Rob Simmons

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for all the hard work that he has done over the course of this year, and in previous years, in an effort to bring this legislation to final passage today. He is truly a friend of America's veterans. Madam Speaker, the bill before us combines substantial portions of seven House and Senate bills dealing with veterans health care matters. As the Subcommittee on Health chairman, I am pleased that we are proposing to rebuild substantial portions of the Department of Veterans Affairs aging capital infrastructure, which is a fancy way of saying their hospital and health care facilities. Most Members know that America cares for her veterans more than any other country in the world and has provided health care facilities for her veterans for over 100 years. That is the good news. Regrettably, the bad news is that many of these facilities, which provide excellent health care services to our veterans, show signs of aging. They need upgrading or replacement, and that is one of the purposes of the bill before us today. This legislation is the result of compromise between the House and the Senate. It is the product of many minds. And I am grateful to my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for all of his help in bringing us to this point here today. In summary, the bill would authorize six new medical building probables at a total cost of $276.6 million in Chicago, San Diego, West Haven, Lebanon, Beckley, and Pensacola. It also authorizes advance planning of $86.5 million for the Veterans Administration to design five new projects in Denver, Colorado, Columbus, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Las Vegas, Nevada, and East Central, Florida. I am confident these projects will be funded once they are fully designed with the authorization provided in this bill. The Denver project, for example, is a joint venture involving the Veterans Administration and the Air Force to establish a new Fitzsimmons Hospital Center. We believe this project will move forward with $26 million from the VA added to $4 million from the Air Force. And I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for all of their hard work on this project. Another very important planning project in our bill is for Columbus, Ohio. It would relocate and expand an existing VA clinic to available Federal property. And while this committee wanted to provide the full authorization this year, and, in fact, this body did so, that was opposed by the other body. In the spirit of compromise the committees agreed to provide $9 million for advance planning for the new clinic in Columbus. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for his leadership and help with this matter. I personally look forward to going out to Ohio, hopefully, in the company of Secretary Principi, to review the project. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the VA needs a new health facility to replace two aging hospitals, both of which are over 50 years old. The committee has agreed to provide planning funds of $9 million for this project as well. In addition to these projects, the bill with also delegate to Secretary Principi the ability to prioritize construction projects coming out of VA's so-called ``CARES'' process, provided appropriations to support these projects would be available. And we are confident this approach is a responsible way to proceed. With this delegation of authority to the Secretary, however, we also impose some limits on the VA in this bill. If, for example, as a result of CARES, the Secretary is closing VA medical facilities, or significantly reducing health care staff or consolidating two or more hospitals, we request that VA report these plans to Congress and wait 60 days before proceeding. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to mention two hospital or facility naming pieces of this legislation. First of all, I had the honor as a member of the Committee on Armed Services to serve under Chairman Bob Stump, who also was a distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. There is no truer friend to America's veterans than Bob Stump. And we lost him earlier this year, unfortunately, to a long illness. But we wanted to memorialize his service to American veterans in an appropriate and respectful way, which is why our bill names the Prescott, Arizona, VA Medical Center the Bob Stump Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. As well, I want to honor a very distinguished veteran from my own district, John McGuirk, a native of Connecticut, who enlisted in the United States Navy during World War II, serving as a salvage diver. He hazarded death and injury every day of his service, serving in the South Pacific from Pearl Harbor to Manila in the Philippines, including service aboard the salvage ship U.S.S. Laysan Island. John McGuirk was instrumental in establishing a community-based outreach clinic in New London, Connecticut, on the grounds of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. And this legislation will memorialize him by naming this clinic after him. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote in support of final passage of this legislation, the Veterans Health Care Capital Asset and Business Improvement Act of 2003.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) to say that it is a start, it is a good start, and we are going to be with the gentleman all the way. I look forward to coming to Ohio with Secretary Principi to visit the facility. I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff director, John Bradley, and the minority staff director, Susan Edgerton for their hard work, and I would like to make a comment. Over 100 years ago, the U.S. Marine Corps was dispatched to China to relieve the diplomatic legations in that country that were under great pressure from the Boxer Rebellion, and when they came back, they adopted the term ``gung-ho.'' To be gung-ho, to be enthusiastic, to be filled with vigor for something. But the term ``gung-ho'' comes from the Chinese. I see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is smiling, he probably knows, which means work together. Under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member, we have worked together on this legislation, and we have accomplished something that we have not accomplished for 5 years, which is an authorization bill, hopefully, heading to the White House for the President's signature.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the ``Energy Policy Act of 2003.'' H.R. 6 is a critically important piece of legislation that will provide a strong, comprehensive national energy policy that promotes conservation, alternative fuels and technologies, in conjunction with maintaining sound environmental practices. My constituents in eastern Connecticut support an energy policy that reflects America's 21st century values, its technology and certainly our homeland security needs. My constituents expect Congress to put forth an energy bill that advances a balanced approach to energy production and use by encouraging a responsible, diverse mix of energy sources and options along with a significant investment in conservation and increased efficiency. The Energy Policy Act before this body today does all this by charting a path toward increased energy security and a cleaner environment--in short: secure, reliable, affordable energy for all Americans in a growing economy. This conference report provides $3.4 billion in LIHEAP funding, including $70 million for Connecticut. These dollars will keep our elderly and poor warm this winter and they need our help. My home State is known as the ``fuel cell Capital of the World.'' H.R. 6 provides $1.8 billion in R&D funds for fuel cell research, allowing Connecticut to continue to be on the cutting edge of alternative fuel development. The measure puts forth $325 million for the next 3 years for State energy conservation programs; $2.9 billion over the next 5 years for renewable energy research and development; and $2.5 billion over the next 10 years to develop ``clean coal'' technology. For our Nation's security, H.R. 6 provides $1.5 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, expanding the Reserve from 700 million to 1 million barrels. Given the instability of the Middle East, this is a prudent energy security move. Today's bill also includes bipartisan reauthorization of the Price- Anderson Act, which provides insurance in the case of a nuclear accident. The measure contains a number of provisions aimed at enhancing the security of commercial nuclear reactors, including a directive that the president prepare a study of potential threats, authorization to perform background checks on employees, a requirement that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission consult with the Homeland Security Department before issuing a license, and authorization for the commission to allow its employees and the employees of certain contractors and subcontractors engaged in the protection of nuclear facilities to carry firearms. These provisions are particularly important to my district, which relies heavily on nuclear power and is home to all of Connecticut's nuclear power plants; two fully operational and two decommissioned. Legislation before the House today places our Nation on a forward path toward stronger and more reliable electricity markets. H.R. 6 is a far-reaching, long-term energy policy that will improve the security and reliability of our nation's energy supply in the following ways: it will increase transmission capacity; it will improve the operation of existing transmission and it will make wholesale competition even more successful than it currently is today. Finally, the bill prohibits opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and prohibits oil and gas exploration in the Great Lakes. As a life member of the Sierra Club, I am pleased with these prohibitions. This being said, however, there is one provision I am extremely disappointed was included in the final product. It concerns a 24-mile cable that runs between new Haven, Connecticut and the former Shoreham nuclear power plant on eastern Long Island, New York. The state of Connecticut and its congressional delegation has adamantly opposed this provision and objects to its inclusion in the final energy bill. This provision will not preclude me from voting for this bill, but I am upset with its inclusion. Where I come from, we call this ``swallowing a rat,'' which means taking the bad with the good. I will ``swallow the rat'' on this provision but I am not happy about it. Overall, I believe Congress put forth a comprehensive national energy bill. I have long supported finding solutions to the energy crisis that strike a proper balance between conservation and production. I believe that the conference report to The Energy Policy Act of 2003 represents a long-term energy policy that will improve the security, reliability and affordability of our nation's energy supply. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, every community has certain individuals who define it. These are people who, by virtue of their character and commitment, make the community a better place in which to live and work. In my district, Connecticut's Second District, in the city of Norwich, Ed Seder is such an individual. Ed recently celebrated his 90th birthday. I have been friends with Ed for many years. For decades he has been a pillar in the Norwich business community and he represents the city's rich industrial past. Ed projects a vibrant energy and continues to be involved with the community, proving that although we can't help growing older we don't have to get old. As an old saying informs us, ``You know you're getting old when the candles cost more than the cake.'' Ed is not quite there yet. The Seder family owns the second oldest family business still in existence in Norwich--Shetucket Paper and Supply. The business was established in 1918 and Ed still works there. Ed has been active in the community for many years--he served on the city school board and in the 1960s he was a member of the Norwich City Council. Throughout his adult life he has had the support and love of his wonderful wife Lillian and their three children. How do folks keep a business thriving for so many years? The answer is simple--they work at it. That's the old-fashioned concept of hard work that made America what it is today--a free and flourishing nation that draws people with dreams and aspirations from all over the world. Ed Seder and his family have achieved because they worked at it. He's the kind of person who found solutions to problems because he looked for them and then he worked at them. When Ed Seder tells you something, you can take it to the bank. If you think about what you ought to do for other people, your character will take care of itself. Ed Seder is a man of character. He has spent his lifetime working for and in his community. As a result, Norwich, Connecticut is a better place to live, work and raise a family thanks to Ed Seder. Happy birthday, Ed.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. This will be built by an entity that was created to build the museum without the expenditure of Federal funds.

Mr. SIMMONS. I thank the chairman for those comments.

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

Mr. SIMMONS. The Coast Guard Academy is in my district.

Mr. SIMMONS. That is where we hope the museum will be.

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, it states, very briefly, the oversight provision, this is subsection (d), will enable Members of Congress to continue to raise questions as the project proceeds and should make it harder for backers of the museum to pursue the Fort Trumbull site, according to Scott Bullock, attorney for the Institute for Justice. Then it goes on to make several other statements in that line. I think it is apparent, based on the reading of the Record and based on the reading of that public news story, that in crafting the oversight language, we met the objectives of dealing with the issue of eminent domain without interfering with litigation that may be taking place at a municipal or a State level. In that way, we have fulfilled our obligations and any further amendments to this effect are not helpful. [From the New London Day, June 26, 2003] Museum Proposal Makes Progress--Congressional Panel Approves NL as Host for Coast Guard Plan (By Judy Benson) A Congressional subcommittee approved a measure Wednesday that authorizes the establishment of a Coast Guard museum in New London. In addition, the measure, an amendment to a larger Coast Guard authorization bill, gives Congress continued oversight of the museum project, an addition that addresses concerns about using property taken by eminent domain. The original measure was introduced by U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, D-2nd District, with the oversight language added by other members of the panel concerned that property in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London taken by eminent domain would be used. The oversight provision will enable members of Congress to continue to raise questions as the project proceeds and should make it harder for backers of the Coast Guard museum to pursue the Fort Trumbull site, according to Scott Bullock, attorney for the Institute for Justice, The institute is representing property owners in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in a lawsuit to block the city and the New London Development Corp. from taking the land by eminent domain as part of a redevelopment project. Simmons said the action Wednesday is an important step toward the creation of the museum in New London, the home of the Coast Guard Academy. Earlier this month, Simmons proposed a similar amendment that he later withdrew when a ranking committee member brought up the eminent domain issue. ``Today's action in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was a bipartisan stamp of approval to move forward and designate a national museum for the U.S. Coast Guard,'' Simmons said. ``Every other military service has at least six museums to commemorate their histories and service men and women. The Coast Guard deserves to have one. ``As the Coast Guard increases its responsibilities in a post-September 11 world,'' he continued, ``now is the time to honor the service and history of the many men and women in the Coast Guard with a national museum.'' The bill containing the amendment next goes to the full transportation committee for a vote and then to the full House. Funds to build the museum are to come from private groups. Bullock said he considers Wednesday's action significant because it enables the museum project to move forward, but with the restriction of Congressional oversight even though federal funds have not been allocated for the museum. ``This demonstrates the very real concern in Congress about what is happening in New London and how eminent domain would be used,'' Bullock said. He noted that the amendment said that the preferred site would be ``at or near the Coast Guard Academy,'' leaving the door open for a location in New London other than Fort Trumbull. ``There are ways to establish the museum in New London and make all parties happy,'' he said. Coast Guard leaders remain committed to locating the museum near the academy, and are considering all options in New London, according to Jolie Shifflet, spokeswomen for the Coast Guard.

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleagues for working with me to establish a national Coast Guard Museum. This issue of eminent domain came up at a business meeting of the subcommittee on June 12, 2003, when I offered legislation to create a national Coast Guard Museum that was designed to extend the curriculum of the cadets at the academy and also for the leadership courses which take place in New London, which is the location of the academy. Currently there is a one-room museum on academy grounds that is used for this purpose. It is inadequate for this purpose, and for years we have wanted to expand that facility into what we call the National Coast Guard Museum. The distinguished ranking member of the committee raised an objection at the time and stated that while he felt the language was well-intentioned and a good idea, a number of problems were brought to his attention by a homeowners association raising concerns. This was the issue of the displacement of people under eminent domain authority, an issue that I share his concern about. In the context of the subcommittee meeting, I was asked by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey, if I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and work with the distinguished ranking member on language which addressed this issue. In the intervening weeks, we did just that. On Wednesday, June 25, alternative language was introduced which is now in the bill, which I believed and I think others believed address the issue. When it was passed unanimously by the committee, I thanked the ranking member, I thanked the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee for their cooperation on this matter. It has only been in the last week that I have discovered that another Member had concerns about this language. It is true that the bill is silent on the issue of eminent domain. That was the intent. Because issues of eminent domain, especially issues that are in litigation, should not be affected one way or another by legislative action. But what the language of subsection (d) does which is so important and it does it in what I consider to be a very elegant way, and I thank the ranking member and his staff for coming up with this formulation. It says, before the date on which the Commandant establishes a museum under subsection (a), the Commandant shall provide to the committee, shall, he has no choice. He must do it. He must provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a plan for operating and maintaining such a museum which gives us as members of the committee the opportunity to say yes or to say no. That is where the discussion of eminent domain from our standpoint should take place, from my point of view, not legislating language that would interfere with ongoing litigation involving the State, the municipality and other instruments. I believe firmly that this is the solution that we were looking for. This is the solution that very elegantly threads the needle on this difficult issue. I was grateful to the ranking member and to the other members of the committee for this assistance in coming up with this language. We all know that the Coast Guard has assumed new duties and a new role since September 11. We all know that the Coast Guard is the only uniformed service that currently does not have a national-level museum. The Army, and I was proud to serve in the Army for 37 years, has 46 museums. The Marine Corps has six. The Navy has 11, and so on and so on and so forth. But let us take the discussion of eminent domain just one step further. Following the action of the full committee on June 25, the New London Day published an article the following day which says, Museum Proposal Makes Progress. Congressional Panel Approves, et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his recollections. I refer to a letter from the Coast Guard in June of this year saying, the Coast Guard is not directly involved in the acquisition process. The issue of eminent domain is not for the Coast Guard to decide. We look forward to a resolution of these issues by the community. If I could further add to the Record, the amendment, as drafted, would prevent any property that has been taken by eminent domain from being used for this purpose. If the Coast Guard, for example, was to decide to take the existing 3,500-square-foot facility and add a second and a third floor to it and call it the national museum, they could not because that property was taken by eminent domain back in the thirties. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC, June 18, 2003. Hon. Robert Simmons, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Simmons: I am writing to you concerning the establishment and siting of the National Coast Guard Museum. The American public deserves a National Coast Guard Museum to preserve the heroic and important heritage of the Service. For over 90 years, the Coast Guard has enjoyed a close, warm, and productive relationship with the people of New London and Connecticut. New London is already the home of the Coast Guard Academy, our Leadership Development Center, America's tall ship EAGLE, Coast Guard Station New London, and Coast Guard Cutter CHINOOK. New London is also a city where our roots are established and a center of maritime and nautical tradition. Therefore, New London is the focus of current efforts to acquire a suitable property. We realize there is an energetic local dialogue and debate over the merits of possible sites and methods of acquiring property suitable for a National Coast Guard Museum. The Coast Guard is not, however, directly involved in the acquisition process. The issue of eminent domain is not for the Coast Guard to decide. We look forward to a resolution of these issues by the community. We have recognized, and have signed an agreement that establishes, the Coast Guard National Museum Association (CGNMA) as the sole organization working to acquire land, raise funds for the construction of a museum, and donate the museum and land to the Coast Guard. We have no formal relationship with New London Development Corporation (NLDC) beyond informing them on the progress of the museum project. I refer you to the President of the National Coast Guard Museum Association to discuss the specifics about any agreements between them and the NLDC. Although there is an initial conceptual design, the final design of the building will depend on the site chosen and the finalization of plans for the museum style, exhibits, and functions. It will be integrated into the overall plans for development of the selected site through coordination with appropriate local officials, agencies, and affected parties. The Coast Guard has been part of the New London community for over 90 years and has great ties with, and great feelings for the people of New London. My House Liaison Office at (202) 225-4775 would be pleased to respond to any further questions you or your staff may have. Sincerely, T.J. Barrett, Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.

Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. Unfortunately, 90 acres of land that was disposed of by the Navy as part of the BRAC process is now the focus of this development activity in a distressed city in the State of Connecticut and nobody can tell me with any assurance that this language that has been offered will not make it impossible for the Coast Guard to accept any of that Navy property, Customs property or even preexisting Coast Guard property. If I could just make one other point. The language addresses the Coast Guard museum and places a burden on the Coast Guard, whether it be looking at property in Connecticut or New York or New Jersey, but nothing in the language prevents the New London Development Corporation from proceeding with its condemnation activities which are currently in the courts. Nothing in this amendment protects those families.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 67 men and women who work at Electric Boat, in Groton, Connecticut. These individuals have worked at Electric Boat for 40 or more years and due to their length of service have earned the title: Distinguished Shipbuilder. Kenneth Guarneri, William Ferguson, Richard Morgan, Thomas Nunes, John Prokop, Alexander Fraser, Reed Davignon, Robert Rosso, Mary Sousa, Pauline Passarello, Patricia Rossi, Walter Greenhalgh, Ernest Currier, Paul Losacano, Fred Vocatura, Richard Sobanski, Robert Ness, Ernest Messier, Jeffrey Pritchard, Jackson Morgan, John Burbine, Denzel Andrews, Stanley Menitz, Robert Collins, Carl Kvist, Ronald Drounin, William Vaiciulis, Vincent Nadolny, Paul Terry, Larry Yering, Stephen Wells, Keith Bradshaw, John Haberek, Ralph Lodyko, Ronald Leuchner, Gerald Gent, Brent Weimer, Ronald DeCarolis, Arnold Kortick, James Welch, Richard Sears, Anthony Falcone, Norman Laroche, Robert Boyle, Donald Noel, Edward Goode, William Bak, Joseph Woycik, Richard Supernant, Janis Pike, Brian Lumnah, Alfred Malchiodi, Ronald Meadows, Edward Haik, Manuel Arruda, Donald Bartlett, John Bashaw, James Brown Jr., Everett Church, Dominic Cirioni Jr., James Cunningham, Hedrick Facas, Richard- Lambert, Robert Mayor, David Matthews, Robert Panciera, and Roy Rock. When we think in terms of national defense these are not names that spring immediately to mind. But the work they have done and the things they have accomplished over the past four decades were essential to the United States winning the Cold War. These are the men and women who helped design and construct the submarines that kept our Nation safe and free. Today they are designing and constructing a new generation of submarines that will help America win the war on terrorism. These individuals have truly earned the title Distinguished Shipbuilder. Over the decades, Electric Boat has rightly won a reputation for constructing the best submarines in the world. For the men and women who design and build these incredibly complex ships, unsolvable problems have proven to be nothing more than tremendous opportunities to use their knowledge and skill. Today Electric Boat continues to provide the United States Navy with the best ships ever to go to sea. They are an integral part of America's national security strategy. As the crews of our submarines protect America's freedom and security around the globe the men and women of Electric Boat can take great satisfaction in knowing that they are essential members of our national security team. Those who expect to enjoy the blessings of freedom must engage in the hard work of defending it. In synchronization with the men and women in the Navy, the men and women at Electric Boat engage in that demanding work--and we in this chamber and everyone all across America benefit from their labor. When it comes to Electric Boat and the business of designing and constructing submarines, price is what you pay; value is what you get. I am proud that Electric Boat is in my district--the Second District of Connecticut--and I am proud to share the names of these tireless and dedicated workers with you. They have provided the United States Navy with the most advanced, the most stealthy, the safest and the most lethal vessels ever to go to sea. I ask you to join me in recognizing their contributions to America.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for all of their hard work on this legislation. I also thank my ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for all of his work. This legislation constitutes a bipartisan effort to fund medical health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. When I first assumed the chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, I was committed to providing the resources necessary to improve these health care facilities for our veterans, and this has been a bipartisan enterprise for the past 9 months. This legislation is the fruit of that work, and I think this legislation speaks very well for the bipartisan effort that we made on the subcommittee and the committee. Among other things, this legislation would authorize specific construction projects, such as in Clark County, Nevada, where we just heard about the multispecialty outpatient clinic; in Columbus, Ohio, a new VA medical center; and in West Haven, Connecticut, renovations of a facility that was first built in 1917. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that the State of Connecticut built this facility in 1917 as a tuberculosis and a neuropsychiatric hospital, and I am proud of the fact it is affiliated with Yale University's School of Medicine, which is one of the premier schools of medicine in the United States. But the question we have to address to ourselves, not only with this facility but these other facilities, is how efficient are they in today's day and age? How is the morale of VA employees, when they work in facilities that are almost 100 years old? How can we clean them and maintain the standards of sanitation that we want as we treat our veterans population? How can old hospital wards become more user-friendly and accommodate the new technologies for dealing with our veterans? And is there enough renovated space for these purposes? That is why we are moving forward to authorize certain construction projects, such as in Chicago, Illinois, consolidating inpatient care in a new bed tower in the West Side Division; or in San Diego, California, doing almost $50 million worth of seismic corrections to Building I at the VA medical center; or in Pensacola, Florida, a joint-venture outpatient clinic at the Pensacola Naval Air Station where the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense are sharing resources and sharing technologies to come up with a joint facility, something that saves our taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. In the aggregate, Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize appropriations of $500 million in fiscal year 2004 and $600 million in fiscal year 2005 to accommodate the construction projects under the various authorities provided. One of these major construction projects, and you will hear from some of our other Members shortly, is the ``New Fitzsimons'' Campus of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. What the bill would require is that the Secretary of Defense and the Veterans Administration work together to create a new medical center in that area to serve our veterans population. We have also authorized a joint project in Charleston, South Carolina, where we will do a feasibility study for a new medical center, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) for his work on that project. And also an inpatient hospitalization needs study for southern New Jersey, something that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), has been involved with. So as we work our way through the details of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, it should become clear that this is a joint effort and a joint product by all members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Subcommittee on Health to come up with a hospital authorization bill that serves the needs of all of our veterans, north and south, east and west, nationwide. Mr. Speaker, this legislation we are voting on today will help us improve, upgrade and even replace VA facilities in specialized areas of concern, such as spinal cord injury care, hemodialysis, long term care and medical research. Our bill also gives the VA Secretary flexibility to move forward on both high priority projects and the CARES process together. So this is a compromise bill and one that all Members can support. This bill would also improve protection and safety of VA medical research programs. VA research is internationally recognized and has made important contributions in virtually every area of medicine and health. But it still needs watchful oversight. I thank the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, for his leadership in crafting these provisions as part of this legislation, which I strongly support, and I thank our Full Committee Chairman for agreeing to move this measure forward as a part of our construction bill. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would also designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in New London, Connecticut, the ``John J. McGuirk Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''. I am very pleased that our bill would memorialize the life and work of Mr. John J. McGuirk of Connecticut. John was active in promoting improved care and more available VA clinics in his beloved State of Connecticut. He was a role model to many of us in the veterans' community, and was particularly committed to working on behalf of disabled and elderly veterans--those with the greatest need for ready access to VA health care. His death in 1999 was a loss to all the veterans of my State. John J. McGuirk, a native of the Constitution State, enlisted in the United States Navy in World War II. He served as an enlisted man in the dangerous occupation of salvage diver. Hazarding death and injury every day of his Navy service, Mr. McGuirk worked across the South Pacific from Pearl Harbor to Manila, Philippines. He served aboard the salvage ship, USS Laysan Island, in clearing war devastation in Manila Bay. John McGuirk was decorated with the Philippines Liberation Medal, the American Theatre Medal, the Asiatic Pacific Theatre Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. When Mr. McGuirk's obligation to the United States Navy was discharged at the war's end, his personal obligation to his country and fellow veterans endured and became his lifelong commitment. Mr. McGuirk's advocacy resulted in VA activating a system of community-based clinics across the State, providing primary care to thousands of veterans. John McGuirk played an instrumental role in VA's opening of the community clinic on the grounds of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London. John actively served in Post Number Nine of the American Legion of Connecticut for the entirety of his adult life, including two stints as Post Commander, as well as Finance Officer and Service Officer. He was also a member of the Disabled Veterans of America and of U.S. Submarine Veterans, Inc. I am proud to promote this effort to memorialize the name of a good man, a war veteran and a man of peace, John J. McGuirk of Connecticut. This gesture is but a token of the esteem and affection we hold for him and his lasting contribution to our State and his service to our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor my constituent and fellow Vietnam veteran, Edward S. Banas, Sr. of Voluntown, Connecticut on his election as National Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Edward S. Banas, Sr. served as a Military Policeman in the United States Army during the Vietnam War. By his honorable service from 1965 to 1968 he was awarded the Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, National Defense Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal. After Vietnam, Ed Banas joined the Norwich Police Department in 1968, and served with the department for more than 10 years. Whether protecting our Nation and our freedom abroad or protecting and serving the members of his community, Ed Banas has dedicated himself to making life better for our people. In Vietnam, Ed Banas formed a solid bond with his comrades-in-arms that inspired his volunteer service as a veterans' advocate for more than 30 years. We honor that service here today. His tour of duty in South Vietnam made him eligible for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he joined VFW Post 1004 in Jewett City, Connecticut in 1967 where he is a Life Member. Since joining the VFW, Ed Banas has served in a variety of Post-level positions, including Post Commander. At the district level, he earned the honor of All-American District Commander. He served as Department Commander of Connecticut in 1993-94. Ed Banas never forgot his comrades who fell in battle in Vietnam. In February, while serving as Junior Vice Commander-In-Chief, Ed and a delegation from the VFW took part in a 10-day visit to Thailand and Vietnam to gather information on Americans missing from the war in Southeast Asia and to press the issue of POW/MIAs to the government of Vietnam. Through the efforts of Ed Banas and the VFW, we are working to bring those soldiers home. They are not remains; they are heroes and we will never forget them. Today our men and women in uniform are defending our Nation and our interests in dangerous and distant places. We will honor the sacrifices they and their families are making and we will never forget the sacrifices that have been made by those who went before. Now more than ever we need strong leadership from our veterans' service organizations to help us keep the promise to our veterans and their families. From ensuring our veterans have continued access to timely, quality healthcare to supporting our soldiers currently serving overseas, the VFW is working hard on many battlefronts. In his message to the VFW National Convention in San Antonio last month, Ed Banas reminded us, ``We are the veterans' voice on Capitol Hill and while our battlefields may have shifted from the sands of Iwo Jima to the Halls of Congress that does not mean that we are any less resolved to accomplish our mission today than we were then.'' From the moment he first wore the uniform of our great Nation to this very day, Ed Banas has been a courageous, tireless and honorable servant of our Nation and our people. He has more missions to accomplish and I will be proud to help him. As a Vietnam veteran, I am keenly aware of the important role that the VFW plays in the lives of America's veterans. Through its vast network of posts, the VFW helps veterans build strong communities, and serves as a vital resource to its members, from World War II era veterans up to our newly returning soldiers from Iraq. I know that Ed Banas has all the energy and enthusiasm necessary to make his year as Commander-in-Chief of the VFW a successful one. Ed and his wife Sandra, a nurse at the Westerly Hospital, are the proud parents of five children, and live in Voluntown, Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize my friend and constituent, Edward Banas, Sr. and to extend to him my heartiest congratulations for his years of wonderful service. I wish him and his family all the best as he begins his new tour of duty as the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander-in-Chief for 2003-2004.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a few thoughts with my colleagues on this anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks against our nation. None of us will ever forget the day that members of the terrorist group al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center towers and attacked the Pentagon. The courageous action taken by the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 prevented more carnage by crashing the aircraft in a Pennsylvania field. On that day nearly 3,000 innocent victims were murdered. Like many of my colleagues, I lost constituents on that terrible morning. A number of them were personal friends of mine and of my family. Those of us who live in eastern Connecticut will never forget Josh Piver, Madeline Amy Sweeney, Ruth Clifford McCourt, Juliana Valentine McCourt, James Greenleaf Jr., Bruce Eagleson, James Hobin, Rick Thorpe and Eric Evans. All of them died far too soon; all of them left behind grieving families and friends. The events of that day are burned indelibly in our minds and on our hearts. Like Americans always have, we immediately began to rise to the challenge. We put out the fires; we cleared the debris; we prayed for the deceased and their families; and we began the serious work of ensuring that such an act of war would never again visit our shores. While we will never forget that day, sadly, some Americans, including some in this very Chamber, have either forgotten or failed to learn the lessons of those attacks. Until September 11, 2001, it was thought that in order to wage war against the United States the enemy would have to be a nation with a mighty army and enormous industrial capability. That is no longer the case. Today we live in a world in which a few dedicated and evil men, supported by a minimal amount of resources and armed with box cutters, brought to our shores death and destruction the likes of which we have never seen before. Those who died on September 11th and their families are the tragic witnesses to that reality. We have no greater responsibility than making sure it never happens again. Advances in communication and technology have created opportunities for the enemies of freedom and justice. Terrorists do not need huge armies. They do not need an industrial base. They have learned how to exploit the resources of the 21st Century. But they underestimate the resources and resolve of the American spirit. America is engaged in a war. Today a major battleground is Iraq. We have weakened an evil regime in Afghanistan that gave al Qaeda support and we have removed Saddam Hussein from power. Our people have not suffered further attacks at home, not because our enemy has changed its mind, but because our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence community have worked diligently to prevent further assaults. Congress has provided the tools they need to make America safer. And we have taken the fight to our enemies instead of waiting for them to continue their violence here. But the war is not over. Some of us have expressed concern about the cost of the war--both in terms of funds and with regards to the even more precious cost in the lives of our fellow Americans. As a Vietnam veteran, I understand these issues personally and share those concerns every day. In Connecticut's Second District, which I represent, two courageous heroes have given their lives in defense of freedom. Corporal Kemaphoom Chanawongse, 22 years old, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, was killed in action during operations on the outskirts of Nasiriya on March 23, 2003. Gunnery Sergeant Phillip Jordan, 2nd Marine Regiment, 42 years old, was killed in action near Nasiriya on March 23, 2003. Their families and they have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. The price of defending our nation is great. Every death of an American who wears our nations uniform is one death too many. Families who lose a loved one will never be able to fill the void. But I also know this. As in other difficult wars our nation has fought, we send our forces abroad to meet the enemy in order to prevent the war from coming to our shores and to our homes. The front lines of the war on terrorism will either be in Kabul and Baghdad or they will be in New York, Washington or New London, Connecticut. We are doing the right thing for America and for the free people of the world. But doing the right thing is no guarantee against misfortune. The war will be long and difficult. So was the Cold War; so was World War II. War is a terrible thing, but it is not the most terrible. Far worse are the evils that war can prevent and end--evils like the attacks of September 11th that took the lives of innocent people on their way to work, in their offices and flying on jet airliners. War is a moral undertaking when arms are taken against brutal despots and those who would destroy our people, our values and our nation. September 11th showed us with graphic clarity that there is great good and great evil in the world. As a free and resourceful nation, America must accept its obligations to lead in the world, and we must do so fully and without apology. As we debate how much the war on terrorism will cost; as we question how long the war will last; as we seek answers to how long it will take to bring stability to Iraq, let us realize that none of those important questions negates the righteousness of our cause and the necessity of our actions. The enemies of freedom know what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. If those nations fall back into the dark days of oppression and terror, those who seek the destruction of the United States will have achieved a significant victory--preserving abroad a climate of tyranny and breeding ground for terrorism. They are fighting to defeat our allies and us. The danger facing us is not that we will be drawn further into a difficult situation but that we will lose our will and quit before the work is done. In the past the terrorists have taken undue comfort from our lack of resolve. They believe that if they create enough chaos and generate enough American casualties, we will give up. They are wrong. We will not give up because we cannot afford to have the front lines of the war drawn in the United States. We will not give up because we will never forget those who died in the Twin Towers, and at the Pentagon and in a lonely field in Pennsylvania. We will not give up because in the words of President John F. Kennedy, ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' Our enemies have declared war on us and they intend to win. We can fight the war on our terms or on theirs, but we cannot opt out. We cannot let the calls for an ``exit strategy'' become calls to retreat. May we have the wisdom to understand that this war is not about politics or elections, it is about survival. May we have the patience to know our mission is worthwhile. It is about ensuring that our children and grandchildren will inherit a nation that is free and just and whole. Our oath of office demands we meet these responsibilities to provide for the common defense. Mr. Speaker, two years ago a cartoon published in the national news media pictured a young girl seated on her father's lap responding to a news article of the September 11 attacks on America. She asked him, ``Will we hate back?'' Two years later the answer is clear. Children of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks are reading the names of their loved ones into the record at Ground Zero in New York City. They are not doing it with hatred and vengeance but with remembrance and love. This is America's answer to those who would destroy us, and it is answer for future generations and the world.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for their terrific work on this legislation. I also thank my colleague and ranking member of the Veterans Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for all of his work. These are bipartisan products. These are legislative products that have been worked on on both sides of the aisle by all of us working together for the common good of our veterans and for those who serve them. I am sure my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) will talk quite a bit about the SHAD portion of this legislation, and I will leave that to him, but I want to highlight two other parts of this legislation that I think are so important. The first one is the one that guarantees that a qualified VA registered nurse is not denied promotion to a higher job because that nurse fails to have a certain educational degree. During my period of service on active duty in the U.S. Army, I went to infantry OCS, and at infantry OCS, I trained with a lot of enlisted personnel, sergeants, E-5s, E-6s and E-7s who decided to go to infantry OCS to get that commission to get that lieutenant's bar and to lead men in combat in Vietnam. A number of those highly qualified enlisted persons who went to OCS did not have college degrees, and yet they accumulated awards for valor in service and led their men successfully in the war zone. When the war was over, they lost their commissions. They were given the choice of getting out of the service or going back to enlisted rank. That made no sense to me. It made no sense to me that somebody who had been successful in leading men in combat and in battle in an infantry assignment would be denied that commission at a future date simply because they did not have the educational qualifications. The same principle is at stake here. Why should a qualified VA registered nurse be denied a promotion on the basis of the fact that that nurse does not have a specific educational degree? We can do better than that. This bill fixes that problem. Let me refer also to one other portion of this legislation that I think is so important, and that I think establishes fairness for those who serve us in the VA. Veterans Canteen Service food workers are not eligible currently for career service or competitive service positions because of their current position within the Canteen Service. Well, low and behold, I began my Army career as an Army cook. I began my Army career as an Army cook. Nobody said at the time you cannot go on to go to OCS, officer candidate school, and get a commission and go up through the ranks and eventually retire as a colonel. Nobody said that at the time. So why do we say that to the canteen workers? Why do we say we are going to offer you a job as a Canteen Service worker, but it is a dead-end job. You are never going to be able to aspire to anything higher. That does not make any sense to me, and I do not think it makes any sense to the men and women who work in these positions. So I thank my leaders in the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and I also thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for their hard work on this legislation, which brings about reforms into the system that are so long overdue.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 478 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a member of my community and a revered member of the community of music lovers around the world. I honor Eva Franchi for keeping alive the memory and tradition of her late, great husband, Sergio Franchi and I honor her for her work on behalf of aspiring musicians through the Sergio Franchi Music Scholarship Foundation. Sergio Franchi was one of the greatest romantic, popular tenors of the 20th Century. This, the 10th anniversary of the memorial concert, fulfills a dream of Eva Franchi's--the dream for romantic classical music to live on through future young tenors and sopranos, so that through them, the memories and music of Sergio can live on. Over the years, I have attended this wonderful concert many times. I am honored to have Sergio Franchi's memory preserved in my own community of Stonington, Connecticut. Sergio was, and Eva continues to be, a dedicated supporter of the arts. This foundation has been established to continue the dream Sergio had--that is to help fund talented and deserving musicians. In the 10 years since the foundation's inception, Eva has been able to award more than 120 scholarships and awards to students of vocal studies, young tenors and sopranos, with the hope that through beautiful, romantic classical music, Sergio's spirit may be kept alive. The great Scottish historian and essayist Thomas Carlyle wrote, ``Music is well said to be the speech of angels.'' Sergio Franchi was born with the gift of music and those of us who have heard him sing know very well what Mr. Carlyle was referring to. Mr. Speaker, Eva Franchi lives by the commitment of her husband to promote and foster a love of music through young voices of the future. On behalf of the rest of my staff, I wish to express our gratitude to Mrs. Eva Franchi for her devotion to the arts and for her dedication to preserving the memory of her husband through the Sergio Franchi Music Scholarship Foundation. Eva, speaking for all members of Congress, we thank you for your service to our community, and thank you for your service and dedication to the classical musicians of the future.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Lou Strom of Enfield, CT who is leaving the political arena after 22 years of dedicated service to the people of Northeastern Connecticut. Mary Lou has set a standard of excellence for those engaged in local politics. Having served for 8 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission and another 14 years on the Enfield Town Council, Mary Lou has become a familiar face to Connecticut politics and has truly made a difference in her community. What is most exceptional about Mary Lou is her understanding that it is our fellow citizens who are most important in the political process. All of us know that if democracy is to work properly, quality leadership is required at every level of government, and Mary Lou has proven to be that type of leader. Because of Mary Lou's service, Enfield and the surrounding communities are a better place in which to live, work and raise a family. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the service of Mary Lou Strom as she leaves the political arena. She has been a blessing to her community and her country and will be greatly missed.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, since colonial days, Stonington Borough has been tied to fishing. Today it is the home to Connecticut's only commercial fishing fleet, and I am proud to be its congressional representative. Commercial fishing continues to rank as one of the most hazardous occupations in America. According to the United States Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual fatality rate for commercial fishermen is about 150 deaths per 100,000 workers. In order to increase the level of safety in the fishing industry, the U.S. Coast Guard require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices or immersion suits; Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB); visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining life rafts, immersion suits, and EPIRBs must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources. Commercial fishermen should not have to choose between safety equipment and other expenses. That's why I am introducing the ``Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003,'' which would provide for a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1,500 and includes expenses paid or incurred for maintenance of safety equipment required by federal regulation. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Kerry (D-MA) have introduced identical legislation in the Senate. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003 could improve safety by giving commercial fishermen more of an incentive to purchase and care for safety equipment. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping commercial fishermen protect themselves while doing their jobs.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition to this rule because without an amendment that we presented to the Committee on Rules last night, we cannot fix the VA/ HUD appropriations bill, and that bill needs to be fixed. That bill needs an additional $1.8 billion that was carried in the budget resolution that we passed in this body just a few months ago. Over 30 years ago, I went to infantry OCS at Fort Benning, Georgia and I learned there that an officer's word is his bond and I have carried that with me through 3\1/2\ in Vietnam, 37 years in the U.S. Army, 10 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, and 3 years in this body. An officer's word is his bond. And we pledged in April that we would fund veterans health care adequately. This bill does not fund veterans health care adequately. It does not help us keep the promise. It does not allow me to keep my word, which is my bond. Vote against the rule.

Mr. SIMMONS

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment makes sense. These types of emergency preparedness activities have historically taken place within the VA. They should continue to take place within the VA, especially at a time when the United States of America is threatened by chemical, biological and possibly even dirty nuclear weapons; especially when our veterans overseas, those in Iraq in particular, have the potential of being exposed to these types of weapons. We cannot afford to let some bureaucratic arguments get in the way of implementing this legislation. It is important legislation. We cannot afford to get bureaucratic rules in the way of restoring $1.8 billion to this bill, so we can properly fund veterans' health care. I was told earlier this afternoon by a colleague that certain categories of veterans are fully funded. Yes, they are, but that does not meet the obligations and requirements of this body to fund all veterans. In 1996, when we in this Chamber passed unanimously H.R. 3118, no ``no'' votes, we opened the Veterans Health Administration to all veterans. All veterans, to all veterans. We have not kept that promise. In April of this year, when we passed a budget resolution which adequately funded health care to all veterans, to all veterans, we have walked away from that promise as well. I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee or the ranking member; they have done the best they can with the allocation they have. They have done a brilliant job with the allocation they have. But the allocation they have is inadequate for us to meet the promise to our veterans. It is interesting to note that we have money in this bill for cemeteries because if we deny our veterans the health care they deserve and earned, and we have promised to them, we are going to need those cemeteries.