the 600,000 federal workers AFGE, represents, including roughly 125,000 Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) employees, I thank you for your efforts to guarantee DVA registered nurses an annual pay raise and to improve the pay for dentists and pharmacists who work at the DVA. H.R. 5109 will guarantee DVA nurses the same annual nationwide pay increase provided to General Schedule employees. The fundamental change in the DVA nurse pay system is similar to the change proposed in H.R. 1216, the AFGE authored legislation which was introduced by Representative Steve LaTourette (R-OH). It is our understanding that H.R. 5109 will ensure that no DVA nurse will again be denied an annual pay raise or receive a negative pay adjustment. Such changes to the current DVA nurse pay system are consistent with the AFGE testimony given before Chairman Steams' subcommittee on April 12th. At the hearing AFGE called for a guaranteed annual pay raise for DVA nurses to create a floor for nurses' pay. AFGE also urged that the Secretary be given the authority to increase nurses' pay above this floor when needed. H.R. 5109 incorporates these core principles. AFGE opposes the section in H.R. 5109 titled, ``Coordination of Hospital Benefits Program,'' which would create a pilot voucher-like program in four geographic areas. The section would authorize DVA to cover a veteran's costs of inpatient care at non-DVA facilities. DVA would become the secondary insurance for any out-of-pocket expenses of veterans with insurance, including Medicare, when veterans seek inpatient services in private sector hospitals. Section 401 establishes an entirely new eligibility category for veterans' health care based not on the veteran's status or need, but purely on the veteran's geographic location, and to a great extent, the veteran's own health insurance. Accordingly, Section 401 will create a disparity between the health care available to veterans who chose to use DVA health care facilities and those, primarily with their own insurance, who have previously chosen not to use DVA facilities. Section 401 will also set a precedent for sending veterans to non-DVA providers for inpatient services that are paid by veterans' own insurance. DVA would not subsidize care outside of the DVA system, lose both the direct and appropriated dollars and any third-party reimbursements. If this precedent is set and expanded, DVA health care facilities would only become local referral centers without the resources to sustain the full range of care, including the specialized services such as spinal cord injury care and substance abuse treatment, for which it is well known. Under Section 401, DVA would not really have control to manage the veteran's case once referred because it would be a secondary payer, not the provider of care. AFGE is for increased access in veterans' care but not at the cost of unraveling the DVA operated health care system. Veterans deserve and need a unique health care system devoted and dedicated to treating their unique medical needs. Picking up the co-payments for veterans who have insurance will ultimately transform DVA from a health care system designed and focused on veterans medical care into an insurance company. This proposal claims to give a few veterans improved ``access'' but will do so at the cost of maintaining a fully staffed and functioning DVA health care system. We urge you to omit this section from the final conference bill. Thank you for considering AFGE's views on these important matters. AFGE appreciates that you have incorporated the core principles of the AFGE authored nurse pay legislation into

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is a vote on whether we are truly dedicated to the hard work of getting full accounting of our missing from the Vietnam War. As the Veterans of Foreign Wars have stated, passing this resolution of disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time in which we are receiving the access and cooperation we need from the Vietnamese to determine the fate of our POW-MIAs. There is no more authoritative force and voice on this issue than our former colleague and now ambassador to Vietnam, Mr. Pete Peterson, who supports this waiver. As a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment in the notorious Hanoi Hilton, he should have every reason to be skeptical and harbor bitterness against the Vietnamese. Yet he believes the best course is to develop better relations between our two nations. We have achieved progress on this POW-MIA issue because of our evolving relationship with the Vietnamese, not despite it. Without access to the jungles and the rice paddies, to the information and documents, and to the witnesses of these tragic incidents, it would be impossible to give the families of the missing the answers our country owes them. We are making progress and providing these answers. Much of this is due to the Joint Task Force--Full Accounting, our military presence in Vietnam tasked with looking for our missing. I have visited with these young men and women, and they are among the most brave and motivated troops I have ever met. Every day, from the searches of jungle battle sites to the excavation of crash sites on precarious mountain summits, they put themselves in harm's way to perform a mission they truly believe in. It is moving to see these young men and women, some who were not even born when our presence was so involved in Vietnam. They have told me time and time again one thing; allow us to remain on this job. The resolution before us today puts this at risk. I urge my colleagues to please vote against this resolution.

Mr. EVANS

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