Rob Simmons

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 4, the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag desecration. Our flag is the strongest symbol of America's character and values. It tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in defending the principles of freedom and democracy. These are stories of men and women from all walks of life who put their lives on hold to serve our Nation. Many of those brave Americans never returned home from distant battlefields. The flag reminds us of the sacrifices they made at Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Normandy Beach, Korea, Da Nang, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places where America's men and women in uniform placed honor and duty above self. These Americans had a powerful symbol uniting them--the American flag. The American flag belongs to them as it belongs to all of us. Critics of the amendment say it interferes with freedom of speech. They are wrong. It does not interfere with freedom of speech. Americans have access to public television; they can write letters to the editor to express their beliefs; they can speak freely at public forums; they can share their views with listeners by calling into radio stations. I meet with constituents everyday in order to best represent their interests in Washington. Americans can stand on the steps of their own City Hall or on the steps of our nation's Capitol to demonstrate their cause. Protecting the American flag from desecration does not deprive any American of the opportunity to speak clearly, openly and freely. Let us be aware that it is speech, not action, that is protected by the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers protected free speech and freedom of the press because in a democracy, words are used to debate, persuade and to educate. A democracy must protect free and open debate, regardless of how disagreeable some might find the views of others. Prohibiting flag desecration does not undermine that tradition. In 1989, in the case of Texas versus Gregory Lee Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that a state flag protection statute was unconstitutional. The court was in error. It was not the thoughts or opinions expressed by Mr. Johnson that the Texas law restricted but the manner in which he expressed his thoughts and opinions. Mr. Johnson was free to speak his mind without fear of censorship. That freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment. But desecrating the flag is not speech; it is action and action is not protected. For example, an individual is free to speak about the need for America to conserve its environment, but the individual would not be free to express those thoughts by destroying oil derricks. There is la difference between action and speech. The proposed amendment would protect the flag from desecration, not from burning. As a member of the American Legion, I have supervised the disposal of over 7,000 unserviceable flags. But this burning is done with ceremony and respect. This is not flag desecration. More than 70 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote to protect their flag. Numerous organizations, including the Medal of Honor Recipients for the Flag, the American Legion, the American War Mothers, the American G.I. Forum, and the African American Women's Clergy Association all support this amendment. All fifty states have passed resolutions calling for constitutional protection for the flag. In the last Congress, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this amendment by a vote of 298 to 125, and will rightfully pass it again this year. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 4 and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important resolution that means so much to so many.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), for his leadership on this important undertaking. In simplest terms, this amendment simply delays the process of realigning and closing bases across our country until certain events take place and certain reports are submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense. And there are several important reasons why this should take place. First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we are at war. We are at war. We have troops abroad fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should focus all of our energy on supporting these troops in the field. We should not be distracted with the complicated burden of realigning our whole military base structure here at home. In October of 2003, I went to Iraq and learned that our troops were desperately in need of armor on their vehicles. One month later, the Secretary of the Army wrote to me and said getting armor into the field was a ``top priority.'' A top priority, and yet today there are tens of thousands of vehicles in theater that are still not armored. We should be spending our time, Mr. Chairman, and our money on this life- threatening problem and not wasting time and energy and resources on realigning and closing bases. Second, the strategic environment in which we are trying to operate is changing. The threats from North Korea, from China, from Iran are rising while we are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do we know what the future basing requirements will be? We do not. We do not. The quadrennial defense review, the last one we did, is September 2001. The next one due is later this year. The quadrennial defense review will answer the questions that we need answered before we can decide what our basing needs are going to be. Thirdly, closing bases costs billions of dollars. Not millions of dollars, billions of dollars. The Department of Defense cannot close or dispose of a property until it is properly cleaned up, but the investment of these cleanup dollars takes dollars away from our troops. That is wrong. Fourth, I hope that our troops overseas will not be there forever. I look forward to when they come home. But when will they come home? Who knows? Where will they go when they come home? Who knows? As for the Guard and the Reserve, we do know that many of them will no longer have a Guard or a Reserve center when they get back. For example, in my State of Connecticut, where I served for many years as a Reserve officer, they are recommending closing three Reserve centers and realigning the Air Guard's A-10s out of Bradley Field. Why is this good for morale of returning troops? It is not. Why does this help build the force and contribute to readiness of those Guard and Reserve forces still in this country? It does not. I know from my own service as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve that the location of the drill center contributes to reenlistment and readiness. This is why we need to slow this process down and take a closer look. Fifth, I represent the Naval Submarine Base New London located in Groton, Connecticut, the submarine capital of the world. Working with our friends around the country, we design, develop, build, maintain, base and deploy the best submarines in the world. The synergy between those who design and build submarines and those who drive them is critical to our national security. One of the BRAC principles requires ``access to logistical and industrial infrastructure capabilities optimally integrated into a skilled and cost-efficient industrial base.'' This synergy is just what we have between this submarine base and Electric Boat, which designs and builds these submarines. Yet the Department of Defense is violating its own principles for BRAC in making a recommendation to close the base. Close the submarine base in Groton is kind of like taking cars out of Detroit. Decisions of this magnitude require time and study, and yet the Department of Defense has delayed release of vital data in support of their decision, making it impossible for us, the defense communities, to respond to these decisions in a timely manner. I still do not have the data that was used in their decisions, and yet the BRAC committee will be going up to Groton New London on the 31st of this month. We need additional time, Mr. Chairman, to make reasonable judgments. We, as Members of Congress, have the responsibility under article 1, section 8 to provide for the common defense. Let us accept these responsibilities. Let us support the Bradley amendment.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendments. I would like to draw particular attention to one portion of the en bloc amendments that deals with space-available travel, space- available, or space-A travel for certain military personnel. One of the benefits of serving in the U.S. military is that you are allowed to access available spaces on military aircraft flying around the country or, indeed, flying around the world. It is a benefit that we extend to our active duty servicemembers, to some of the Guard and the Reserve. But if you happen to be a retired member of the U.S. Army reserve or a retired member of the Guard, not yet 60 years old, you are not eligible for space-A, or space-available travel. What my amendment does is extends to those members of our Guard and Reserve who are retired but under 60 years old the benefit of allowing them to go on space-A travel for themselves and for their dependents. This would affect all branches of service, for those Guardsmen and those retirees from the U.S. Army and other branches of the Reserve. This eligibility is cost free. After all, the airplanes are flying. They have empty seats. So why should we not extend this privilege to those retired members of our Guard and Reserve? I think that in recent years, we have come to understand and respect the fact that members of the Guard and the Reserve are stepping up to the plate when it comes to deployments in the war against terror. The least that we can do here in this body, in this amendment, is extend to them the privilege of space-available travel when they retire.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and the gentleman from Mississippi for all the hard work that they have done to bring this authorization bill to the floor. I fully intend to support the bill as I did in committee, but I would like to take a moment at this time to discuss a concern that Members have, like myself, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and ask for the chairman's commitment that the committee will pursue these issues. We have heard from the Department of Homeland Security employees and their representatives regarding their concerns with the final personnel regulations that the Department issued in February. Some of these provisions in the regulations are troubling. They limit collective bargaining rights, and they appear to reduce due process standards for employees of the Department. Both of these issues were specifically addressed in the Homeland Security Act that created the Department, and my concern is that the regulations promulgated following that act do not adhere to the requirements of the act to maintain collective bargaining rights. I would ask that the committee provide its members with the opportunity to question appropriate administration officials about these regulations, as well as to provide employees and their representatives the opportunity to give us their views. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that if we find these regulations do not follow the mandate of the original law or do not promote fairness and efficiency, that the committee will review these regulations and consider making appropriate changes to the regulations.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for being such a great leader on this new committee, for being bipartisan, and for being an advocate for a safe and secure America. Unfortunately, I rise in option to this amendment, the Thompson substitute, not so much because of what it does, but because of what it fails to do. My reading of the amendment suggests that it does not incorporate many of the provisions of the Homeland Security Authorization Act that passed unamended and by voice vote in the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, of which I am the chairman. For example, personnel flexibility, such as bonuses for the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, so we can attract the best and brightest young people into this Department to engage in good productive intelligence activities, you cannot have good intelligence activities without good people. And those personnel flexibilities are lacking. I do not see any provision requiring that the office of information analysis receive all terrorist threat information from components within DHS, which goes to the heart of information sharing. One of the great tragedies of 9/11 is that so many components of our government did not share information; and perhaps if they had, we could have avoided that tragedy. I do not see any recommendations with regard to the color-coded homeland security advisory system, which so many of us feel is confusing to the American people, and which we recommended be more risk-based, regional, and focused so that people have a legitimate picture of what the risks may be on any particular day when there is an alert. All of the work on open-source intelligence, which I believe is so critical to strengthening our intelligence capabilities nationally, I do not see them in there. And so it does not appear to me to address some very fundamental issues relative to the intelligence piece of the Department of Homeland Security which we are trying to build. On this basis, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks at this point in the Record.)

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security for entering into this colloquy regarding a very important issue. As was the case last year, the administration's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposes to transfer funding for the Coast Guard's research and development program to the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate. The Department has justified this proposal by suggesting that such a transfer would reduce duplicative programs within the Department and would increase cooperation between agencies. Now, if the Coast Guard R&D program consisted purely of research related to homeland security, I might be able to understand such a transfer. However, Coast Guard R&D supports research and investigations into methods and procedures to improve the service's ability to carry out many of its traditional missions. At this time, I would ask the chairman if it is his understanding that the Coast Guard's research, development, test and evaluation program will continue to sponsor research to support the service's traditional missions.

Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to address this important issue. When the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, this Congress ensured that the service's unique multi-mission character would be retained. We must maintain the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its many missions, including search and rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, fisheries law enforcement, and protecting the maritime security. Tomorrow, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will mark up H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, which authorizes funding for the Coast Guard's R&D program within the Coast Guard budget. So I ask the chairman if he will work with me and my colleagues to find a solution to ensure that the Coast Guard retains control over the direction of this funding.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with me on this matter. I am satisfied we will be able to work this out. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record statements by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), in support of this issue.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding For the First Responders Act of 2005, and I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Ranking Member Thompson) for their bipartisan leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. On September 11, our first responders answered the call of duty, risking their lives to save countless Americans from attack. Their heroic service and sacrifice will be remembered forever. Following 9/11, the first responder community worked hard to help us craft this legislation. We also received input from the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families for a risk-based approach to managing homeland security dollars. Today's bill follows a logical approach by allowing and rewarding up- front planning at the State, local, tribal, and regional levels. We provide a risk-based management structure to direct the use of these dollars so that they can move quickly to where they are most needed. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that the 9/11 Commission Report called on us to respond to that tragedy with a commitment to ``create something positive, an America that is safer, stronger, and wiser.'' The bill before us today honors this obligation. It frees critical resources to first responders who need them for training and equipment. This makes us safer. It encourages regional cooperation and teamwork across town, city, tribal, and State lines. This makes us stronger. Finally, it targets our greatest risks and vulnerabilities which undoubtedly makes us smarter. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. It is the product of a uniquely thoughtful process with support from across the aisle and across the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 16, 2005, I had the privilege of honoring members of the famous Doolittle's Raiders, who held their annual reunion this year in Mystic, Connecticut, which I am proud to represent in this House. On December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, the United States was attacked by Japan. On April 18, 1942, the United States struck back directly at the enemy. On that day, Lt. Col. James Harold Doolittle and his co- pilot, Richard Cole, and their comrades-in-arms conducted their heroic raid. On April 16, I was joined by many others at the Mystic Liberty Pole to honor these men and their courage. During the observance Boy Scout Troop 76 raised a ceremonial flag and a plaque was dedicated by Stonington First Selectman William Brown. It was my honor to present the Raiders with a congressional coin and a citation. The air raid was the first strike against the Japanese mainland. It was a relatively small action, only 16 bombers dropping 32 bombs over five cities. But it elevated America's morale because it demonstrated that we had the ability to strike back. However, the raid was not without cost. None of the 80 combatants landed safely after the raid. Eleven crews had to bail out over China, three into the water, one crash-landed and another landed in the Soviet Union where the crew was held captive. An eastern Connecticut newspaper, The Day, wrote about the sacrifices made by Doolittle's Raiders. The newspaper said, ``The history books recount how eight Doolittle Raiders were taken captive by the Japanese and how four were released at the end of the war. But they don't talk about the conditions the airmen endured, locked alone in tiny cells, their only contact with the outside world the tray of slop that was shoved through the door every day. If you want a sense of what it was like, lock yourself in your bathroom for two years and nine months, retired Lt. Col. Chase J. Nielsen told about 1,000 high school students who gathered Friday in Leamy Hall at the Coast Guard Academy. `You eat like a pig, and you live like one,' Nielsen said.'' This is the story of men who demonstrated heroism of inconceivable dimension. They took action against an enemy whose military machine was spreading across the Pacific. Not only did the Raiders' bold attack rally American spirits at home, it struck fear into the Japanese Imperial High Command, forcing them to redeploy troops back to the homeland. This helped turn the tide of the war and led to our eventual victory. It was appropriate that we gathered at the Mystic Liberty Pole. It is a place of patriotism and public spirit. We honored those patriotic and public spirited men because they volunteered so many years ago to put their lives on the line for the liberty we all enjoy today. If not for their sacrifice, our world would be a far different place. May God bless them all for what they did, keep them in good health, and may God Bless America.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.'' I do this because I believe this is bad public policy that will hurt young women. Most young women today readily involve their parents in a decision to end a pregnancy. They do this because they come from loving homes where there is healthy communication and support, not because there is a law requiring them to do so. Unfortunately, some young women come from homes where these support structures are not in place. Some young women come from families with absentee parents, or abusive parents. This is an unfortunate reality. Rather than ensuring healthy communication between parents and their teenage daughter about the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, this bill may isolate these young women even further. This bill may cause a young woman to either delay care, when the risk of complications from an abortion will be greater, or cause her to avoid going to a doctor in the first place and consider unsafe alternatives. By attempting to legislate on family dynamics, this bill puts the health of young women from troubled homes in jeopardy. I cannot believe we want to do this. In discussing this issue, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and the Society of Adolescent Medicine have joined together in a letter opposing this bill. They say: The potential health risks to adolescents if they are unable to obtain reproductive health services are so compelling that deference to parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed health care for patients who request confidentiality. The American Medical Association has also weighed in on the consequences of parental notification: Because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of the pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a ``back alley'' abortion, or resort to self- induced abortion. Surely we do not want to support legislation which has such adverse consequences for young women. Mr. Chairman, many years ago I had the honor to work with Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). In his classic work, The Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater wrote: Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. He went on to say: The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. And he concluded: Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. Finally he said that: Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liberty. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a prime example of government inserting itself into the lives of our people, invading their privacy, and thwarting their liberty. This is unacceptable. I urge a vote against this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Victims of Crime Week and to introduce legislation to help crime victims and their families. The Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, was a tremendous victory in the fight to aid those affected by crime. It established a trust fund composed of criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalty fees and special assessments collected by the U.S. Attorney's Offices, U.S. Courts and Federal Bureau of Prisons. These dollars come from federal criminals, not from taxpayers. Money from this fund is used for a variety of services such as crisis intervention, emergency shelter, emergency transportation, counseling, and criminal justice advocacy. There are approximately 4,400 agencies that depend upon VOCA to provide services to 3.6 million crime victims a year. Currently, VOCA is the only federal program that supports services to victims of all types of crimes including homicide fatalities, domestic violence, child abuse, drunk driving, elder financial exploitation, identity theft, rape, and robbery. These services are essential to helping people cope with their victimization and move on with their lives. Sadly, a spending cap was installed on the VOCA trust fund. In fiscal year 2005, over $800 million was deposited into the fund. Due to the spending cap, only $620 million will be distributed to the states this year. While the balance of VOCA sits unused, state crime victim assistance programs struggle to remain fully funded. My legislation, the ``Victims of Crime Fairness Act'' would eliminate this spending cap and direct the money toward its original intention, helping victims of crime. My state of Connecticut loses almost $5 million a year due to the VOCA cap. This money could make all the difference in thousands of people's lives. In a letter to me, Connecticut's State Victim Advocate James Papillo wrote, ``The programs funded by the VOCA fund benefit crime victims in Connecticut through direct financial support and crime victim support services. These funds help crime victims when they most need it. Given the substantial reduction in the amount of funds available to the states caused by federal earmarks, and the real need for increased services to crime victims in Connecticut, it is clear that removal of the cap is necessary to ensure that Connecticut will be able to meet the needs of crime victims.'' The Victims of Crime Fairness Act is common sense legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping victims of crime by eliminating the VOCA fund spending cap.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, on April 2005, a milestone was reached by one of eastern Connecticut's finest waterfront establishments when Essex Island Marina celebrated its 50th anniversary. A half century ago Louis Schieferdecker, the son of a German immigrant, made a small investment that would end up becoming an eastern Connecticut institution. Mr. Schieferdecker bought Essex Island in 1955 and created a tradition of service and a successful business that his family owns and operates today. Essex Island Marina began as a boat yard with several slips; today it is one of southeastern Connecticut's most picturesque places. Lou Schieferdecker had a dream and he pursued it with a positive attitude and a determination to make it work. During the first 10 years of operation the marina added to its services and amenities and also increased the number of docks. The family installed a swimming pool, built the deck and added game rooms, a snack bar and a convenience store. But for the Schieferdecker family the most important part of the marina is not the dock or any of the amenities or services they provide; it's the people who come and enjoy the experience. In the words of the family, ``Today we see it when the grown children of past guests bring their children to share the experience. In the last 49 years a 13 acre island has been transformed from a place to `dock your boat' to a place where memories are made.'' Boaters have responded to the beautiful facility. In 2004 the readers of ``Offshore Magazine'' named Essex Island Marina the second ``Most Welcoming Destination'' in the entire northeast and voted it number one in the northeast in the ``Favorite Marina For A Weekend'' category. Building a successful business and generating the kind of loyalty and appreciation expressed by the readers of ``Offshore Magazine'' are not the result of being lucky. It's the result of working long hours to achieve a dream and always maintaining a commitment to do nothing less than your best. For 50 years the Schieferdecker family has been devoted to the boating public and the boating public has returned that dedication to the Schieferdeckers and Essex Island Marina. I congratulate this hard working family and Essex Island Marina for the first 50 years and I am delighted that they are part of our eastern Connecticut family.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' a vitally important bill that will provide much-needed federal resources to improve the highways and infrastructure in all fifty States. Highway and transit spending is a critical investment in national security and essential to our country's economic welfare and way of life. This is especially relevant at a time when our economy is losing more than $78 billion annually due to highway congestion. Mr. Speaker, Americans waste more than 3.6 billion hours in traffic delays, and thousands of Americans die each year due to substandard road conditions. Further, this highway bill will create millions of quality, high- paying jobs across America and thousands in my home state of Connecticut. At a time when too many Americans are either unemployed or ``underemployed,'' such construction and infrastructure work will contribute significantly to the quality of life for many working families. I look forward to a healthy debate on the details of this bill, but there is no question that the overall benefits of this bill will be felt by every American family. When they use our improved and safer highways to get to work, school, church, vacation, or just home, Americans will appreciate the investment we will make with passage today of this legislation. I know that my constituents in Connecticut's Second District will especially appreciate the investment made under this bill. The measure we will pass today includes $45 million for high priority projects for towns across the Second District. Whether it is the resources to finally get construction of Route 11 moving, to build Vernon's intermodal center, to make improvements to Enfield's South Maple Street bridge, or any of the other projects included, TEA-LU delivers for eastern Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in 1956 the 84th Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law the Federal Aid Highway Act to promote and invest in the interstate highway system. This law created jobs, stimulated the economy, led to new revenues that reduced our Nation's debt, and brought life-changing improvements to the way Americans lived, worked, and played. Nearly 50 years later, we must follow the same vision and courage that President Eisenhower and the Congress displayed then and once again invest in America by passing legislation to improve our Nation's highways and infrastructure.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 60, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have vote ``aye.''

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my strong support to H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. I want to acknowledge what some of my colleagues have already said. I want to acknowledge the committee leadership for its commitment to our veterans under the direction of our very able and very courageous chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). The gentleman from New Jersey has been a remarkable leader over the last 2 years. He has been a courageous leader. He has stood up in this body and leadership councils for our veterans, and I look forward to his continued leadership as our chairman in the 109th Congress. I also recognize the work of the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who also serves with me as co-chairmen of the U.S. Vietnam Caucus. He has made extraordinary contributions to our veterans in this legislation and in other bills we have taken up before this body. Finally, I want to express very special words of gratitude to my colleague and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). Let me just share with the body two anecdotes. One, I traveled to San Antonio to chair a field hearing with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), and we studied how the Department of Defense in that community and how the Veterans' Administration interact to provide health services not only for active troops but for our veterans. What was immediately apparent to me was the warmth with which his local constituents treated him because of his long interest in veterans, an interest that extends back at least 8 years as a member of this body. But then I invited the gentleman from Texas up to the lovely, warm, pleasant weather of Connecticut, where we spent some time at Newington, Connecticut, at a VA facility. Not only did we have a hearing at that facility but then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) went to the State Veterans Home at Rocky Hill and spent many hours looking at that facility to see how the VA and the Connecticut State Department of Veteran Affairs interacted once again to provide these services. This shows a very genuine interest on his part in veterans not only in his own State but in Connecticut and elsewhere throughout the country. We are going to miss that genuine interest in our veterans. I thank the gentleman for his service to the subcommittee, to the committee and to our Nation's veterans. Our chairman has summarized many of the provisions of this bill. What I would like to do is just point out a couple of features that I think are particularly important. First and foremost, America has a tradition of caring for her veterans dating back to the Plymouth Colony where the Pilgrims enacted laws to assist sick and disabled soldiers. In 1811, our young country established the first domiciliary and medical facility for veterans that was authorized by the national government and today the Veterans' Administration has stewardship over the fourth largest real estate inventory in the Federal Government, over 20,000 buildings and tens of thousands of acres of land. One of the provisions of this bill allows the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration to get his arms around this huge inventory through the CARES project, a master plan for realigning the VA's inventory of capital assets in response to GAO findings and our committee oversight that some of these facilities were underutilized and that some dollars could be saved. In addition, what this legislation does is provide language for the reuse of historic properties. On the one hand, properties that can be adopted to new uses but, secondly, properties that are truly historic and ought to be preserved and protected, for example, the Eisenhower Recovery Room at the Fitzsimmons Hospital in Colorado. We are engaged in a major effort to build a state-of-the-art facility at Fitzsimmons. It will be co-located with the State university hospital system, but that historic room in Fitzsimmons will be preserved and protected into the future. Furthermore, the hiring and retraining of nursing staff in VA and State veterans homes, this legislation provides provisions that will address that challenge, the challenge of the almost 100,000 vacant nursing positions and a growing need for health care workers nationwide. It allows the VA to look outside for recruiting and advertising these positions and using interactive and online technologies to improve their exposure in today's recruiting market. It also allows the State veterans homes to apply for a new grant program to serve as an incentive to attract nurses to State homes for their employment there with a 50-50 split between the VA and the State homes. I have spent a long time at the Connecticut State home at Rocky Hill. This is a successor to the first State home built in America which was built just after the Civil War. They provide a wonderful service, but if they could work interactively with the VA in Connecticut, they could enhance that service, both in providing more nurses and also in providing better services for our veterans. That is what this legislation attempts to do. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3936 was carefully crafted to give the VA the flexibility and authority it needs to manage its capital assets. At the same time, it holds VA accountable for protecting the public interest of the United States as stewards of the valuable inventory of structures and lands held in trust by the VA. Finally, it provides the VA with the resources needed to enhance nurses and other professionals within the system so that they can better provide the services that we need. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2484) to amend title 38, United States Code, to simplify and improve pay provisions for physicians and dentists and to authorize alternate work schedules and executive pay for nurses, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers S. 2484, the Department of Veterans Affairs Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004. This legislation is designed to improve VA's ability to recruit and retain physicians and nurses. The bill represents a compromise agreement between the two bodies and is supported by the administration. The Department of Veterans Affairs has almost 1,000 vacancies for full-time physicians, particularly specialists. Inadequate salaries are one of the biggest obstacles to filling these physician vacancies. Because VA is not able to hire the physician it needs, it will spend over a billion dollars this year for non-VA physicians to care for veterans under contractual agreements. Thirteen years have passed since Congress last made changes to the VA physician and dentist compensation system. Last year, VA submitted a legislative proposal to allow VA to be more competitive in physician recruitment. After receiving that proposal, we worked with our Senate counterparts, the VA and interested organizations to craft the compromise legislation before the House today. The largest component of physician compensation for most physicians would be fixed in statute and adjusted annually. A second component, market pay, would be determined through an open three-step process. VA's Under Secretary for Health in formulating recommendations on pay to the Secretary would solicit the views of concerned employee representatives and professional organizations. The Secretary would then provide notice in the Federal Register with a 60-day waiting period before adjustments to pay bans would be finalized. Further, the compromise agreement would require VA to provide each physician and dentist written notice of any decisions made by the VA concerning their pay. This compromise agreement would also provide a third component of compensation that addresses the issue of performance pay for physicians and dentists. Any award of performance pay would be made on the basis of an individual physician's or dentist's achievement of specific goals agreed upon in advance. This provision is very important because it would ensure that performance payments serve as incentives for good performance rather than as penalties for lack of performance. The compromise we are considering today is supported by the VA employee representatives and professional organizations and is a very much needed change that should enhance health care for our veterans. The compromise agreement also includes provisions that would ensure proper retirement credits to physicians and dentists during the transition from the current pay system to the new system. It provides a total VA compensation paid to a physician or dentist in a given year would not exceed the salary of the President, and the compromise agreement would also make the new compensation system effective the first pay period following January 1, 2006. Our compromise agreement includes several provisions from H.R. 4231, which was a bill I introduced earlier this year, to authorize alternative tours of duty for VA registered nurses. This bill passed the House on September 30, 2004, and the provisions are intended to make VA's scheduling of nurse duty hours more flexible and more family- friendly while enabling VA nurses to pursue their careers in VA health care. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that ought to pass. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may wish to consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend and colleague and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their diligence on this important piece of legislation. Again, I thank our very distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); our committee ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); and my colleague and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health Care, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for all of their hard work on bringing this legislation to fruition. I would also like to recognize the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Staff Director Bill Tuerk and Bill Cahill, health counsel to the Senate committee, without whose hard work this compromise simply would not have been possible. Finally, I want to acknowledge the excellent staff work conducted by our own committee staff, Pat Ryan, our committee chief counsel; staff director Kingston Smith, Jeannie McNally, John Bradley, and Dolores Dunn of the committee staff. Finally, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the chairman on Pat Ryan. I had the honor a number of years ago to serve as staff director of a committee, regrettably on the Senate side; but what I learned from those 4 years was how difficult it is sometimes to accommodate the differing views of Members, all of whom argue in good faith for their points of view; and observing Pat over the 4 years that I have served on this committee, I think he has done an excellent job. He has been very professional. He has kept his cool under some difficult circumstances. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reform.

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

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. 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 S. 2484.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 750) recognizing the 130th anniversary of the creation of lifesaving stations on the Great Lakes, which became part of the United States Life-Saving Service, and for other purposes.