Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows American seniors are facing staggering prescription drug costs. Currently, safe and cheaper drugs lie across our northern border in Canada. Seniors do not have to go far to see how much less the rest of the world pays for the same FDA- approved drugs sold many times higher in our country. The issue of the safety is a non-issue. Seniors in Illinois know that the pharmaceutical industry is fighting one of the biggest and most expensive fights to keep the United States in this protectionist state, not because drugs from FDA-approved facilities in other industrialized countries are unsafe, but because this measure forces drug companies here to lower their hugely inflated prices. With the implementation of affordable, anti-counterfeit technology, we will know that drugs that come into this country are indeed safe, reliable, and tamper-free. There is a counterfeit technology currently being used by the drug industry in the EU. This is a similar technology used on billions of pieces of currency around the world which is a testament to its effectiveness and true affordability. There is no evidence to believe that the importation of prescription drugs will increase Americans' risk of receiving tainted drugs. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion of drug re-importation comes hours after debate on two free trade bills. While we have debated and passed today two bills that do not meet these standards, many of my colleagues are not willing to engage in the trade of FDA-approved drugs from industrialized nations that do indeed meet these standards. Many of these countries already have free trade agreements with the U.S. and the most important factor is that this reimportation will benefit Americans greatly through reduced pharmaceutical prices; not taking away a single American job. H.R. 2427 will make sure that Americans have access to fair prices by forcing the drug industry to play by the same rule as every other business. My colleagues continually come to this floor to speak on behalf of ``free markets'' and this is one opportunity to demonstrate whether they support an industry hiding behind protective trade barriers or one providing a needed good at a competitive price. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for America's seniors and support this legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, it is no secret to anyone in this body, nor to the Nation's 25 million American veterans and their families, that the health care system is critically underfunded. The result is that tens of thousands of veterans are being forced to work and one group of veterans is being denied access to VA care altogether. The current funding process for veterans' health care is broken. It simply does not work and, frankly, it never has. The problem starts out at OMB where they consistently pare down the Department of Veterans Affair's budget requests to accommodate the other priorities of the White House. It moves on to this Capitol where Congress must squeeze the veterans' programs into funding for a myriad of other priorities of ill-advised tax cuts to the Space Station. It ends with veterans waiting in lines, sick and disabled and living with the year-to-year anxiety that comes from wondering if the VA will be there when they ask for help. In short, Madam Speaker, veterans, the individuals who defended this country in time of war and kept us a free Nation, are forced by a cruel funding process to continue fighting for what is rightfully theirs. I and 117 of my colleagues so far, some of whom join me today, believe enough is enough. There is no feasible alternative to permanently fix this problem. Only one. And that is mandatory funding of the VA spending, just like Medicare, just like the Department of Defense, TRICARE and just like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the veterans deserve some consideration as the beneficiaries of their plans. The Nation's veterans organizations strongly agree. The American Legion, AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America and others, including organizations that represent nearly 6 million members, are speaking up across the Nation. They too are saying enough is enough. That is why I have introduced H.R. 2318, the Assured Funding for the Veterans Health Care Act of 2003. The bill would require the Secretary of Treasury annually to come before Congress to provide funding for the VA's care, based on the number of enrollees in the system and medical inflation. What could be more appropriate than providing funding for veterans' health care, based on the number who will need it, the demand and the projected cost. Let us be absolutely clear. These projections and the subsequent funding of them should be based on care for all eligible veterans. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). I want to thank the gentleman for being such an advocate for veterans, but I also want to thank him for introducing this legislation, the Assured Funding for the Veterans Health Care Act of 2003. What we are talking about here is simply having mandatory funding for veterans programs so that the vets do not have to come to the Congress year after year after year with hat in hands and ask for what they need. But if this bill that the gentleman has introduced passes, and by the way, I think it has 117 cosponsors at the present time, if it were to pass, there would be a mandatory stream of funding. Veterans would be able to have assurance that what they needed in terms of benefits and health care would be there for them. I would like to take a minute, if I can, just to put this debate about mandatory funding in context and talk about what is at stake here. We need to put mandatory funding in this budget because right now funding for veterans' benefits is inadequate. This is what we have seen happen in recent months: There are hundreds of thousands of veterans who are waiting 6 months or more just to get an appointment to see a doctor. Think about that. Would any Member of this House of Representatives tolerate having to be put on a waiting list and to wait 6 months or longer to see a doctor? I think we would not. And I think it is a fair question to ask. Why should those of us who serve in this body have access to health care in a more timely manner than that which is made available to our veterans? Another problem, veterans about a year and a half ago, had to pay $2 for each prescription they received. The VA increased that copayment from $2 to $7 a prescription. And now the President has requested that that copayment be increased from $7 a prescription up to $15 a prescription. And one of the most outrageous things that has happened, the VA actually placed a gag order on their health care providers. The VA sent out a memo to all of their network health providers saying, you can no longer market VA services to veterans. In other words, you cannot proactively tell veterans what they are entitled to receive. Think about that. I mean, it is almost unbelievable that the Department that is supposed to be looking out for veterans, protecting veterans, servicing veterans, would actually put out a memo telling their doctors and nurses and social workers that they could not participate in health fairs, that they have could not send out newsletters telling veterans what they are entitled to receive under the laws that have been passed right here in this Chamber, that they could not make public service announcements urging veterans to come in for services. And that gag order is in effect tonight, and it is shameful. And it is in effect because we do not have sufficient funding to pay all the costs of veterans' benefits and veterans' health care. Then something else that more and more veterans across this country are just becoming aware of, the VA created a new classification for veterans. They have call it Priority 8. And they say those who are in Priority 8 are of higher income. Now, quite frankly, one can make as little in my district as about $24,000 a year and be considered higher income. And so these are called Priority 8 veterans, and they are being told that they can not enroll in the VA health care system at all. Think about that. These are men and women who have served our country admirably. They have been honorably discharged. Many of them are in great economic and financial need. And because they make about $24-, $25,000 a year, the VA is saying you are high income and so you do not qualify to participate in the VA system. Does my colleague not think it is fair that the people in this country know that he and I earn about $150,000 a year? I think that is high income. I do not think $24,000 is high income. I think this is really shameful what the VA has done here. Right now, the House Committee on Appropriations has been considering the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it does not look good. Despite assurances from the leadership here in the House, in fact, they have held press conferences saying, oh, we are going to treat the veterans in the right way, despite those assurances, Republicans have abandoned their promises; and they are going to increase the cost of prescription drugs for a veteran. The President asked for this in his budget. At a time when we were getting ready to send our young men and women into harm's way, the President sent a budget to this House, and he asked that veterans be required to pay more money for a prescription drug. In fact, he wanted that copayment to be doubled, more than doubled, from $7 to $15 a prescription; and he also asked that this Congress impose an annual enrollment fee on priority 7 and 8 veterans, an enrollment fee of $250 a year. Then the President asked that the cost of going to see a doctor at a clinic be increased from $15 a visit to $20 a visit, and this House is going along with that request. Oh, but we were told, do not worry, because we have actually increased funding for veterans health care next year; and we were told it was going to be $3.4 billion, but it looks as if the Congress is reneging on that promise as well, and the increase has been cut about in half, down to $1.4 billion. These are shameful acts in my judgment, and I want to tell my colleagues that all of the veterans organizations in this country, and I am talking about the American Legion, the VFW, the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Vets, they are pretty upset about this. I have a letter which they sent out last Friday, and it is from the National AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars; and they say here: ``The VA-HUD Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which calls for a $1.4 billion increase over last year and approximately the President's request,'' basically this House is doing what the President has requested. These groups say that is wholly inadequate. It is inadequate to provide health care to sick and disabled veterans, and it represents a flagrant disregard of promises made to veterans by this Congress. ``So much for promises,'' they say in their letter. So much for promises. Providing a wholly inadequate $1.4 billion increase calls into question all the press conferences and the news releases touting this Congress' commitment to the men and women who have served this Nation. So what we are asking for in the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Evans) bill is that we make this funding mandatory. Just as other parts of our Federal Government call for mandatory spending, we want veterans to have the assurance that comes with mandatory funding. These veterans service organizations that I mentioned tell me that this is their number one legislative priority. There are lots of things that veterans need; but nothing is more important to them than having mandatory funding, so that year after year we can know how much money our hospitals are going to get, our outpatient clinics, how much money is going to be there to take care of our aging population of veterans. I would just close my remarks by reminding my colleagues and others once again that what this Congress is doing represents a following of the directions that came to us from President Bush. He sent his budget over here in January. As my colleague will recall, January was a time when we were preparing for war. Talk is cheap. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) knows that. But health care costs a lot of money, and it does cost a lot of money to provide needed health care to our veterans; but these are men and women who have paid the price. They have served our country. They have taken the oath. They have served honorably and admirably; and as they chose to do that, to provide the service to their country, promises were made to them, and our country has an obligation to keep those promises; and the best way to keep those promises, I think, is to pass my colleague's legislation, the legislation that he has entitled appropriately Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003. Every Member of this House should sign on as cosponsors. We have, I think, 117 cosponsors now, thanks to the gentleman's leadership. We ought to have every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, in this House sign on to this act. It is H.R. 2318, and I repeat that just in case there may be some veterans who are listening and who would like to communicate with their Senator and their House Member, H.R. 2318. It is called the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003. Madam Speaker, I would hope that veterans across this country would recognize the importance of this legislation and would let their representatives know how important it is to them, and perhaps they will just decide to urge them to sign on as cosponsors. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his leadership. I admire him greatly. I was elected to this body for the first time, took office in January of 1993. He and I were both younger men then; but I admired him then for the dedication he had to serve our veterans, and across the years my admiration for him has only grown, and I thank him for introducing this vital legislation. I pledge to him that I will do everything in my power to see that we get as many cosponsors as possible, that we urge the leadership of this House to allow this legislation to move forward; and I thank him for allowing me to participate with him tonight. Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks, and at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her charitable remarks. I appreciate working with her and will be engaged with her in fighting these cuts that have been announced by the administration and look forward to working with her in this regard.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1516, the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003. I again want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the full Committee, Chris Smith, along with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Henry Brown and Michael Michaud for their good work in crafting this legislation. I am pleased that in H.R. 1516 we are authorizing the establishment of five new national cemeteries according to the VA's most current burial needs assessment report. We must provide a peaceful and dignified setting to honor the many men and women who bravely served this country in uniform. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have many other communities in great need of additional veterans' cemetery burial space. As we all know, the men and women of the ``greatest generation'' who served this country so grandly in World War II and Korea have reached their senior years. Well over 1,000 World War II veterans pass away each day, and this rate is projected to increase for years to come. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to provide proper final resting places for our veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to meet this serious responsibility. Mr. Speaker, this measure deserves the support of all Members and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to rename the U.S. Post Office at 514 17th Street in Moline, Illinois after my friend, David Bybee, who passed away unexpectedly last year. Dave was a distinguished public servant who was the National Business Agent for the Chicago Region of the National Association of Letter Carriers. He served his community and union for 33 years within the very walls of the building I seek to name after him. It is my hope that his name will forever be identified with the institution he cherished for so many years as a national union leader for letter carriers. Dave Bybee became a letter carrier for the Postal Service in 1967 and after only two years on the job was elected President of Letter Carriers Local 318. He then became the Regional Administrative Assistant and concurrently the Secretary to the Illinois State Association of Letter Carriers from 1971 to 1977. In 1980, Mr. Bybee was elected the National Business Agent to the National Association of Letter Carriers for the 17,000 strong Chicago Region. He held that office and concurrently served as a Vice President of the Illinois AFL- CIO until his death on May 31, 2002. Dave Bybee worked tirelessly on behalf of the letter carriers of Illinois and traveled thousands of miles in Illinois and across the nation representing his members. Dave was also loved by the retirees who knew they had a good friend and leader who fought for their benefits In 1992, recognizing Dave's hard work and lifetime dedication, the local union he first represented as President twenty-three years earlier was named the David M. Bybee Branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers. Dave Bybee was also civically active and had many friends within the Illinois Congressional delegation and state legislature on both sides of the aisle. He served as a member of the Electoral College in two national elections. His dedication to his fellow workers did not interfere with his devotion to his wife, Judy, and their two sons, Michael and John. In addition to a full and rewarding family life, he still found time to serve his community as the fire chief of Carbon Cliff and as a school board member, and remain active in the Moline Elks Club. Dave had a wonderful sense of humor and no matter how tired he was from work and travel, he could always manage to make any group he was visiting or speaking to laugh and smile. When he passed away, letter carriers and postal officials from all over the state and nation traveled to Moline to pay their respects. Dave was a national labor leader who served not only his fellow workers, but his community and family. Mr. Speaker, the Post Office in Moline, Illinois, should be named after Dave Bybee. The Moline community, postal workers across Illinois and the nation owe David Bybee a great deal because of his advocacy for working Americans. This is the very least we can do to commend such a dedicated and hardworking man.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this Republican Medicare bill falls well short of what our country's retirees deserve. And I believe, that if this Congress and this President had not squandered the budget surplus we could afford to give our seniors a benefit they deserve. It is well past time to assist with our seniors prescription drug costs. The Democratic substitute provides a reliable and affordable benefit to America's seniors. This voluntary prescription drug coverage costs only $25 a month with a $100 deductible and provides a $2000 stop-loss protection with no gaps in coverage. There are also special provisions to help the poorest seniors with either full payment or assistance on a sliding fee scale. The Democratic substitute I support also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to wield the collective bargaining power of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices. And as the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I was proud to help craft a similar plan which has helped our nation's veterans lower their out of pocket drug costs. As a member representing a rural district, I also want to highlight the rural health care provisions included in the Democratic substitute. These provisions are essential to create equity in the reimbursement system between urban and rural hospital. They allow fair payments to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of low-income patients, increases payments to rural home health providers without requiring a co-pay, and adjusts low-volume payments for small hospitals. It also takes into account the physician shortage crisis in rural areas by finally correcting the huge disparity between urban rural hospitals, that drives providers from our small towns. All of these reasons make the Democratic alternative to H.R. 1 the right answer to the spiraling costs for prescription drugs for seniors. Medicare works for America's seniors but, I oppose the GOP's efforts to privatize this system and provide a second-rate prescription drug benefit. I proudly support the Democratic substitute and I urge my colleagues to vote down H.R. 1 and vote Yes on the substitute.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, as Representative for the 17th Congressional District in Illinois, a district encompassing Springfield, Illinois, where Abraham Lincoln got his political start, I pledge my support for the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. Abraham Lincoln first came to Illinois in March of 1830, and like so many of us he came to love the beautiful state, its good people, and its bountiful opportunities. Abraham Lincoln was a patriotic man and a courageous leader. He led our Nation through one of the darkest times in its history, and helped to shape it into the great country that it is today. The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission is dedicated to preserving and honoring the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. It will provide education to the American public about President Lincoln's accomplishments, as well as striving to honor his works. I encourage everyone to visit Illinois and see the many sites commemorating President Lincoln, not only in Springfield, but throughout the state. It is important to continue to urge Americans to learn about the history of our Nation and the people who have made it so great. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most important figures who contributed to this rich history of which we are so proud.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1460, the Veterans' Entrepreneurship and Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 and urge passage by this Chamber. I would like to thank Chris Smith, chairman of the full committee, the Benefits Subcommittee chairman, Henry Brown and ranking member, Michael Michaud, for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of Don Manzullo and Nydia Velazquez, chairman and ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, along with their respective staffs for assisting us in crafting this legislation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill as it provides increased opportunities for veterans to develop their entrepreneurial skills and become successful small business owners. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1460 is a good bill and a step in the right direction with respect to its small business contracting provisions. The Federal Government engages in procurement contracts of up to $235 billion a year. Surely, service-disabled veteran small business owners deserve an opportunity to participate in this system. Section 2 authorizes the use of VA education assistance to pay for nondegree and noncredit business courses at approved institutions. This provision should expand the educational and training opportunities for service-disabled veterans. Section 3 authorizes Federal agency contracting officers to create sole source and restricted competition contracts for ``certified'' service-disabled veteran small business owners; requires the collection of relevant data and a report to Congress on service-disabled small business owners; and establishes a 4-year pilot program at the Department of Veterans Affairs through which service-disabled veteran small business owners would receive equal priority among all small business programs. Section 4 is derived from a bill, H.R. 761, which I introduced. It would allow servicemembers to apply for and receive a grant for specially adapted housing while still in military service. This legislation was prompted by reports of seriously disabled servicemembers having to remain hospitalized until they were discharged from military services because they could not obtain a grant for specially adapted housing until after leaving military service. Without such a grant they were unable to obtain accessible housing. There is no question that these servicemembers will be discharged from military service. In order to qualify for the specially adapted housing grant, severe disabilities incompatible with continued military service are required. I hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this legislation. I do not want to see severely disabled servicemembers from the recent Iraq war unnecessarily hospitalized due to the lack of accessible housing. Section 5 reinstates the VA's vendee loan program. The vendee loan program is a successful program that allows VA to finance loans to a new veteran or non-veteran purchaser when the prior loan has been foreclosed upon and VA has received the property. By allowing vendee loans, the VA is able to sell the property more quickly and at a higher cost than is possible with conventional financing. VA abruptly ended this program earlier this year. I strongly favor its reinstatement. Finally, section 6 would allow a surviving spouse or dependent children to receive accrued benefits if the veteran dies while a claim for VA periodic monetary benefits is being processed. Currently there is a 2-year time limit on the retroactive period. I have introduced legislation to allow family members to continue the claims of veterans who die while a claim is pending. This provision is a good first step. The government should not be allowed to deny retroactive payments when the government's inaction is responsible for delayed adjudication of a claim. Again, I thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their hard work and I urge my colleagues to vote to pass this legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution calling on Japan to issue an apology to the women and girls forced into sexual slavery during and prior to World War II. During the war and the colonial occupation of South East Asia, Japan forced over 200,000 young women and girls, known euphemistically as ``comfort women'' by the Japanese, into military brothels. This sexual enslavement of mostly Korean and Chinese women was officially commissioned and orchestrated by the Government of Japan. Women throughout Southeast Asia were recruited by force, coercion, or deception, transported across national borders, and kept at the mercy of the Japanese military in subhuman conditions. They endured such horrific crimes as gang rape, forced abortions, sexual violence, and human trafficking. However, the horror of this experience did not end with the cessation of hostilities. Many comfort women were killed by Japanese soldiers after Japan surrendered. In addition, some of these women had no family or homes to return to, and found themselves abandoned in hostile lands where they were viewed as collaborators. The few remaining survivors live daily with the painful memories of their enslavement, and many still suffer serious health effects as a result of violent physical and sexual abuse and sexually transmitted diseases contracted during their ordeal. While the facts of these crimes are incontrovertible, Japan has not officially acknowledged guilt or assisted the victims. Japan has paid $1.3 billion in war reparations, yet none of it has gone to the victims of sexual enslavement and not one person has been tried for their crimes. Japan waited over 44 years to even acknowledge the use of comfort women and then only issued a very ambiguous apology. Japanese textbooks rarely mention this enslavement and extreme nationalists still deny Japan's involvement. A private fund set up to compensate comfort women is, according to the United Nations Special Rapporteur's reports, a complete denial of legal responsibility. There are only a handful of these victims still alive. For too long, these women have had to live in silence and shame. My resolution calls for Japan to issue a clear and unambiguous apology, render state compensation to the victims, and provide historical accountability for these horrific crimes. The sexual enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women should not disappear into history without a full apology and compensation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on June 20 the Nation lost a dedicated public servant and its veterans and Armed Forces personnel worldwide a loyal and steadfast champion. Our colleague, former Arizona Congressman Bob Stump, whose legacy is a remarkable record of programs that will benefit active duty service men and women, National Guard and Reserve personnel, and veterans for generations to come, passed away after a lengthy illness. I consider it a privilege to have had the opportunity to serve in the House of Representatives with this gentleman from 1987 to the day of his departure--some 14 years, the full time for which we both served as members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. In that time, I never encountered a more generous, more courteous, more affable, nor more resolute individual in this body. I am proud to have served as Ranking Democrat under his very capable chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to have worked with someone who so clearly understood and practiced true bipartisanship. Bob was one of those all-too-rare individuals in elected office--an unassuming, behind-the-scenes workhorse who eschewed self-promotion and who knew his way and how to get there. It didn't take long for one to understand that Bob's kindly manner sometimes belied the firm hand he kept on the helm of leadership in veterans' affairs and armed services, and in the cause of his constituents. Those who have served in uniform, and those still serving, likely will never know the full measure of what this good man gave them, but they will feel it every day in a broad range of benefits and services that bear his mark. His near half-century of contributions to his country, beginning as a combat medic in the Pacific Theater of World War II, through service in both houses of the Arizona legislature, 26 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and chairmanship of two committees, will forever be held in the same high regard as the man we came to know and appreciate.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2445, the Veterans Nursing Home Care Act of 2003. I am introducing this bill in order to extend the assurance of a meaningful nursing home benefit for the majority of our service-connected veterans. I want to ensure that medically necessary nursing care is at least available to those with conditions related to their military service. This winter, the administration surprised us with a new proposal for saving VA about $235 million. Instead of using the guarantee for nursing home care as a minimum threshold for veterans to whom VA must provide unlimited nursing home care, it proposed to define this group as the only veterans who would be eligible for nursing home services. This was definitely not Congress's intention and I want to ensure that the Department is very clear about that. Congress passed the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (P.L. 106-117) in 1999. The bill contained a number of measures designed to shore up the long-term care mission in VA. Even then, it was apparent that VA had begun to abandon its role in traditional long- term care. VA now acknowledges that the majority of its ``nursing home'' beds are dedicated to post-acute care, short-term evaluation, and rehabilitative care missions. It continues to turn away from custodial care for veterans. In response to this shift in mission, Congress was able to agree to a small core-group (now known as Priority Group 1A) who would be eligible for long-term placement in a VA nursing home. VA would not be able to discharge these veterans without the consent of the veteran or his representative. In addition, Congress agreed to inclusion of non- institutional long-term services in the definition of ``medical services'' that comprise VA's benefits package. The Millennium Bill also established a ``capacity requirement'' that required VA to maintain its long-term care services at the FY 1998 level. What has occurred in response to this legislation has been discouraging to say the least. A letter covering a report VA prepared to discuss implementation of the law signed by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi states: ``. . . there is evidence of only small changes in VA's long-term care (LTC) services that were a direct result of the Act versus what VA had already planned in providing LTC for veterans. In addition, there was only a small increase in numbers of veterans 70 percent service-connected or greater who were estimated to need nursing home care but who actually received that care from VA.'' In addition there is a long history of correspondence between Congress and the Administration about the ``capacity'' requirement. As part of its proposal for fiscal year 2004, VA would cut an additional 5000 nursing home beds from its program projecting an average daily census (ADC) of 8500. At the end of FY 2002, it was already considerably short (ADC of 11,969) of its FY 1998 required level (an average daily census of 13,391). The news is not just bad for institutional care. This May, the General Accounting Office released a report I requested that looked at the availability of non-institutional long-term care. It identified major gaps in access and availability of services--including those Congress meant to include as part of the ``basic benefits'' package available to every enrolled veteran. I note that I am not the only one who is apparently concerned about VA's vanishing nursing home mission. The Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Arlen Specter has introduced legislation, S. 1156, which extends the requirement to provide long-term nursing home care to veterans with service-connected conditions rated at least 50 percent. I look forward to working with him on this legislation. I urge all Members of the House to support this measure.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill with my friend, the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Health Subcommittee, Rob Simmons. This bill will authorize several desperately needed major medical construction projects in Chicago, IL; San Diego, CA; Las Vegas, NV; and West Haven, CT. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to jump start the stalled major medical construction endeavor in the Department of Veterans Affairs. My bill would honor the commitment the Department of Veterans Affairs made to build a new bed tower at the West Side division of VA Chicago. While Secretary Anthony Principi has decided to move forward with the closure of inpatient services at the Lakeside division, he has not asked for an appropriation for the new construction project at West Side. Instead, the funding for this project--$98.5 million--is supposed to come from an enhanced use lease agreement whose value some experts claim has been greatly overestimated. I am not willing to make such a gamble on veterans' access to a functional medical center in the Chicago area. The West Side facility is a 50-year old facility ill-suited to respond to the demands of a modern health care delivery system, even without the additional workload anticipated from the integration with Lakeside scheduled for early August. VA Chicago is working to accommodate its inpatients in a facility that has inadequate intensive care units, inpatient units, and surgical suites. Once the new facility is operational, the existing facility will also have to undergo significant renovations to improve the emergency department, laboratory and radiological services, and food and nutritional areas. Because of the importance and the urgency of this project, my legislation would prohibit VA Chicago from disposing, in any manner, of the Lakeside division without first entering into a contract for the construction of the new bed tower promised to Chicago area veterans. The bill would also fund a project to replace the existing ambulatory care center in Las Vegas, NV. As my good friend, Shelley Berkley often reminds the Committee, Las Vegas has the fastest growing populations in the country and its veteran enrollees are not expected to peak until 2012. Veterans' use of services is expected to remain higher than it is currently throughout the 20-year timeframe studied for VA's Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services project. Unfortunately, in constructing a new ambulatory care clinic there in 1997, VA seems to have fallen prey to a contractor whose work was seriously substandard. An independent assessment by John A. Martin and Associates yielded an opinion that the clinic was ``unsafe for continued occupancy.'' Because of the contractor's repeated failure to address serious structural deficiencies in the building, VA is now forced to abandon it. As an interim measure, VA is sending its patients to 10 different ambulatory care clinics around the city. This inefficient delivery system is forcing VA to add 80 full-time employees with significant new operational costs. My bill would request $97.3 million to build a new centralized facility that would also include space for a new regional office for the Veterans Benefits Administration. In FY 2002, VA listed seismic corrections at the San Diego VA Medical Center as one of its highest construction priorities. Later, I am told, cost considerations--not any change in the assessment of need--yielded a lower priority for the project. I am still convinced that there is a great risk to VA patients and staff at the site and my bill would authorize $48.6 million to address the needs at the facility. West Haven VA Medical Center is in serious need of major renovations to its inpatient wards and research facilities. For many years, the inpatient ward renovations have been a high priority for VA construction, but resources have not allowed the project to move forward. I am requesting $50 million for this project and to renovate the research facilities. Finally, Charlotte, NC, is home to one of the largest populations in the country without a significant VA health care system presence. The project requested in this bill would allow VA to greatly expand its current workload in a clinic in the downtown area and enroll veterans who are now unable to receive care. I have included $3 million for the cost of the lease. All of these projects merit our immediate attention and approval by all Members. I urge your favorable consideration.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of myself and 72 of my colleagues, I am introducing H.R. 2318 the ``Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003.'' Starting in Fiscal Year 2005, the bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to provide funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System based on the number of enrollees in the system and the consumer price index for hospital and related services. I believe the measure I am offering will create a vastly improved funding system that better responds to the needs of our veterans. Last week the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery For Our Nation's Veterans issued its final report. In it, the ``growing mismatch between funding and demand'' is repeatedly referenced. To address this problem, the report recommended: The Federal Government should provide full funding to ensure that enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 1 through 7 (new) are provided the current comprehensive benefit in accordance with VA's established access standards. Full funding should occur through modifications to the current budget and appropriations process, by using a mandatory funding mechanism, or by some other changes in the process that achieve the desired goal. (p. 77) In addition, the Task Force addressed the need to clarify standards of access for Priority 8 veterans. Priority 8 veterans are the so- called ``high-income'' veterans without compensable service-connected conditions. Who are these individuals? Anyone with an income level of more than the geographically adjusted Housing and Urban Development threshold for low-income housing is considered ``high income''. In some communities, this means veterans with incomes of more than $24,644-- most often work-a-day folks who sometimes have to choose between prescription drugs and heat or groceries. My bill would cover these veterans. Some will say that we've done well by our veterans this year. I would say it might well have gone the other way. This body passed a budget resolution that would have required us to cut veterans benefits during a period of war. It still remains unclear how veterans' health care will fare when pitted against such disparate programs as low-income housing, the space program and other independent agencies. Other health programs such as Medicare and TRICARE for Life are not subject to the same types of considerations because funding for these programs is based on need. The result of this funding process is the ``growing mismatch'' addressed by the President's task force--the system is starving! We all have heard the numbers of veterans who have waited more than six months for health care services. There were more than 200,000 veterans in the queue at the beginning of the year. Even with increases proposed in the joint budget resolution, VA will still impose some regulatory constraints on access and has identified more than a billion in illusory ``management efficiencies.'' Last year, I cosponsored H.R. 5250, the ``Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act of 2002'' with 129 other members of the House. The bill I am offering today closely resembles that legislation. The Congressional Budget Office slapped a hefty price tag on H.R. 5250 largely assuming huge increases in demand would result if the veterans' health care system were adequately funded! Think about this--our budget office assumes that our health care system for veterans is so fiscally deprived that a fairer funding system that responds to changes in demand would create a run on health care! Our veterans deserve better than a chronically underfunded health care system. I believe veterans--all veterans--have earned the right to access the health care system that was created to serve their needs. The price we pay as a Nation for assuring timely access to high-quality health care services is small in relation to the price we have asked them to pay in securing our freedom. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 72 other members of the House that believe this is the right thing to do for our veterans. Every major veterans service organization, including The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, has stated support for this bill. Join us in the fight to do the right thing for our veterans. Join me in cosponsoring the ``Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003''.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is one that should be made between a woman, her doctor, and her God. Ending a pregnancy is not done lightly; it is the most difficult decision a woman can make. As a Member of Congress, I do not believe that it is the role of this legislative body to make deeply personal, medical decisions for the women of this nation. Three years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case involving late-term abortion. In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court found a Nebraska law banning a specific late-term abortion procedure to be unconstitutional because the statute lacked any exemption for the preservation of the health of the mother. It also found that the law violated Roe v. Wade (1973), in that the language in the law was so vague that it may be applied to a common, safe, early-term abortion practice as well as a late-term abortion procedure. Today, we see on the floor an attempt to make this rare, life-saving medical procedure into a criminal act. The circumstances that make late-term abortions necessary are largely due to a tragic illness or event that compromises either the health of the fetus or its mother. This bill, H.R. 760, seeks to interfere with a woman's access to necessary health care services by making doctors criminally liable and subject to imprisonment. This is the punishment for performing a procedure that is in the doctor's judgement the best option for the mother's life or health. I cannot support H.R. 760; I stand by American women's right to safe and legal reproductive health care.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is vital to continuing our military readiness to further the war on terrorism and provide for the defense of our homeland. This bill also gives our troops and their commanders the tools necessary for the 21st century warfighting. Further, this legislation strengthens our Armed Forces, which so aptly demonstrated their effectiveness and survivability in Iraq. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker talk about Camp Pendleton. I am a former Marine. Camp Pendleton is important to the Marine Corps, and it is a key base that we have had for many, many years. I believe that even a modest increase in funding can help it immensely. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts to help our Nation remain strong and free. I salute Chairman Hunter and ranking member Skelton and their staffs for their hard work on this legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the Subcommittee on Benefits chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for their spirit of bipartisanship in fashioning this legislation. Their work has resulted in an excellent bill, strongly supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 1683, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act for 2003, will help our service-disabled veterans and their survivors to maintain the value of their compensation benefits despite any increase in the cost of living. Although we will not know the amount of the actual increase until the Consumer Price Index is computed this fall, the bill will provide for an appropriate increase in benefits for the year 2004. Our Nation's veterans and survivors have earned these benefits, and we must never allow them to erode by the simple passage of time. This is a bill which deserves the support of all Members of this House. I urge my fellow Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

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

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), for their work in bringing H.R. 1257 to the floor. I support this bill because I believe the men and women who are defending this Nation by their service in Selected Reserve should be eligible to obtain a home loan from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the current program, the home loan program for the Selected Reserve will expire on September 30, 2009. Since reservists may serve for a minimum of 6 years in order to qualify for this benefit, it is important for Congress to act this year to continue that program. I believe this is a program that should be made permanent. I believe also that reservists should be charged with the same fee for a home loan as any other veteran. The bill does this. In order to pay for the costs of the bill, the measure contains a slight increase in the fees paid by veterans to use the home loan program a second or additional time without paying any downpayment. This fee should not be needed; but I recognize that under our current budgetary restraints, it is a necessary part of the bill. Today's members of the Selected Reserve who are fighting for freedom around the world deserve to have a home when they come home. I urge all Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1911, which would elevate an advisory committee created in last year's defense authorization. H.R. 1911 would elevate the charter of the joint executive committee established between the Department of Defense and the VA to review activities Departmentwide, rather than simply limiting its charter to health care. We are pleased that the Department has asked for this authority. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on the bill we are going to consider today, and I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and their ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to publicly recognize and thank our Democratic Staff Director, Charles Michael Durishin, for his many years of public service. Michael dedicated his entire career to public service. He is retiring this week after more than 30 years of outstanding service to the United States Congress. Michael has spent most of his professional career on the staff of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Since the 105th Congress, he has led the Democratic Staff of the Full Committee as our Staff Director. Michael graduated from Birmingham Southern College in 1969 and attended graduate school at Memphis State University. He began his career in public service as a VISTA volunteer in South Dakota. While Michael's VISTA pay was low, the benefits were priceless. In South Dakota, Mike met and married his lovely wife, Jo Ann Gerhardt (Joey). Joey and Mike have one son, Michael who is a senior at George Mason University. In January of 1973 Michael came to Washington with the staff of former Senator James Abourezk, (D-SD). He later served as a senior Legislative Assistant to the current Democratic Leader of the United States Senate, Tom Daschle, during Senator Daschle's tenure in the House of Representatives. Michael has spent over 16 years on the staff of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, first as a professional staff member for the former Subcommittee on Education, Training and Employment and later as Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and finally as Democratic Staff Director for the Full Committee on Veterans Affairs. Immediately prior to his service as Democratic Staff Director for the House Committee, Michael spent two years as the Deputy Postmaster of the United States Senate. Michael's extensive knowledge of veterans' issues coupled with his knowledge of the political process has been of immense assistance to me. When we worked together on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Michael was a leader in monitoring the quality of benefits and health care services provided to veterans by the Department of Veterans Affairs. As Democratic Staff Director for the Full Committee, he has worked with colleagues to affect passage of legislation I introduced. Michael was especially helpful in working on legislation to improve education benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, to improve veterans' employment opportunities, to help end homelessness among veterans and in overseeing the work of the Democratic staff. Committee members will miss Michael's knowledge and political astuteness. Committee staff will miss his reassuring presence, his wonderful smile, his careful editing, his insight and his wealth of information. Our Nation's veterans will miss his dedication to truth and integrity. I will miss a dedicated public servant and a good friend. I want to thank Michael for his decades of service to the public good and his many acts of personal kindness. Michael, we will miss you. May you enjoy your well-earned retirement.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to address my concerns regarding the pending tax cut legislation. This so-called ``economic growth'' bill will do nothing to grow the economy, increase the number of jobs, or help the middle or low income families that make up the backbone of this great nation. This program is directed at cutting the taxes of the rich in an attempt to resurrect fiscal policies that have been proven to fail. The only way to stimulate growth is to employ people, providing them with good paying jobs and an income that allows for purchasing the items that we produce. That means that we need a plan that creates jobs and assists those who are currently unemployed. The Democrat plan does that, the plan that is on this floor does not. It cuts taxes that advantage the top 1 percent of the population. That means we do not affect the other 99 percent, which by my accounting seems to mean that the majority of Americans are left behind looking for work with no support from those of us who were sent here to help. Additionally, the plan before us will do nothing stimulate the economy now, and sacrifices the economy of the future. Without jobs now, without assistance to the states now, without sensible policies now, we will simply create a shortfall that will be paid for out of Social Security and our children's future. Currently, schools are closing early, the unemployment rate is growing, and states are struggling to provide basic services at minimal levels. The direction taken in this legislation is fiscally irresponsible if we expect to live up to the promise we made to the people of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible legislation and set this Congress in the direction of true job and economic growth.