Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I again reiterate that this is a vote this body has taken. Because of the efforts of the gentleman from Washington and the gentlewoman from Missouri, we have changed policy in regard to agricultural trade with Cuba. But this House needs to reaffirm its position one more time. Every impediment that can be placed in the way of our farmers and ranchers and the businesses that deal in agriculture commodities in the trade with Cuba, every impediment has been placed in their way. It is not disadvantageous to Cuba, it is disadvantageous to Americans. As the gentleman from Nebraska said, for 42 years we have tried to change the policy. They might as well be spending their cash on behalf of American agriculture, on behalf of the farmers and ranchers of this country. And as we have seen, they have the ability to do so: $100 million in cash payments coming to the United States to pay for agricultural products. The market is estimated to be $1 billion. And for those who had concerns about the farm bill, help us export our agriculture commodities. Help us create markets for the farmers and ranchers of this country.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5055, H.R. 3645, and H.R. 4940.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, several years ago, the House adopted a resolution honoring those valiant Americans who survived the last desperate battle in the European theater during World War II, the Battle of the Bulge. Many of the members of our committee and Members of Congress have relatives who fought in this epic struggle. A group of survivors of this most heroic battle have asked Congress to enact legislation to enable them to replace the modest plaque at Arlington National Cemetery commemorating this battle with a more appropriate memorial. The cost of the memorial will be borne by that organization. Mr. Speaker, over 600,000 American troops participated in this action and more than 81,000 were wounded or killed. In scope and number of participants, no American engagement in our storied history was more costly or massive. The historic significance of the Battle of the Bulge cannot be overstated. If the American and Allied lines had broken, if our frost- bitten GIs fighting and dying in the cold December and January of 1944 and 1945 failed to rally from the ferocity of the initial German assault, or if the weather had not improved enough for our air superiority to turn the tide of battle, World War II could have been prolonged for months or even years. The shape of Europe could have been dramatically different and countless additional Jews, Catholics, Slavs, Gypsies and other political prisoners would surely have died in Nazi death camps. To put the sheer number of troops involved in the Battle of the Bulge into perspective, remember that there were three armies and six corps, the equivalent of 31 divisions, on the U.S. side alone. Compare these World War II figures to the fact that today, the entire U.S. Army is comprised of 12 active duty divisions and 20 reserve divisions. One of the most decisive battles in the war in Europe, the Battle of the Bulge, began December 16, 1944 when the German Army, in an effort to trap the allied forces in Belgium and Luxembourg, launched an attack against what were perceived as a weak line of American and allied troops. Their goal was to split the allied forces in Belgium and Luxembourg and race to the coast toward Antwerp. Adolf Hitler and his generals knew that the German Air Force could not maintain regional air superiority, so they were banking on bad weather and relatively green and fatigued American troops who were greatly outnumbered. At the outset of the battle, the German troops forming three armies numbered approximately 200,000 versus 83,000 Americans. Their goal was to capture bridges over the Meuse River, and in the first 48 hours of the attack, and then press on to Antwerp. At the time of their initial attack, the Germans had more than 30 infantry and seven panzer divisions, with nearly 1,000 tanks and almost 2,000 guns deployed along a front of 60 miles. Five more divisions were soon to follow with at least 450 more tanks. Although the Americans were caught by surprise, they fought back in those first days of attack in December, holding the line in the north while the Germans pushed through the middle of the bulge toward the Meuse River. One incident, which particularly hardened the Americans and allied forces as to the intent of the German Army, was the Malmedy Massacre, in which 86 American POWs were murdered by the Germans as they moved forward to capture the Meuse River. The same German unit, which was responsible for this infamous massacre, eventually killed at least 300 American POWs and over 100 unarmed Belgian civilians. These incidents only solidified the realization in the minds of the American men on the ground that fighting the Germans down to their last round of ammunition was their only hope. As I mentioned, the American armies had more than 81,000 casualties, and of these, 19,000 men were killed in action. The British had 1,400 casualties and 200 killed. Both sides lost as many as 800 tanks each, and the Germans lost 1,000 planes. All told, the battle was three times the size of Gettysburg when accounting for the number of American service men and women who participated. Let me take a moment to thank Stan Wojtusik, National Vice President of Military Affairs for the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge; and Mrs. Edith Nowels, a constituent of the chairman of the committee, who lives in New Jersey, for all of their hard work in helping put this legislation together. Edith Nowels' brother, Bud Thorne, was killed in action during the battle. Bud, after his death, was awarded the Medal of Honor and was one of 17 recipients of the highest combat medal for this particular battle. Eighty-six servicemen were also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for their valor during the battle. According to the citation presented to his family, Corporal Thorne single-handedly destroyed a German tank and, in the words of the citation, ``displayed heroic initiative and intrepid fighting qualities, inflicted costly casualties on the enemy and ensured the success of his patrol's mission by the sacrifice of his life.'' For Bud Thorne and tens of thousands of other Americans killed and wounded, and the hundreds of thousands who fought alongside, I ask my colleagues to give their full support to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5055) to authorize the placement in Arlington National Cemetery of a memorial honoring the World War II veterans who fought in the Battle of the Bulge.

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

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller).

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4940) to amend title 38, United States Code, to enact into law eligibility requirements for burial in Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the American people, Arlington National Cemetery is a special place honoring our military heroes. This national shrine has a fascinating history that began even before land began to be used as a national cemetery near the end of the Civil War. Arlington mansion was originally the home of Martha Washington's grandson, George Washington Parke Curtis. His son-in-law, Robert E. Lee, lived there prior to the Civil War, and when the Civil War began, the Federal Government confiscated the estate for use as a fortification to protect Washington, D.C. As the decades passed, famous military leaders were buried in Arlington. President Taft was buried there, and the cemetery's prestige continued to grow. With the Arlington burial of President Kennedy in 1963, the cemetery became the one of the most visited places in the Washington area, and the pressure increased for interments in its limited space. Arlington's interment rate rose so quickly that if burial eligibility had not been restricted, the cemetery would have been full by 1968. Arlington today has a capacity of 243,373 gravesites, with only about 32,000 gravesites remaining as available. All national cemeteries except Arlington are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a result of its unique history, Arlington is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army. Mr. Speaker, unlike all other national cemeteries, Arlington's eligibility is governed by Army regulations, not by statute. Our country is again in a war we did not seek. Our troops are in distant lands answering the September 11 attack by terrorists who threaten our freedom and our way of life. And I believe the time is right for Congress to codify the eligibility for burial in our preeminent military cemetery. Mr. Speaker, our bill to codify eligibility should not be taken as an implicit dissatisfaction with the Army's stewardship of Arlington. We think the Army is doing a very good job and we have every confidence in the Army's ability to run and manage Arlington in the future. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4940 is similar to measures that have already passed the House in the previous two Congresses. However, there are a couple of important differences between the Arlington National Cemetery Burial Eligibility Act and those two previous measures. Our friend and the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), included a provision authorizing the President to waive the strict criteria set out in the bill to allow burial at Arlington National Cemetery of persons whose acts, service, or contributions to the Armed Forces are so extraordinary as to justify burial at this hallowed ground. In addition, H.R. 4940 contains provisions that the House approved last year in separate legislation that our full committee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), offered following the tragedies of September the 11th. Those provisions contained in H.R. 3423 and included again now in H.R. 4940 would change the burial eligibility in two respects for members of our reserve forces. First, it would extend burial eligibility to reservists and Guardsmen who, but for their age, would have qualified for retirement pay and therefore have been eligible for Arlington. Such was the case with Captain Charles Burlingame, the pilot on the American Airlines flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. Fortunately, he was granted a waiver and was given the honors he had earned, but should other families be in such a position, this change would ensure that they would not have to seek waivers in their time of grief. The second provision would authorize burial for reservists and Guardsmen who die in the performance of training duties. This provision recognizes that much of our Nation's defense is dependent upon reserve forces who must continually update their skills. Members of the Armed Forces who die in service to our Nation, regardless of the technicalities of their duty status, deserve the same burial honors. The balance of this bill is very similar to previous measures sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) codifying eligibility of veterans and family members in a manner consistent with the existing Army burial regulations. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller).

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3645) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for improved procurement practices by the Department of Veterans Affairs in procuring health-care items, as amended.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3645 was introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) earlier this year. I would like to take this time to commend the gentleman from Illinois as well as our chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Health, which I am privileged to chair. In addition, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for their work on this bill. Introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), H.R. 3645 represents an important reform to the manner in which the VA obtains medical supply items for VA health care, and it is a good-government measure. On June 26 of this year, the VA Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing to explore the merits of this bill. As a result of our hearing and subsequent meetings with veterans' organizations, changes were made to the bill to ensure that the VA may continue to obtain specialized health care items that severely disabled veterans require. These changes are addressed in section 3 of the bill. Also, Mr. Speaker, several other measures were incorporated into this legislation. To summarize, the VA Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on June 13 regarding access to VA health care to Filipino veterans of World War II who now reside in this country. These veterans fought alongside our troops in the Philippines and deserve access to VA health care. Section 5 of the amendment includes the health care-related provisions of H.R. 4904, a bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) introduced that would extend these services to our World War II allies who served in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines. The VA Subcommittees on Health and Oversight and Investigations held a joint hearing on May 16 to address our concerns about activities of the research and education corporations that aid the VA in conducting outside funded research and provide certain health education funding for VA clinicians. As a result of issues arising at that hearing, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) introduced H.R. 5084, the contents of which are now included in section 7 of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the VA also requested the inclusion of three additional provisions, provisions to streamline the procedures for awarding enhanced-use leases of certain VA real properties, to expand dental care for all former prisoners of war, and to authorize the VA Secretary to permit the Department of Defense to use the VA supply fund to obtain medical supply items for DOD health care facilities. These provisions are part of this bill in sections 4, 6 and 8, respectively. Finally, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) introduced a bill, H.R. 3418, to name the New London, Connecticut, VA clinic in honor of the late John McGuirk, a prominent World War II veteran from New London. The gentleman from Connecticut's bill, cosponsored by the entire Connecticut delegation, is in full compliance with our committee's policy for naming VA facilities and is included as an amendment to this legislation. Last week, our Subcommittee on Health met and marked up this bill and the full committee did so later in the week as well. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3645 is a good bill. I urge its support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his remarks and also agree with him about the importance of this legislation, particularly the good-government aspects that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member, has pursued by introduction of this bill, and also the Filipino veteran issue that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, who is en route back to Washington today from California, his effort over many years to try to address the issues of the Filipino veterans. And finally I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his effort to recognize one of his outstanding World War II veterans from Connecticut. So this legislation really is a result of a bipartisan effort and a number of Members' special interests in issues that affect veterans not only in our country but especially in their own districts.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, across Kansas, combines and harvest crews are wrapping up another wheat harvest. This year, the harvest story is not about the wheat being cut, but about the wheat that should have been cut--wheat destroyed by drought and wheat plowed into the dry ground. Where there has been wheat to harvest, low yields are evidence of the ravages of drought. While farmers see harvests come and go every year, this one will certainly not soon be forgotten. Unfortunately, this year it's the dry weather and failed crop that will be remembered. Last year drought took a heavy toll on Kansas. This year will be far worse. In Kansas, almost a million acres of wheat have been abandoned-- an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. In southwest Kansas, the driest area of the state, as much as 90 percent of the wheat planted was lost to drought. This translates into a loss of over $277 million in farm income this year. After last year's dismal crop, few thought things could get worse. But Kansas farmers now have $277 million less than last year to pay their bills and to care for their families. Behind the millions of dollars lost from the agricultural economy are real people. I am contacted daily by farmers and ranchers hurting from last year's drought, whose difficulties have been compounded by this year's losses. In Hugoton, farmers have seen less than an inch of rain in the last year, and cracks in the earth run several feet deep. Here, there is not even enough moisture to replant failed crops. In Rolla, where the federal grassland is being closed due to drought, ranchers are selling the cattle herds they have spent a lifetime building. All across western Kansas, ranchers are liquidating herds, as the little grass that was there has been grazed to the ground. For the last 2 years, farmers in drought-affected areas have worked tirelessly, only to come away with less than what they started with. Crop insurance alone cannot relieve the cash flow crisis of these farm families. The need for assistance is greater, and more urgent, than it was a year ago. Farmers and ranchers need help to compensate for this natural disaster. These are tough times in farm country, and we cannot close our eyes to the seventy of this drought or the magnitude of its consequences. A dark cloud is hovering over the future of many producers in western Kansas; unfortunately, that cloud holds no rain. Without disaster assistance, this year, some farmers may simply dry up and blow away.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to Mr. Norman Jeter on his 90th birthday. There are few in my hometown that do not know Mr. Jeter. He came to Hays, Kansas 65 years ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, after graduating from the University of Kansas School of Law. Despite the difficulty of the times, he boarded the train for Hays with the hope that the western Kansas community would someday be a great town. Indeed, Hays grew into a thriving community, the home of an excellent university, and the commercial center of northwest Kansas. Along the way, Hays residents benefitted from the personal and professional advice of Norman Jeter. Over the years, Mr. Jeter became a leading member of the Kansas legal community, representing small businesses, independent oil and gas producers, and farmers and ranchers. He was also elected Ellis County attorney in 1938 and held the position for many years. His dedication to his profession and his knowledge of the law are respected throughout the State. He is the kind of elder statesman that every profession needs. I am fortunate to have had the pleasure of practicing law with Mr. Jeter. As a young attorney, I quickly came to admire his keen mind, integrity and dignity. Working with Mr. Jeter taught me a great deal about the practice of law, but even more about being a good person. I know that I am a better for having known and worked with him. Throughout his lifetime, Norman Jeter has worked to improve the quality of life in his hometown and state. The residents of Hays, Kansas have access to first-rate medical treatment and facilities due in no small part to the leadership of Norman Jeter. For nearly 60 years, he has served on the board of directors of Hays hospitals, much of that time as chairman. During his tenure he saw the combination of two local hospitals to create a regional medical center with greatly expanded services and quality of care. He continues to serve on the Board of the Hays Regional Medical Center, working to provide the residents of Northwest Kansas with progressively better healthcare. Mr. Jeter's contributions to Kansas education are no less notable. He worked hard to improve Hays schools as a member of the school board, and later worked just as hard to improve the higher education system in Kansas as a member and chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents. He has been recognized repeatedly for a lifetime of distinguished public service. He is a recipient of the Fort Hays State University Distinguished Service Award, as well as the Kansas School of Law Distinguished Alumnus Award. Mr. Jeter is a member of the Hays Chamber of Commerce Hall of Fame, a recipient of the Governor's Art Award, and has been presented with the Albert Einstein Medal of Peace. In addition, the Hays Medical Center bestows an honor that bears his name, the Norman W. Jeter Humanitarian Award. Most important to Norman Jeter is his family. He and his wife Ann have instilled in their children Margaret, John, Joe, and Bill the same values with which they have lived their lives. Their children have all gone on to lead successful careers in their given field. John is the chief executive officer of Hays Medical Center. Margaret is an attorney in Kansas City, Missouri, while Joe and Bill practice law with their father. Norman Jeter has led a truly remarkable life, serving his community as he has lived--with distinction, intelligence, and honor. Norman Jeter is proof that the practice of the law can still be an honorable profession and that service to one's community can still make a difference. I would ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to Norman Jeter on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentlewoman from Texas for their remarks earlier today; and I would like to thank them, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the subcommittee chairman, that dealt with this issue for their prompt attention to an issue that is terribly important to rural America and urban America as well. It is good to see us come together, Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural, on behalf of health care for our citizens. Much of our time, in fact, this week much of our time will be spent on the affordability of health care. How do we help our citizens pay for it? How do we make health care more affordable? Many of us who live in regions of the country that are underserved struggle to have access to health care. How do we keep physicians in our communities? How do we keep our hospital doors open? How do we have our other health care providers available for the citizens who happen to live in the urban core of the city or in a rural community of our country? One of the ways that we can help address the issue of physicians in underserved areas is the J-1 visa program. Clearly, it has been an opportunity for physicians to remain in the United States and serve in those underserved areas during the history of the program beginning in 1994. There are 98 physicians in Kansas who were waived under this program. Of those, 50 are still practicing in our State. Mr. Speaker, this is often the only opportunity that a community, a clinic, or a hospital in a rural or underserved urban area has to access a physician. I would guess in the 6 years that I have been a Member of Congress, probably not more than 4 weeks goes by that I do not have a call or letter or e-mail from a clinic, a community, or a hospital saying, can you help us locate a physician and can you help us with the paperwork associated with the J-1 visa. These are ways in which our communities are served. Lacrosse, Kansas, population 1,800 has had a J-1 visa physician in place who is now retiring. He and his wife are the only physicians in the community. They are both here on a J-1 visa. For 2 years they have been telling the community they are retiring. The community has been looking for a physician and, gratefully, they found a J-1 visa physician. They may have been the last J-1 visa granted in the United States. Back in February of this year, the Department of Agriculture concluded that it would no longer be an interested government agency for processing J-1 visas. The Rural Health Care Coalition, which I chair with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and I tried to quickly respond to this issue. In fact, 56 Members of Congress, including the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who are here today, asked the Bush administration to come together and to solve the problem. Because there are two ways a J-1 visa can be issued, one through the Federal Government and one through the State program. Forty-six States in our country has a State program. Kansas is one that does not, although we are certainly encouraging them under the current circumstances to create a State program. Today, we reauthorized both programs. The Bush administration and the Department of Agriculture, I am very grateful to them, they responded. They processed the J-1 applications that were in the works; and they decided to have an inter-government agency meeting, a set of meetings, between INS, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services to figure out how do we continue the J-1 visa program. So this actually is an experience in the 6 years I have been in Congress in which I thought government responded in a way that it should to meet the needs of citizens of our Nation. So today I am here to support strongly the reauthorization of the J-1 visa program, to continue to encourage the Federal Government to be engaged in the process of helping us sponsor J-1 visa physicians and to particularly reauthorize the program for States and to expand the number of individual physicians that can be admitted under the State program from 20 a year to 30 a year to meet the needs in the absence of a Federal interested government agency of rural communities across our country. The program is important. It is the way that health care is delivered in rural and urban settings across our country. Access to a physician is so important, and it ought not matter where you live. This program has worked. Security and other concerns with the program are being addressed, and we have general support from the Bush administration and from the INS and from the State Department as we reauthorize this program, both at the Federal level and at the State level. I appreciate the Rural Health Care Coalition and my colleagues in Congress who care about these issues; and I appreciate the fact that Republicans, Democrats, and urban and rural Members of Congress came together on behalf of citizens and the delivery of health care to those citizens here on the floor this afternoon. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank again the chairman and the ranking members for their continued consideration of this issue and their promptness in moving it.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remind us that, as America is focused on fighting terrorism and providing for homeland security, we have recent headlines that tell the story of another threat, one that causes parents to question the security of their homes and contemplate the safety of their children. That threat is child abduction. The story is too common. In Kansas, it happened last September, when 4-year-old Jaquilla Scales disappeared from her home. More recently, in Utah, it is 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart who was taken from her bedroom while her sister slept nearby. Both girls are still missing. This tragedy can strike any family, any community. It is estimated that one in 42 children will become a missing child. Each year, between 200 and 300 children are abducted by strangers, and approximately 115,000 more children are victims of attempted abduction. These statistics remind us of the magnitude of the problem, but also indicate that the majority of attempted abductions will fail. In many cases, an abduction is prevented by a teacher, a law enforcement officer, or a watchful neighbor. A concerned and engaged community is our best resource in the war against child abduction. When a child is abducted by a stranger, time is of the essence. Research shows that 74 percent of children abducted and later murdered are killed within the first 3 hours following the abduction. If alerted quickly, a community can help save the life of an endangered child by providing timely and useful information. Tonight I speak in support of two programs that help strengthen the partnership between local law enforcement and the public to aid in the search for missing children. The AMBER Plan, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response, was created 5 years ago in honor of Amber Hagerman, who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas. The AMBER Plan relies on voluntary participation of law enforcement agencies and radio and television broadcasters to activate an urgent alert following an abduction. Broadcasters use the emergency alert system to interrupt radio and television programming to provide information concerning the missing child and the possible suspect. This plan is now in place in several communities in my home State of Kansas and other locations across our country. To date, the plan has been credited with saving the lives of 16 children. This life-saving program can and should be expanded across the Nation. Like the AMBER Plan, the Lost Child Alert Technology Resource, or LOCATER program, works to rapidly circulate information concerning a missing child. This program provides local law enforcement agencies with a computer and the equipment necessary to scan photographs of missing children for distribution to fellow law enforcement agencies and to the public. The equipment provided as part of the LOCATER program is free of charge through the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children. Few things are more frightening than the abduction of a child. As we work to secure our Nation from terrorists, we must also remember the safety of our children. Kansans, like most Americans, take pride in being good neighbors, people willing to lend a helping hand in time of crisis. This is what makes our community strong, and this is what can make the AMBER Plan and the LOCATER program successful in providing a more secure America for our children.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of this legislation and of the rule. It is unusual for those of us who are Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be here today in controversy. We almost always resolve our differences before we reach the House floor, and in this case we were unable to do so. Unlike the gentleman from Illinois, I find support for 100 percent, not just 99 percent, but 100 percent of this legislation, and in particular I would like to highlight the importance of the contract tower program to places across the country, especially places in rural America where contract tower services provide the only air traffic control that our passengers or airlines have. An example is the community in my district, Garden City, Kansas, population approximately 30,000 people. It has commercial service eastbound to Kansas City, westbound to Denver, and a general aviation component that is significant as well. They are a contract tower city, which means that the Federal Government does not have to pay for all of its tower services, and that community made a decision, prior to passage of AIR-21, in support of a contract tower. The tower is built. All this bill does, in addition to supporting contract towers generally, is allow places like Garden City, Kansas, to utilize money that they would receive anyway. They are an entitlement airport, will receive approximately $1 million of AIP funding, entitlement funding, and they have the option, if they so choose, unless the gentleman's amendment passes, they have the option, the flexibility to decide our highest priority is to pay for the contract tower previously built. It has $1 million coming to Garden City's airport regardless, and this legislation that allows them to be reimbursed does not detract from any other airport in the country. It does not take any money from the airport in any other community. It simply allows the community of Garden City or any other community that has built a contract tower prior to the passage of AIR-21 to use money they are going to receive anyway for purposes of reimbursing the city for that contract tower construction. It is an issue that allows local units of government, our local airports, the flexibility to decide where their priorities are, and does not take money away from any other community. I do not know whether my community would choose that or not, but I believe in that flexibility. Support the rule, support the bill, and oppose the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here again today in support of the contract tower program. It is a program created that has lots of benefits for the American traveling public, and certainly those who fly in and out of, commercially, our smallest airports across the country, as well as general aviation and their use of those airports. I am here today in support of the bill as it was approved by our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure without additional amendments today. It is important to me that this legislation move forward and that we send a strong message of support for our contract tower program. There has been a lot of debate this morning as we discussed the rule, this afternoon as we discuss the bill, and I assume yet later today as we discuss the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment about whether or not we ought to allow airports who have already built contract towers prior to the passage of AIR-21 to access the dollars that are already coming their way, to spend those dollars on a previously built contract tower. Again, I would reiterate that this is an entitlement program. Those airports are receiving a fixed number of dollars. And this legislation for those communities that previously built the contract tower are simply deciding, we would choose to use our dollars, I guess they are Federal tax dollars, not necessarily dollars raised in our own community, but the dollars for which we are entitled under this program, we are making the choice that we will use those dollars for repaying ourselves for doing something that we should have done. I do not know how many communities will use that. The gentleman from Illinois today has indicated about the priority of security, and clearly Congress has focused on that issue. We have not addressed the issue of how we are going to pay for all the mandates we are creating on airports across the country to meet security needs, but the reality is that this is a high-priority issue, one that our folks can decide locally. If the belief is that we ought not retroactively allow airports to utilize these dollars because the highest priority is to pay for security, then that means we ought not be supportive of the bill in its entirety. We are saying that they otherwise have the choice of choosing between meeting the security needs, the mandates, and paying for them out of their entitlement dollars. That is what this legislation is all about. And we are saying that is okay. If you are going to build your contract tower today, you can make the decision that security takes second priority to the contract tower. But if you made a decision previously that the contract tower was important to you, then we suggest that you should decide that security is a higher priority. To suggest that the mechanism in place would create a problem in paying for security, that may be true of the entire bill. The concern that is raised here on the floor is one that I think is general not just to this issue of whether or not you ought to go back. I hope we do not lose sight that, again, we are not taking dollars from anybody else's airport. We are taking dollars that that airport is entitled to, and we are allowing them to make a decision at that local level as to what their highest priority is for paying.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for his long-term commitment and his firm dedication to the recognition of the veterans of the Philippines and look forward to that June 13 hearing in which we hope to address the issues that the gentleman from California has fought to have addressed in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are approaching a significant event in the history of my State and in my hometown community. Later this month, Fort Hays State University, located in Hays, Kansas, will celebrate its centennial. I wish to recognize this milestone and honor those who have contributed to the university's success over the past century. One hundred years ago, 34 students and two faculty members gathered on the grounds of an abandoned military post to undertake an endeavor that would have consequences for generations to come. Unaware of the historical significance of their meeting, or the thousands of students that would follow in their footsteps, these early Kansans met to form the first class of what today is known as Fort Hays State University. Years before this first class met, industrious Kansans committed themselves to the idea of transforming the former frontier fort into an educational institution. This required the passage of legislation, which was introduced by the Kansas congressional delegation and signed into law by President William McKinley, which then transferred the ownership of the former military post to the State of Kansas and paved the way for the birth of this university. From these simple beginnings, the university has flourished, growing to 6,000 students and 300 faculty members. Today, students learn and live in a technology-rich environment that retains a heritage of close and collegial relationships. They come to the university for a multitude of reasons, but none more compelling than the university's reputation for academic excellence and a caring faculty and staff. Throughout the university's history, students and faculty have distinguished themselves through academic achievement. This year, students claimed national championships in debate and financial planning competitions. The university is also home to one of the most successful intercollegiate athletic programs of any school its size, boasting numerous all-American athletes and national championships. Culturally, Fort Hays State University serves the region by offering an array of fine and performing arts and is home to the nationally renowned Sternberg Museum of Natural History. For the past century, graduates have served the needs of Kansas, as well as influenced the Nation and the world through significant achievements, compassion, and dedication. The university has improved the lives of many by enlightening minds, serving, in the words of former University President Rarick, as a lighthouse to the people of the Great Plains. As Fort Hays State University begins its second hundred years, I am confident that it will continue to produce graduates who, like its founders, will help society achieve its best in Kansas and beyond. Congratulations, Fort Hays State University.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced H.R. 4514, the Veterans' Major Medical Facilities Construction Act of 2002, a bill to improve, renovate and update 10 VA medical facility construction projects with $285 million in authorizations to fund them in fiscal year 2003. This bill will help provide safe, accessible VA medical centers for veterans to receive their health care. Some of these VA medical centers have been around for more than 100 years. The Veterans Administration cares for millions of veterans. These aging facilities are deteriorating and must be maintained. As Chairman Smith indicated, the VA is not moving fast enough with the CARES system to meet their infrastructure needs. The facility improvement projects we would authorize with this bill are VA's highest construction priorities: corrections to fire safety and seismic risks in Palo Alto; replacement of mechanical and electrical equipment in Cleveland; seismic bracing in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego; asbestos abatement and various in-patient facility improvements in Tampa; patient privacy improvements in West Haven. These are but a few of the VA's most pressing capital investment needs. Many projects involve seismic correction or systemic improvements, and all of them focus on patient safety, more efficient delivery of health care services and a better VA health care system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to favorably consider this measure and to approve these projects for these 10 hospitals and clinics in which veterans receive their health care. This bill is paid for, Mr. Speaker, because the concurrent resolution on the budget includes sufficient funding to support this level of construction and maintenance activity in fiscal year 2003. This bill is a reasonable and responsible measure to improve the VA's health care infrastructure at these 10 sites. America's veterans deserve and need quality health care in modern facilities. This will help us attain those modern facilities.

Mr. MORAN of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 4608 to name the Department of Medical Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas the Robert J. Dole Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center. Though he is often remembered today for his service to our country as a congressman, a U.S. Senator, and a Presidential contender, Bob Dole's courage and determination on the field of battle in World War II as a second lieutenant is what we are here today to recognize. His bravery in battle truly reflects the character of this Kansan. Dole is a native of Russell, Kansas, population 4,500, just 25 miles from my hometown. As an energetic young man, Dole gained popularity with the young and old in that Russell community while working at the local soda fountain. A good student and a good athlete in high school, Dole had little trouble enrolling at the University of Kansas to pursue his lifelong dream of becoming a physician. But Dole's life, like the lives of millions of other men and women of his generation, was changed when the U.S. entered World War II. Never before had there been such an assault on our country's way of life, and America was calling on its young men and women to fight to defend our freedoms. In 1942, while a sophomore at the University of Kansas, Dole enlisted in the U.S. Army. After attending basic training in Texas, he was eager to defend his country, and transferred to the Army Specialized Training Program in New York City. It did not take long for Dole to establish himself as a leader. He was accepted into Officer Candidate School, and traveled to Georgia for his training. He entered as a corporal and graduated 2 years later in 1944 as Second Lieutenant Robert J. Dole. He was then sent to Italy in the midst of some of the fiercest fighting toward the end of World War II. That next spring, Dole was assigned to head a platoon in the Tenth Mountain Division after the previous lieutenant in charge had been killed. On an April morning that spring, Dole led his troops into battle in northern Italy. In his own words, Dole describes that day, a day that would forever change his life. I quote Bob Dole: ``On the morning of April 14, we were part of a major assault. Pinned down by sniper and small-arms fire, I chose a small squad to help me find a safer route up the slope. We ran into a hail of German machine gunfire. I tossed a grenade at a farmhouse from which the bullets were spraying, and then pulled the lifeless form of my platoon's radioman into a foxhole. Scrambling back out again, I felt a sharp sting in my back. Most likely it was an exploding shell that smashed my right shoulder, scattering metal fragments along its path. ``I lay down in the dirt, paralyzed from the neck down, until Technical Sergeant Frank Carafa dragged me to safety. My second in command, Sergeant Stan Kuschik, gave me a shot of morphine. With my own blood Stan made a cross on my forehead, a precaution to warn medics who might happen by against administering a second and fatal dose of that powerful drug. Nine hours later, I was at the Fifteenth Evacuation Hospital. My war ended there, or so I thought. Actually, my war . . . was only beginning.'' Dole continues: ``Don't believe that wars are concluded by treaties signed by diplomats between gilded chandeliers. Each veteran has his own war, which lives on not just in scrapbooks or at reunions where old stories get retold, but in midnight memories and sudden flashbacks. For me, it all comes back each morning getting dressed, tying a knot, or even looking in the mirror.'' For his service and bravery in World War II, Senator Dole was honored with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star medal. This week is a fitting time for us in the House of Representatives to consider this legislation, the week of Memorial Day. Bob Dole is one of the millions of brave men and women who have defended our country during war. A tireless advocate for veterans and veterans' rights, Dole's story is one we should memorialize. Despite the fact that his injuries in World War II left him partially paralyzed, he became one of the most influential American political figures in the latter half of the 20th century. Part of that greatest generation, Dole is an example of an ordinary American who was called upon to meet extraordinary challenges. Throughout his time as a congressman and senator, his appreciation for the doctors and nurses who assisted him in recovery was never forgotten. Dole authored and had passed legislation to improve the conditions and services offered to veterans, as well as the disabled. Each year, in April, on the anniversary of his World War II injuries, Dole would make special recognition of the disabled by discussing the status of the disabled in America. His understanding of those less fortunate led Senator Dole to become a leader in efforts to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark piece of legislation. Dole's work to recognize and honor veterans continues today. Most recently, Dole chaired the committee that raised $160 million to construct a memorial on the National Mall honoring the hundreds of thousands of men and women who fought in World War II. This legislation is sponsored by many Members of Congress, has the full support of the Kansas delegation, the gentlemen from Kansas, Mr. Moore, Mr. Tiahrt, and Mr. Ryun, and has been endorsed by the major veterans' service organizations in Kansas. Today, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Bob Dole for his military service and for his bravery and dedication to his country in time of battle in this legislation that will further recognize Bob Dole by naming the Wichita VA hospital the Robert J. Dole Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Regional Office Center.