Heather Wilson

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. MR. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the tenor here of the Members, I think, is very appropriate to the man that Joe Skeen was. And I had the opportunity, as the gentlewoman knows, to serve with him here for the 5 years that he was here, and I always felt that he was a good friend. He was very serious about New Mexico. And whenever I had any question about New Mexico issues or any other issues, for that matter, he was somebody that I could go to the other side of the aisle and sit down with and talk with and visit with. So it is with great sadness, I think, that all New Mexicans feel his passing away. And I think all Members of Congress that have served here with him know that he was of the old school. He cared very much about bipartisanship. He cared about this institution. He was somebody that, I think many years hence, we will remember him and regret his passing. So I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and look forward to participating with her later in the day in the special order.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his comments. Again, there will be an opportunity for Members to remember Joe and his contributions to this House and to this Nation later on this afternoon.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House a little over 5 years, and we have managed three times in the House of Representatives to pass a prescription drug bill. Finally, this year the Senate passed a bill, too, which gave us a historic opportunity to provide a desperately-needed benefit for the people that I represent, and the people that we all represent. The truth is that Medicare is stuck in a 1960s model of health care, a system that will pay claims instead of improve the quality of people's health. We have a health care system that had to be changed because it will pay $28,000 to amputate the feet of a diabetic and will not pay $29.95 a month for the Glucophage so that they can keep their feet. This system needed reform desperately because the people who rely on it need that medicine. That meant that we had to work hard to find the common ground that could make it through the House and the Senate. But it was about time. It was about time for a voluntary prescription drug benefit added to Medicare, supported by dozens of interest groups in this country, to provide some equity and some help, particularly to low-income folks who cannot afford their medicine and those who are very sick. That is what we did. This House as a whole and this institution will look back on this day when the President of the United States signed that bill as a tremendous change for health care for seniors in this country, and I thank God for it.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this is what is called special orders, and it is an opportunity for Members to come to the floor of the House and talk about a particular topic, and today it is our sad duty to honor a friend and colleague of many in this House. Congressman Joe Skeen passed away last night in Roswell, New Mexico, after a long battle with Parkinson's disease, and this is an opportunity tonight for many of his friends to come to honor him. Mr. Speaker, Joe Skeen retired in January of this year after 22 years of service in the House, and the 2nd District of New Mexico is now represented by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my good friend, and I yield to the gentleman from southern New Mexico.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), a dear friend of Joe Skeen over the years, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, who served alongside Joe as one of the other cardinals.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my colleague from northern New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from northern New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, all of us are going to miss Joe Skeen. All of us have our Joe Skeen stories and things that make us chuckle when we are walking around this place remembering him. Joe was a sheep rancher. He has a ranch between Ruidoso and Roswell in the Hondo River Valley, which is a long way from just about everywhere. In fact, his ranch is 17 miles from pavement in the rural part of New Mexico. In a lot of ways, Joe was a man of the West, a gentleman. He loved New Mexico, loved its rural way of life, and fought in this body for those ways of life to be protected. He opposed grazing fee increases and defended property rights and water rights. And even while he served here in the Congress and got accustomed to wearing soft-soled shoes on these granite floors instead of his preferred cowboy boots, he continued to ride and work the ranch with Mary and the kids and just one hired hand. I can remember times here when they were doing State of the Union, and Joe always sat in the same place in this House. Whenever you needed to find Joe Skeen, you always knew where he would sit, in the back row in the far right, over in the corner. He was there, no matter what. And during the State of the Union one year, I heard a big ``yippee'' and a whistle from the back right corner of this room, and everyone in the whole room knew it was Joe Skeen. There is probably only one guy who can whistle and ``yippee'' like that, and who had the guts to do it on the floor of the House of Representatives during the State of the Union. Joe Skeen said what he thought, and he said it in a direct way, and he stuck by his guns. He kept his word. He was a gentleman of the West. When I was elected, I came here in a special election, and I had only 17 hours between when they counted the last votes and when I was on an airplane to fly here to Washington with my family. I did not even know where my predecessor's office was or how to get a key. There was a reception after the swearing in here on the House floor in Joe Skeen's Agriculture appropriations room. I was completely lost and somebody helped me find this reception, and my vote card was not even cool from the laminating machine when those bells went off. Not only did I not know what I was supposed to do, I had no idea where I was or where I was supposed to go or how to get there. And Joe Skeen said, ``Come on, gal, you are coming with me.'' And for the next 5 years of my service here, so many times I was with him. In 1960 when Joe Skeen started out in the State Senate, I was not even born, but he took responsibility for the stewardship of the next generation of young legislators from New Mexico. Joe Skeen was a physical man. He was a rancher and a flyer and a cowboy, and that made it particularly hard for his friends and staff and family to see the ravages of Parkinson's in his later years. There is a statue here in the House. It is in the hallway between this new modern Chamber that we use today and the old House. It is a statue of Will Rogers. Will Rogers was a man who understood the American spirit, a man who loved his country deeply, a man with a tremendous dry sense of humor that caused us to understand ourselves so much better. Joe Skeen was a lot like Will Rogers, and whenever I walk by that statue, I will always think of Joe. Humor is a bridge between people over the things that divide us, and Joe Skeen had so much of it. I once walked up to him on the floor of this House and I said to him, my son was 5 years old at the time, and I said, Joe, my son Joshua thinks he wants to be a farmer, and Joe said, well, you send him to me, I will knock some sense into him. There is no money in it. And we had a good laugh. Everyone in this body has had a good laugh with Joe Skeen. Our thoughts and prayers go out tonight to Mary, to his children, the many staff members who have worked with him over the years, and to the wonderful people of New Mexico who were served so well by him.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago spam was a nuisance, and now it is a nightmare. It is interrupting people's legitimate use of the Internet and their ability to communicate without having a lot of junk to go through every morning. I think today is a great victory for consumers and for parents. Parents should not have to worry about the kinds of things coming into their kids' inboxes. For the first time, Americans who use the Internet and get e-mail will have the right to say take me off your list, I do not want this in my house. That is a tremendous right to be given to citizens in this Nation. I am glad we have a strong bill with strong enforcement that requires labels for sexually explicit material, and allows users to opt out without having things that are required to be viewed in order to do so. E-mail has been called the ``killer ap'' of the Internet, the killer application. And now today, we are saying that the people who use it are going to have the right to take it back and own it without an encumbrance by spammers. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) with whom I have been working on this issue for over 4 years, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who has also been a wonderful leader in this effort, as well as the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for their efforts. We have put together a good bill, and it is a better bill because we have all worked on it together.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced, long term energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, keep the lights on and preserve the beauty of the land we love and I think this bill promotes this aim. This legislation is good for our environment and will create nearly 1 million new jobs. I commend Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Domenici for putting this important piece of legislation together. I want to highlight three provisions in this bill that I think are important. first, section 602 of this bill extends Price-Anderson indemnification for 20 years to 2023. Price-Anderson is a critical component of our national energy policy. Nuclear energy is a viable energy source that helps us keep our air clean and reduces our reliance on foreign sources of energy. Without extending Price-Anderson indemnification, there would be a severe negative impact on private investment in nuclear energy and nuclear related research at Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The Price-Anderson Act, first passed in 1957 as part of the Atomic Energy Act, has encouraged the development of the nuclear industry, while protecting the public by allowing DOE to fine its contractors for safety violations. It subjects contractor employees and directors to criminal penalties for violating nuclear safety rules, and provides immediate insurance compensation to the public in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear accident at a commercial power plant or a DOE facility. The Act also consolidates in a single federal court all lawsuits arising from an accident and reduces delays often associated with such cases. The federal payout provisions in the Act have never been used, but its existence has allowed private investment in nuclear energy to go forward. Price-Anderson is a critical component of our national energy policy. Nuclear energy is a viable energy source that helps us keep our air clean and reduces our reliance on foreign sources of energy. Additionally, extending Price-Anderson indemnification would protect 61,800 jobs at 103 plants nationwide. Second, I strongly support Section 1285, the FERC refund authority provisions. These provisions ensure that prices charged for wholesale power sales, regardless of seller, must meet FERC's ``just and reasonable'' standard and allows FERC to recover proceeds from the largest public power utilities in the event that they gouge consumers. FERC is pursuing multiple investigations into allegations of overcharging and manipulation in western electricity markets by sellers. However, some of these entities have filed lawsuits challenging FERC's legal authority to order them to pay refunds. This provision clarifies FERC's authority to order refunds from wholesale power sellers if they charge prices that are not ``just and reasonable.' Third, I also strongly support Section 1522, the underground storage tank compliance provisions. In the mid-1980's Congress mandated that all petroleum underground storage tanks (``USTs'') be upgraded, replaced, or closed by December 22, 1998. To assist the EPA and the states to implement the 1998 deadline, Congress in 1996 established the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (``LUST'') Trust Fund and enacted a 0.1 cent per gallon federal tax on petroleum products--the proceeds from which are directed to the LUST Trust Fund. According to the Administration's FY 2004 budget, the LUST Trust Fund balance at the end of 2030 will be $2.0 billion; Trust Fund tax collections in 2003 will be $183 million; and, the Trust Fund will earn $85 million in interest in 2003. Despite this huge fund balance, the Bush Administration has requested only $72 million be appropriated from the Trust Fund for FY 2004--below the amount of interest the Trust Fund will earn during the year. This legislation will ensure that an adequate percentage of funds appropriated from the LUST Trust Fund is delivered to state UST programs for proper regulatory enforcement and remediation assistance and that all UST owners and operators--including government agencies, commercial operators, and native American tribes--are held to the same standards and comply with existing regulations. It also will provide funds to the states to develop a UST operator training programs based on EPA guidelines.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit hard for me to understand why we are going to vote on this motion to instruct or why my colleague from Nevada has offered it, because the conference committee on the Medicare bill has already agreed that we are not going to have the provisions in there that she is worried about that we are going to adjust the physician payments. In fact, the American Medical Association has written to us asking us to strongly oppose the Berkley motion to instruct and urges the conference to pass the pending Medicare conference report. So, in fact, I think the problem that the gentlewoman has addressed or has identified here has already been addressed in the conference report to the satisfaction of physicians nationwide. Perhaps to explain this a little bit more fully we will turn to a physician. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is an OB-GYN and he has worked very hard on issues related to health care.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think all of us agree that Medicare is one of the most successful health care programs in the history of this country, and I think all of us have a right to be proud of what we are about to accomplish here because we have been elected to make a difference. All of us come here to make a difference on things that matter to the people that we serve, and a large number of national organizations, including the AARP and the American Medical Association, the hospital association, have all endorsed what we are about to accomplish. I am very pleased to welcome this evening the other doctor from the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to explain further what this bill is going to do for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes I feel here like we are looking through the looking glass, like in the Alice in Wonderland book. Sometimes things people say do not make any sense to me at all. I do not understand how can people say we have underfunded, when we are just about to add $400 billion in new benefits to Medicare. When Medicare was started back in 1965, medicine was only 1 percent of the cost of health care. We did not have the miracle medicines that we have today. Cancer, the diagnosis of cancer in 1965, was a death sentence. Today, people survive it because of medicine. And yet we have a system under Medicare that will pay for a diabetic to go into the hospital and have their foot amputated but will not pay $29.95 a month for the Glucophage to control blood sugar. That is why so many seniors in New Mexico have opted for something called Medicare+Choice, because that is the only thing in Medicare that has given them something of a prescription drug benefit. Now, this is my card as a Member of Congress. I am actually a member of an HMO, like a whole lot of New Mexicans. It is very common in New Mexico. Forty percent of seniors in New Mexico take advantage of these kinds of plans because it has given them some choice and some options, when Medicare has not given them that choice before. What we are adding to Medicare this week is a guaranteed benefit not just for people who are fortunate enough to live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, but for everybody else who has not had that opportunity: a guaranteed benefit under Medicare to add prescription drugs. That reduces the cost of medicine for everybody, and that gives people choices and options. I think people want choices. If you are in Santa Rosa, New Mexico, maybe you want to get your prescription drugs by mail order. My family, we like to get it at the pharmacy, at the Journal Center at Loveless, just because that is convenient for us; but seniors should have those choices. The other thing I think is important to seniors is that this is voluntary. If there is a senior, and I know a lot of veterans who are already covered by the VA or folks who have earned their health benefits through employment and they have great retiree plans, they do not have to sign up for this if they do not want to. But for those who do not have that coverage now, they will have the opportunity to get prescription drugs through Medicare. Now, why does all this matter? I mean, we talk here about deductibles and donuts and all these kind of things; but I had somebody call my office recently, her name is Bertha Griego, and she is a wonderful lady who is 74 years old. She has lived all her life in New Mexico, and she talks with affection about the 1929 Model T her dad had driving around the dirt roads of New Mexico. She is a wonderful lady. And like most of our parents and grandparents, she has a growing list of ailments. Some of them are serious; some of them are just annoying. But prescription drugs have allowed her to live a relatively healthy life in her senior years. Last year, she paid $1,700 for the whole year just in copayments for her medicine. She is on a fixed income. Her husband, Robert, also has medical bills; and he gets Social Security. He has a small pension. All together they earn about $16,000 a year. Well, when you pay the groceries and the light bill and the heating bill, the checking account gets a little short by the end of the month. And that happened recently. Mrs. Griego ran out of money in the checking account 7 days before the next check came in. She also ran out of Lovexil, which is a medicine she takes for her thyroid problem. The pharmacist told her if she did not buy her medicine in the next 7 days, she would get a little groggy and tired in the meantime. And that is what happened. But Mrs. Griego could not get her pills until she had her check. In New Mexico, 52 percent of seniors are low income, including Bertha and Robert. When we pass this legislation, and we get this program in place, Bertha and Robert will not have to wait for the next Social Security check to come in to buy their medicine. And that is why this matters. That is why we have a responsibility to do what we can with what we have from where we are and start making a difference for the problems that affect the people we care so much about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not force anybody to join an HMO, but seniors have the right to choose to get their medicine from managed care if they want to. Or if they want to, they can choose a stand-alone prescription drug plan or they can have it integrated with a fee-for- service plan that works for them. People choose different ways to get their health care. My family has made our choice, and we are comfortable with why we make those choices for a lot of reasons, but we should have enough variety in this new system so we do not have a one-size-fits-all system, and that seniors have the right to choose, whether it is a stand-alone prescription drug program, a mail order program, added to fee-for-service, or rolled into a managed care plan, if that is what citizens want, that is what we have tried to do. I have to say, in the end, this program is being supported by a pretty broad array of organizations who see it for what it is, a very good step towards providing prescription drugs to seniors in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not old enough to join AARP, but since they have become such a big part of this debate, I want to read what they have said. It is not an unqualified endorsement. I have never seen the perfect bill yet in this job, but it is a pretty good bill. I think the AARP came to that conclusion. I would like to enter their statement into the Record, but maybe reading some parts will explain where they are coming from. It is dated November 17, 2003, AARP endorses Medicare prescription drug bill, and this is directly from them. ``AARP today announced its strong endorsement of the prescription drug bill offered by the conference committee and will work vigorously for its passage. ``AARP believes that millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation. Though far from perfect, the bill represents an historic breakthrough, an important milestone in the Nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens at a time when it is sorely needed. ``The bill will provide prescription drug coverage at little cost to those who need it most: People with low incomes, including those who depend on Social Security for all or most of their income. It will provide substantial relief for those with very high drug costs, and will provide modest relief for millions more. It also provides a substantial increase in protections for retiree benefits and maintains fairness by upholding the health benefit protections of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. ``AARP is pleased by the improvements made to the conference report in recent days. A new structure called ``premium support'' which required competition between traditional Medicare and private plans was downsized to a limited test starting in 2010, which has significant protections for those in traditional Medicare. The government will provide coverage in areas where private plans fail to offer coverage. The integrity of Medicare will be protected. ``An unprecedented $88 billion will encourage employers to maintain existing health retiree benefits. The legislation will help speed generic drugs to market and add important new preventive and chronic care management services. Finally, this legislation protects poor seniors from future soaring prescription drug costs. ``AARP is launching a national grassroots, advertising and information campaign this week to explain the legislation and urge bipartisan support for its passage.'' Sometimes we get the kind of lukewarm endorsement around here that Members just pull a sentence or two of. This is not one of them. This is unqualified support from an organization that is not known for supporting Republican provisions in bills, frankly. And I think we got to this point because we put aside partisanship and politics and focused on making a difference for the people that we came here to serve. I think we have a right to be proud of what this body and this Congress as a whole is about to achieve this week. I welcome and commend the AARP for setting aside its traditional focus on sometimes which party Members are in and focusing on policy and not on politics. AARP Endorses Medicare Prescription Drug Bill AARP today announced its strong endorsement of the prescription drug bill offered by the conference committee and will work vigorously for its passage. AARP believes that millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation. Though far from perfect, the bill represents a historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens at a time when it is sorely needed. The bill will provide prescription drug coverage at little cost to those who need it most: people with low incomes, including those who depend on Social Security for all or most of their income. It will provide substantial relief for those with very high drug costs, and will provide modest relief for millions more. It also provides a substantial increase in protections for retiree benefits and maintains fairness by upholding the health benefit protections of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. AARP is pleased by the improvements made to the conference report in recent days. A new structure called ``premium support'' which required competition between traditional Medicare and private plans was downsized to a limited test starting in 2010, which has significant protections for those in traditional Medicare. The government will provide coverage in areas where private plans fail to offer coverage. The integrity of Medicare will be protected. An unprecedented $88 billion will encourage employers to maintain existing health retiree benefits. The legislation will help speed generic drugs to market and add important new preventive and chronic care management services. Finally, this legislation protects poor seniors from future soaring prescription drug costs. AARP is launching a national grassroots, advertising and information campaign this week to explain the legislation and urge bipartisan support for its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is true the VA does negotiate very hard to get low costs for veterans in their system; and the reason and the way they do that is the same way we are going to see under these new plans because it is kind of like when Americans go down to Costco or Price Club, when buying in bulk, consumers are going to get a better price.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to answer the gentleman's question in my own way here. The VA does negotiate low prices because they have the leverage of having a lot of people who use the medicine. That is the same concept we are applying here, that there are large groups of people who can get a better price and get lower costs because they do it together. There is a group rate, just like we do if we go into Denny's with a large party, diners get a group rate and a lower cost. The estimates are that the cost of medicine will go down between 15- 25 percent, and we do not say that there has to be a Medicaid price. The companies can negotiate a low price, as low as they can get, and we give them leverage to do so. I think that is the way to go. And I think that guaranteed benefit is the way to go in this program. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we are about this week to pass historic legislation that has been a long time in coming. This House has passed Medicare prescription drug bills twice before, but this is the first time that the Senate has also passed something and we can meet together in the middle. Contrary to the protestations by some of my colleagues, there actually were Democrats in the room, Senator Baucus and Senator Breaux have both signed onto this approach, and without their support, we would not be passing this bill. I think that is important. I think it is important to set some of those partisan things aside and try to get things done, recognizing that it is not perfect, but we are getting something done for the people who need it. It is voluntary. It gives people choices. It gives the most help to those who are low income and those who have high medicine costs because they are very sick. For the first time in Medicare, we are going to really focus on chronic disease management so that we improve the quality of life of seniors in addition to extending the length of life. The biggest problem in Medicare today is that not enough seniors can afford life-saving medicine. We need to add this prescription drug benefit to Medicare. I told Members about a lady in my district and there is another one I met who is a great grandmother. Her name is Ella May Naser. She is older than Medicare. She is about to be 98 years old, and she is still sharp as a tack. She is on her own now, but in August of every year she has to change her health care plan from one Medicare+Choice system to another because she only gets about $685 a month, and at some point the prescription drug benefit runs out in her plans. She has one medicine to control her high blood pressure, another to prevent degenerative bone disease, and another one for glaucoma. She has family that helps her sort all of these things out and try to make sure that her plans cover what she needs because they know she will stop taking her medicine if she does not have the money to pay for it. This plan will help people like her. That is why we are doing this. That is why we have to set aside the little differences in order to accomplish the big things that people send us here to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3288 is a technical corrections bill that will allow New Mexico to use $14 million of its unused State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds for low- income children's health. Currently New Mexico has approximately $70 million in unused SCHIP funds which the state cannot access. This bill will allow New Mexico to use 20 percent of these funds, or $14 million, on low-income children in the Medicaid program. This bill keeps these vital health care dollars in New Mexico. It also assures that these dollars are used for children's health, for which they were originally intended. Earlier this year we passed a similar bill signed into law that would allow states, like New Mexico, who had expanded their Medicaid programs for children before the passage of the SCHIP program to use some SCHIP dollars on low-income children eligible for Medicaid. The prior policy essentially penalized states that had done the right thing by expanding coverage for children under Medicaid. Because of a miscalculation in the legislation passed earlier this year, New Mexico may be ineligible to use the SCHIP funds in the manner intended. This bill would correct that mistake and allow low-income children in New Mexico access to important health care dollars they deserve.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honor for me to recognize and pay tribute to the men and women of New Mexico on Veterans Day who have served in the Armed Forces. This solemn occasion, commemorated by the ceremony at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial on November 11, 2003, celebrates the hearts and souls of our veterans who have chosen to make military service an enduring commitment in their lives. This commitment, borne out of a strong sense of duty and patriotism to our principles and to our citizens, has never wavered. Our service men and women have always accepted the hardships imposed on them by their responsibilities, and have been willing to meet any challenge or risk in order to see their missions accomplished. This unwavering loyalty and willingness to serve our country must be commemorated for future generations to remember, and to know that it is because of our veterans that our country continues to remain strong and free. This Veterans Day also marks the 50th anniversary of the cessation of hostilities of the Korean War. The Korean War was fought under conditions that could only be described as brutal and harsh. Despite the difficulty of their orders, the terrain and the fighting conditions, our men and women in uniform performed with tremendous courage and dignity. Their actions during conflict stand as a testament to the strength of our Armed Forces, and our country's resolve to overcome oppression and tyranny in the world. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating these exemplary New Mexicans and the examples of heroism and courage they have displayed by their commitment to America.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to your attention the heroic actions of Annalisha Labastida, an 8-year-old girl who called 911 and stayed calm while her dad had a seizure on Interstate 40. While driving with her dad on Interstate 40, young Annalisha took action when her father had a seizure and blacked out. She maneuvered the truck to a safe stop on the side of the freeway and called 911 for help. She was able to give clear and accurate directions to the emergency operator, which allowed Albuquerque Police to respond quickly to the emergency. Without Annalisha's quick thinking there could have been a major accident where lives may have been lost. Instead everyone came out okay. No one ever told Annalisha what to do if her dad blacked out but she seemed to know exactly what to do to save his life. The consequences of this event could have been tragic however; Annalisha acted heroically and prevented a disaster. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me and all residents of New Mexico in honoring and thanking Annalisha Labastida.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2297. Within the bill there is a provision which is very special to me personally. Millions of men and women have served honorably in the United States military. One of the promises we make to veterans is that they may be laid to rest in a national cemetery, if they so choose, and that their spouse can be buried with them. Today there are 26 million living United States veterans. Behind each of these veterans is a husband or wife who has carried a greater burden than most of us ask our husbands or wives to carry. These spouses are just as important to our Nation as the veterans to whom they are, and were, married. But there is a glitch in the law which denies them their right, as the surviving spouse of a veteran, to be buried in a national cemetery with their husband or wife, in some circumstances. The law also says that if a veteran's spouse dies and he or she remarries, both spouses are eligible for burial in a national cemetery. But, if a veteran dies and the spouse remarries a non-veteran, the spouse can't be buried with their first spouse in a national cemetery. It is this problem that this bill, H.R. 2297, seeks to remedy. Kay Brown is a constituent of mine. She told me the story of her mother, Francis Gilkerson. E.T. Gilkerson met and married Kay Brown's mother, Francis, some 66 years ago. It was during World War II and E.T. signed up as an enlisted volunteer for the Air Force. He was an X-Ray technician stationed in Fresno, California, for three years. After he got out of the service, he and Francis were married for 56 years until he died at the age of 84 in 1993. Some years went by and Francis met an 80-year-old fellow who was also a widower and a neighbor in the mobile home park where they both lived. The two of them were both very lonely and they found comfort and friendship in each others company. Francis was of a generation who would never consider living with somebody unless they were married. She was very concerned that she should be buried with her first husband and did not want to get married for a second time if that right was to be taken away from her. So Kay contacted the local VA on her mother's behalf to check. According to Kay, the VA asked her if her mother and father were still married at the time of his death. The answer was ``yes,'' and the VA said that it wouldn't be a problem for Kay's mom to be buried at the national cemetery in Santa Fe. Francis married her second husband and lived very happily until her death in September of 2000. When Kay Brown was at the mortuary making arrangements for her mothers' cremation, the mortician asked her where she was to be buried. Kay said that she was to be buried at the national cemetery in Santa Fe with her husband of 56 years. The mortician shook his head and said that wasn't possible because her second husband was not a veteran. When Kay called the VA again after her mother's death, they told her that the law prohibited her mother from being buried with her father because she had remarried a non-veteran who was living when Kay's mom died. The VA gave Kay the wrong information when she first asked, and their error has caused heartache for Kay and her family. But the prohibition is in the law. The ashes of Kay's mother, Francis, are still in a closet at Kay's house. But there are thousands of other widows and widowers in the same situation. The law gives the surviving veteran's spouse (many of them elderly women) a Hobson's choice: live alone in order to keep your burial right, or give up your right to be buried with your first spouse, to have companionship in your sunset years. H.R. 2297 would allow surviving spouses to remarry and still be buried in a national cemetery with their first spouse if they choose.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 25, 2003, I voted against the Kind motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Modernization Act, when I intended to vote in the affirmative. The rolreall vote was 522. Let the record show I intended to vote ``yea'' on the motion.

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to your attention Project Heat's On, a community service endeavor that provides invaluable services to the elderly and handicapped in New Mexico and around the country. Project Heat's On began ten years ago to help ensure that needy citizens have the heat and smoke detection services so critical during the winter. Sponsored by the Mechanical Contractors Association, the event takes place nationally every year and involves thousands of contractors volunteering to help their communities. On October 4, local contractors in Albuquerque, New Mexico and throughout my home state will once again volunteer to provide free safety inspections and repairs of heating systems as well as new smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors to improve homeowners' safety. This project is notable not just because of the services it provides but because of the cooperation it represents. U.A. Local 412 and MCA of New Mexico have participated with United Way, the Office of Senior Affairs, and the Red Cross to work for 1200 of New Mexico's low-income elderly and handicapped citizens over the past years. Project Heat's On thus demonstrates not only a commitment to community but a willingness of labor, management, and government to work together. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me and all the residents of New Mexico in honoring and thanking the Mechanical Contractors Association and its partners for ten years of providing warm and safe homes for the winter ahead.