Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I introduced the Department of Veterans Affairs Energy Sustainability Act of 2008, to establish within the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, a strategic plan for energy sustainability and an Office of Energy Management. As our country looks to a new energy future, I believe it is vitally important to encourage smart energy use and take steps to become more aware of how we spend our money for our energy. The office would be under the direction of a Deputy Assistant Secretary, who would report to the Assistant Secretary for Management. The bill would also create an Energy Advisory Committee consisting of VA officials and private sector experts on energy management. Disabled veterans would also receive increased specially adaptive housing and auto grants for energy efficient systems and vehicles.

The Office of Energy Management, with the advice and recommendations of the Energy Advisory Committee, would be responsible for helping VA meet a number of specific goals such as compliance with Presidential Order 13423, VA Directive 0055, and formulating long term, sustainable energy plans for VA. The office would also establish a database to track VA's energy and water consumption. The bill would authorize the office to directly utilize the expertise of national laboratories, such as those at Lawrence Livermore and Oakridge.

Addressing our Nation's energy problem calls for multi-faceted solutions--including alternative fuels. My bill would authorize the installation of alternative fuel stations at VA facilities, and require a feasibility study regarding the installation of energy efficient and renewable energy systems in Department buildings. Such systems include solar technologies and energy efficient roof and building envelope systems that might utilize ballasted or vegetated roof systems.

In an effort to assist our Nation's veterans in their efforts to become more energy efficient, my bill would provide an additional amount of up to $10,000 for high efficiency systems for veterans who qualify for specially adaptive housing grants under section 2101 (a)(2) of title 38, United States Code. Additionally, it would provide veterans who qualify for a specially adapted auto grant, under section 3902(a) of title 38, United States Code, the additional amount necessary to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.

Finally, VA would be authorized to conduct a pilot program for the sale of air pollution emission reduction incentives, also known as emission reduction credits, and would be authorized to retain proceeds from the sales. America's veterans should benefit from the VA's efforts to produce cleaner energy.

Madam Speaker, as the cost of fossil fuels rise and resources become more scarce, our Nation must provide services for our veterans in an energy efficient manner. A sustainable energy program at VA will conserve energy and financial resources that can be used to provide care for our veterans. I encourage my colleagues to support the Department of Veterans Affairs Energy Sustainability Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1527, as amended, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act.

I also want to thank my colleague, Jerry Moran, for his efforts and work on this very important bill he introduced to improve access to care for veterans living in highly rural areas. Veterans in rural areas are challenged by long commutes to VA facilities, and the limited number of providers in rural areas.

H.R. 1527 as amended would require VA to conduct a three year demonstration project to allow highly rural veterans in four Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with large rural populations to receive covered services

through non-VA providers. It would give those who live the furthest from VA facilities the choice to receive care closer to home at a local hospital or physician's office. To qualify, a veteran must live at least 60 miles from a VA clinic, 120 miles from a VA hospital or 240 miles from a VA specialized care facility when seeking that care. To ensure continuity of care, the legislation would require VA to develop the functional capability to exchange veterans' medical information between VA and non-VA providers in the pilot. The VA will be required to annually report to Congress on cost, quality, and patient satisfaction.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1527.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2617, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008.

Each year, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs bring before Congress legislation to adjust the compensation our veterans receive through the cost-of-living adjustment. Our Nation's veterans have sacrificed so much for this country, and we fulfill our obligation to them by providing this annual adjustment to their benefits to help them keep up with the cost-of-living. The House already passed H.R. 5826 on May 21, 2008. The bill before us is the Senate version of that same bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide our veterans an increase in their wartime disability compensation, additional compensation for benefits, clothing allowance, dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving spouses, and dependency and indemnity compensation to children. This is an important ``must-pass'' bill, which will ensure our veterans receive the increase to their benefits on time.

I would like to thank Chairman Filner, as well as Disability and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee Chairman John Hall, and Ranking Member Doug Lamborn for their efforts to bring this bill to the House floor in an expeditious manner. Our action on this bill today will be the final action before the bill is presented to the President for signature, and I encourage all my colleagues to support passage of S. 2617, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6832, the Department of Veterans Affairs Construction and Extensions Act of 2008.

This legislation, which I am cosponsoring along with Chairman Filner is a bipartisan measure consisting of the construction bill the House of Representatives passed on May 21, 2008, as well as language from the bill I introduced on August 1, 2008, H.R. 6802, the Veterans Authorities Extension Act of 2008, and additional authorizations.

The provisions included from the Committee reported and House passed construction bill, H.R. 5856, would authorize major VA medical facility projects and leases for fiscal year 2009. Included in this legislation is an authorization of $66 million for construction of a fifth Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center in San Antonio, Texas. VA's four existing Polytrauma Centers are located in Richmond, Virginia; Tampa, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Palo Alto, California.

Mr. Speaker, this past February, I had the pleasure of visiting the Audie Murphy VA Medical Center in San Antonio for a briefing on

this new project, which will provide state-of-the-art care to our severely injured heroes. The VA Polytrauma Centers are designed to provide comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services for individuals with complex, severe and disabling traumas. By creating a fifth Polytrauma Center in San Antonio, our commitment to veterans and servicemembers is reinforced by expanding access to the southwestern United States.

H.R. 6832 also will provide the extension of a number of important authorizations. These include: Repeal of the sunset on inclusion of non-institutional extended care services; Extension of recovery audit authority; Permanent authority for provision of hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to veterans who participated in certain chemical and biological testing; Extension of expiring collections authorities; Extension of nursing home care; Extension of authority to carry out income verification; Extension of certain home loan guaranty programs; Extension of requirement to submit an annual report on the Special Committee on PTSD; Permanent requirement for the biannual report on the Women's Advisory Committee; and Permanent authority for VA's Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (which was previously passed this last July in H.R. 674).

The bill will also increase the number of veterans participating in the VA's Independent Living Program, and will enhance the refinancing of home loans by veterans.

I would like to thank Chairman Filner, as well as Health Subcommittee Chairman Michael Michaud of Maine and Ranking Member Jeff Miller of Florida, for their efforts to bring this legislation through the Committee and on to the House floor for consideration. I would also like to commend the Committee staff for their hard work and bipartisan efforts throughout this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6832, the Department of Veterans Affairs Construction and Extensions Act of 2008.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2008, the Crawfordsville High School Baseball team won the Indiana Class 3A State championship. Ranked number 1 in the preseason polls, the Athenians of Crawfordsville finished right where they were predicted.

The 32-4 Athenians went into the championship game on a 16 game win streak. Strong pitching led the team to its first baseball state title. Pitchers Cameron Hobson and Steven Rice combined forces to only allow 3 hits and had 17 strike outs. In fact, Hobson tied the 3A championship game record with 5 innings played and 11 strike outs recorded.

The Athenians scored single runs in the first, second and fourth innings to take commanding 3-0 lead, and then added two more runs on a sacrifice bunt by Brett Linn and an RBI single by Brett McKinney.

For Coach John Froedge, this victory was a dream come true. He began coaching the Crawfordsville baseball team 27 years ago. This was the first time any of his teams had made an appearance at the State finals.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the Crawfordsville High School Baseball team and coaching staff for a memorable season:

Seniors: Cody Dowell, Blake Harris, Cameron Hobson, Mitchell Ray, Jason Spurlock, Andrew Swart and Justin Wright. Juniors: Quinten Anderson, Scott Hunt, Brett Linn, Brentt McKinney, Josh Rager and J.D. Rice. Sophomores: Andrew Allen, A.J. Ehrlich, Austin Evans and Steven Rice. Head coach: John Froedge. Assistant Coaches: Tony Bean, Brandon Froedge, Ashley Lucas, Brett Motz and Rhett Welliever. Student Managers: Justin Dugger, Rogge Merriman and Matt Musselman.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 the McCutcheon High School Softball team won the Indiana 4A softball state title. The Mavericks of McCutcheon narrowly defeated Franklin Central High School 2-1.

This was McCutcheon's first state championship in any girls sport though this year marked their third state finals and second championship game in four years.

This victory did not come easy for McCutcheon. Mother Nature intervened in their path to the championship. On Friday, June 6, 2008 lightning forced the semifinal game to be postponed. The next day, rain washed the game out. Finally, on Sunday they were able to start their semifinal game against LaPorte only to have it suspended after 4 innings. When the game was suspended, the Mavs had the lead.

Due to the weather, the Lady Mavs were forced to play a doubleheader on Tuesday. They finished their semifinal game against LaPorte, and then carried that momentum into the State Championship game against Franklin Central.

It is difficult to play a doubleheader under any circumstances, much less a championship atmosphere, but McCutcheon was up for the challenge. They were trailing in the bottom of the fourth inning when junior Tristan Wilcox knocked in the tying run with an RBI single, and then Maggie Tull scored the go-ahead run.

Pitcher Tori Collins was able to secure the victory by holding Franklin Central off to 5 hits and struck out 11 batters the whole game. These young ladies showed amazing determination against adversity and drive. After three years of almost achieving the ultimate victory, the Mavs achieved their ultimate goal.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the McCutcheon High School softball team and coaching staff:

Seniors: Tori Collins, Kristen Garza, Kendra Julian and Maggie Tull. Juniors: Maggie House, Brittany Keller, Megan Millikan, Angel Neal, Kelsey Rummel, Kaylee Smith, Meg Teller and Tristan Wilcox. Sophomores: Sarah Copley, Megan Gray and Stephanie Martin. Freshmen: Cassie Leuck and Dani Owens. Head Coach: Jim Bates. Assistant Coaches: Dan Bowsher, Larry Clark, Kayla Doyle, Kathryn Madary and Sarah Haggerty.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would provide $7 million of the amount appropriated in the Department of Veterans Affairs' VA Minor Construction account. These moneys shall be used for the VA to install alternative fueling stations at 35 of its medical facility campuses across the country. This is one of many measures that can be taken to address the impact of the rising energy prices and to alleviate our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

We have an energy crisis in this country, and unfortunately, some are not taking action before we leave on this August break. The House will recess, and we'll go 5 weeks, and we'll not be taking up meaningful energy legislation, but we have an opportunity tonight.

It was in 2007 that President Bush issued executive order 13423, ``strengthening Federal environment, energy and transportation management,'' mandating a reduction of the amount of petroleum consumption for Federal transportation.

In compliance with the President's order, the VA has taken steps to install E-85, ethanol fueling stations, at six VA medical centers--in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in Augusta, Georgia, in Cleveland, Ohio, in Danville, Illinois, in Little Rock, Arkansas, and most recently in San Francisco, California.

I would think that Speaker Pelosi would want other VA facilities in other States and members' districts to have the very same fueling stations that are available at the San Francisco VA medical center in her own congressional district.

According to the VA, it has nearly 11,000 vehicles that collectively travel more than 100 million miles a year. The VA acquired over 1,000 Alternative Fuel Vehicles in FY 2007, and 99 percent of these are flexible fuel vehicles that can use E-85. The installation of alternative fuel stations at more VA sites would have a huge impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases and in the amount of petroleum consumed. Based on recent discussions with the Department, I am confident that, if funding is provided, the VA could install alternative fueling stations at the 35 additional sites.

Mr. Edwards knows full well that he is about $662 million above the President's request and nearly $361 million more than in FY 2008.

So, again, in facing the tremendous energy challenge in this Nation, we must act collectively in a bipartisan fashion to reduce our dependence on bad actors around the world that control our energy supplies. There are more than a dozen alternative and advanced fuels in production and that used today, one of which is E-85, an 85 percent ethanol mixture, which in the United States is based primarily on corn. Investing in the use of alternative transportation fuel services is one way to help increase the supply of American-made fuel.

I think Mr. Edwards and I would agree we're anxious to get to nonedible fiber--cellulosic ethanol.

This use of renewable domestic energy sources will contribute to an enhancement of energy security, and it will reduce the reliance on foreign oil. The installation of alternative fueling stations on VA campuses will reduce greenhouse emissions and the VA's gasoline costs, and it will provide funds for direct health care services for the men and women who have taken the oath to defend the freedoms and our way of life.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to thank Chairman Chet Edwards. I would like to thank Zach Wamp. And to my good friend from Texas that I've worked with for many years, we have a challenge in front of us with regard to an amendment. And the challenge is that I've prepared an amendment that $150 million, Mr. Chairman, would be dedicated under the minor construction account--for which there's a lot of dollars here--for the installation of appropriate solar electric energy roof applications.

Now, we had several meetings, Chairman Edwards, with a lot of lawyers, and the lawyers were looking at the applications of the rules and the processes. The interesting thing is, when we drafted the amendment--we're having the conversation that you said we didn't have time to do in private, so we're having to do it in public. So I have to do it now before we actually get into the details of the amendment.

So when I did the amendment, we put it at the end, on page 41 here, line 14. Now, when I put it there on the applications of solar, my assumption is that when you then look at all the general authorities, section 316, that's about colocation authority; section 2404, that's administration; 2406 is acquisition; 8102 is also acquisition--one is acquisition of land, 2406; 8102 is acquisition of medical facilities; 8103, that's minor construction. All these other sections have nothing to do with solar.

So my assumption, Mr. Chairman, when I put this in here, I did not put at the end of the amendment ``at VA medical facilities.'' My assumption is that, well, we're not going to put it on tombstones, we're not going to put it in a parking lot, and it doesn't apply anywhere else.

But when I talked with the lawyers, they're like, you know, Steve, you just can't do it like that. And you need to actually have at the end the words ``at VA medical facilities.'' So now I've got myself in a bit of a jam.

Now, Mr. Edwards, we can do this several ways: I could offer the amendment. I could then present all the arguments of solar and what the VA is presently doing in the 16 sites that they're proceeding with. And if you say, well, but I don't like the amount, I could do a UC, we could agree to a particular amount, we could add the language. We go to conference. If you say, nope, we're not going to have anything, okay. Well, what could I do? I could look at your language--which is general language--and say, well, that's fine; whatever you do at conference, that's fine with me. I'll just go down and I'll work with the Secretary. I'll negotiate with the Secretary and I'll take whatever those monies are and we'll do it that way.

But what I want to do with you, Chairman Edwards, is that you and I have worked together a lot over the years. And you and I are in agreement when it comes to alternative sources of energy. So let's be practical. If you want to say to me, Steve, don't do $150 million; lower the amount, add the language, we'll work this out in conference and we'll work with the Secretary, that's how we work these things out.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I would like to reclaim my time and now have a conversation with the chairman. You said you wanted to have one.

I'm going to give great deference here, which way do you want me to go?

Reclaiming my time, when I make the UC to add ``at VA medical facilities,'' what amount do you feel is reasonable?

I yield to the chairman.

What amount do you think is reasonable?

I reclaim my time. I will offer the amendment, we'll go through the procedures, we'll talk about solar, and we'll work with you as we go to conference. If it's not there, I'll just go right down Pennsylvania Avenue and I'll work with the administration and we'll get the number necessary to fund the 16 sites. That's how the town works.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $150 million of the amount appropriated in the Department of Veterans Affairs minor construction account for the installation of solar electronic roof applications.

Qualified solar technologies to be considered included, but not limited to,

distributed thin-film solar, amorphous crystalline, nano photovoltaic, and technology systems. What we're trying to do is harness the energy of the sun.

Alternative and renewable sources, such as solar power--whether it's wind, geothermal, hydrogen, biomass--all of these are extremely important. They play an important role in addressing rising energy prices and alleviate our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

We have an energy crisis in this country. Peak oil is approaching year 2037. We need to rebalance the Nation's portfolio. And in order to do that, we increase our Nation's energy supply to bridge ourselves beyond the alternative energy future in which we seek. We must begin to act and to take decisive measures to address the impact of high energy costs on the Department of Veterans Affairs.

VA medical centers consume large amounts of energy, especially for advanced technologies such as CAT scans, MRIs, that are necessary to provide state-of-the-art medical technologies.

Between 2005 and 2007, VA's energy costs increased by 20 percent. Last year, the VA identified 16 potential sites for solar projects. It's in Calverton, New York; Gustine, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Fresno, California; West Los Angeles, California; Loma Linda, California; Long Beach, California; Dallas, Texas; Palo Alto, California; Sheridan, Wyoming; Reno, Nevada; Tucson, Arizona; Syracuse, New York; Buffalo, New York; West Haven, Connecticut; and Albany, New York. Yes, I am on the floor asking that we fund 11 Democrat districts and five Republican.

Last year, when they identified these, they did feasibility studies with regard to these 16 sites. This summer, the VA plans to move forward to install rooftop solar systems at two sites, Loma Linda and Dallas.

Solar technologies, they diversify our energy supply, they reduce our dependence on imported fuels, improve our air quality, and offset greenhouse gases.

And I'm also interested that, as we move toward American-made energy solutions, that we buy solar systems that are made in America, not ones that are made in China or in Germany or in other places. We should do it here.

At this point, I would like to clarify the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my amendment, after the word ``applications,'' insert the following: ``At VA medical facilities.''

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the amount of $150 million and insert the amount of $75 million.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we continue to invest now to reduce the energy costs into the future. The opportunity to employ this technology at the VA, the second largest department within the Federal Government, is now.

Now, I had hoped that we could have done this tonight. I'll continue to work with you, Mr. Chairman.

To the country, this isn't a good message to send. I will speak with the Secretary in the morning. I will work with him. I will let him know that you're sending down $662 million above the President's request, $361 million more than FY08. And because he has, right now, these 16 projects, I believe there's more than sufficient funds here to move on solar applications.

I would have hoped that we could have done this in a bipartisan fashion; that is really unfortunate. And I will work with the Secretary to ensure that alternative sources of energy are used in the VA.

With that, I yield back my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to speak on the point of order.

First, it's very unfortunate that solar would be kicked out on an attempt of a technicality. Let me go right to the point of order.

The amendment refers to title 38, U.S. Code, Section 8103. It provides VA the authority to ``construct'' and ``alter.'' So you can see that in the very first line; so 8103(a)(1) ``may construct or alter any medical facility.'' Now, it's any medical facility as the Secretary considers necessary for use of the site. Section 8101 of title 38, United States Code, defines the term ``alter'' with respect to medical facility means to repair, remodel, improve, or extend. So this section 8103 is general authority. Specific authority would come under--and this is minor construction. So under general authority, the Secretary has great discretion. With regard to specific authority, it would come under Section 8104. That would be designations of CBOCs, anything above $10 million comes under Section 8104.

What I refer to, and this is what the Parliamentarians make sure everybody has, it's the House Practice guide, the Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House. So when I go to page 84, the authorization from specific statutes in this paragraph, Mr. Chairman, so this was page 84, and it's entitled under Authorization From Specific Statutes Or General Existing Law; so what I have done is refer to the general law, not the specific. This is the general law. ``Authorization for a program may be derived from a specific law providing authority for that particular program or from a more general existing law,'' which means organic law, or ``authorizing appropriations for such programs.''

So what's happened over the years, it's not like the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Edwards.

Mr. Chairman, we don't bring that annual VA authorization bill. So what has happened over the decades, Mr. Chairman, is that we have always relied on the 8103 as the general authority provision.

Now, if you say, well, Steve, when you look at this amendment, when you look at the amendment, because you don't put ``VA facility'' at the end, well, then we might interpret that as applications to all other sections. Mr. Chairman, that's why I said the mistake that was made was, was that all of these other sections don't even apply to solar. There's only one of these sections that would apply to solar, and that is the medical facilities section, and that is the 8103.

So my appeal to you is that by putting this solar amendment here at the end of the paragraph, there is only one section here in which it applies to, and that's section 8103.

So when the chairman said you don't have the authorization, I would appeal to the Chair that general authority exists within the minor construction statute for us to do this, and that would be my argument on the point of order.

I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion to appeal the ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Part of the challenges that we have been dealing with, some have to do with fiction. The Speaker was just on the floor and referred to promises. If the Speaker would not leave the floor--Madam Speaker?

How fascinating. You see, the Speaker was just on the floor, Mr. Chairman, and spoke fiction. While there had been anecdotal accounts of such promises which she has referred to, there have been no official written accounts of these promises. CRS has done an extensive research of the papers and writings of both President Roosevelt and General MacArthur and have not found any written proof that these promises were made.

It is very unfortunate that the Speaker would not have stuck around to listen to that. Several requests for her to stay on the floor, she turns and just walked on out. Now, why would she do that? She doesn't want to hear the truth. It is better to stand on the floor and just say this.

I appreciate the chairman having withdrawn the amendment since the Parliamentarians were about to rule in my favor, so I appreciate that, that the comments were parliamentary and permissible on the floor.

Let me say, the challenge that we have had here in the committee is that when Mr. Filner brought his bill he needed an offset, and the offset is that in order to come up with $1 billion, he used the Hartness decision. And that would take $1 billion from American veterans. Now, that is what got us all into this.

Now, the gentleman brings an amendment and tries to say, oh, no, I don't want to use the Hartness decision. The Hartness decision is extremely important, Mr. Chairman, and I want to address it here for a moment. Because in the committee itself, when I tried to strike the offset, I was defeated on a party-line vote. And there would be a tough vote here on the floor if we were going to vote to repeal Hartness.

The Hartness decision is that we give a pension to individuals who served during a period of war, are elderly, severely disabled, and indigent. It is bothersome to me that we would deny these individuals that pension to then give to someone else. Therein lies the challenge.

Chairman Edwards and I had a good conversation, and it is the offset with which many of us are uncomfortable about, and we are trying to figure out how best to navigate our way through this issue. And in the same spirit in which we are going to work on solar, we are going to work on this issue. But we are not going to repeal Hartness.

Hartness comes from a 2006 United States Court of Appeals veterans claims decision that overturned the Department of Veterans Affairs decision that denied an 86-year-old legally blind World War II veteran, Robert A. Hartness, a VA benefit called a special monthly pension. That is what they wanted to overturn.

The court reversed the VA's denial of benefits to Mr. Hartness, and required the VA to begin making those payments. The court held that the U.S. law requires an award of the special monthly pension to a veteran eligible for VA nonservice-connected disability pension if, in addition to being at least 65 years of age, he or she has a minimum disability rating of 60 percent or more, or is considered permanently housebound.

The VA determined Mr. Hartness to be 70 percent disabled due to loss of vision, and the VA has also determined that this offset would affect about 20,000 who would file for this type of decision.

So I am most hopeful, I know there is some agreement among myself and other members on both sides of the aisle that if we want to address the issue regarding the Filipino War Veterans of World War II issue, that should be addressed as a standalone. Let's do not repeal or overturn the

Hartness decision because you need $1 billion and so we are going to take it from World War II elderly, disabled, housebound veterans. That is a little bizarre and disturbing to me.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I need to discuss an amendment that was adopted at the committee that is not in this bill today. We, as a country, are facing a tremendous challenge, and that is, with the advent of the Internet, it is very easy for people to get on the Internet; they go to a Web site and they believe that they can order drugs and that the drugs that they order on the Web site can be the very same drugs that they get down at the CVS or the Walgreens or the local community pharmacy.

Every time the FDA does an inspection at our international mail facilities, they discover anywhere from 67 to 90 percent of the drugs that are coming in from the orders of these mail sites, are either adulterated, misbranded or counterfeit drugs.

Now, let's just do the math. Every day, 20 to 30,000 packages, pharmaceutical packages enter each of our 12 international mail facilities every day. The FDA only screens less than 1 percent.

Now, let's think about this. Just take 30 days, for a month, times 400,000 packages, you get 12 million, times 12 months, that is 144 million pharmaceutical packages.

Now, do the math with regard to the number that are either misbranded, adulterated or counterfeit. Now, let's just do really simple math, and just say, okay, we will give a little flexibility in there. That is 100 million pharmaceutical packages that are either adulterated, misbranded or counterfeit. We have a very, very serious problem. Now, that is with regard to the human consumption.

Now, you are saying, Steve, what does that have to do with the Animal Drug Fee User Act here today?

Well, what I had hoped to do is, it is only a matter of time before the bad actors of the world enter this economic space, meaning, if they can scam the American people with regard to human consumption, you know what? It is really going to be easier for them to do this in the animal drug business because you are never going to know why that animal died.

We have a tremendous challenge. The FDA feels that they do not have the authority to destroy these misbranded, adulterated, or counterfeit drugs. So what's happening? You go to an international mail facility. When Customs finds one of those packages, they'll destroy it, but if that package then gets referred to the FDA, FDA feels that they do not have the legal authority to destroy that package.

Now when they feel they don't have the legal ability to destroy, they have adopted a ``return-to-sender'' policy.

Now let's think about this. The bad actors of the world, the counterfeiters and the criminal syndicates, are very sophisticated as to how they move these counterfeit packages from country to country to gain access into our marketplace. Then when we discover that package, the FDA, through their policy now, returns it to the counterfeiter. Think about that. Our own FDA that is there to protect us then becomes the enabler of the counterfeiter. So the counterfeiter takes the person's money and we return the merchandise that's counterfeit to the counterfeiter.

Now that is stupid. That's about as idiotic as I have ever seen.

So what did I attempt to do? Well, we're working on a food and drug safety bill in the committee, and I appreciate the gentlemen's work on both sides of the aisle. It's on human consumption. So what I had hoped to do here was say, Well, let's stop these bad actors and the criminal syndicates and the counterfeiters from entering into animal drugs. Chairman John Dingell agrees with that provision, and it was going to be in here.

The Democrat leadership said, ``No. We can't have that in this bill.'' Now that's a curious and puzzling thing. But what I will say is, and my agreement with Chairman Dingell is that this is an issue as a country in matters of food and drug safety that we, as Republicans and Democrats, must come together to protect the American people and to go after these bad actors around the world, the criminal syndicates who are preying upon America's most vulnerable populations. We have to enjoin together to do this. And that's my pledge to work with Chairman Dingell and Joe Barton and other members of the committee, and I salute Mr. Matheson, for us to do this so not only do we bring protections on the animal side to go after the bad actors, we put protections in place on the human side. And we can do that not only in stopping the bad actors but also including electronic pedigree, and I will work with you to do just that.

Will the gentleman yield?

In my conversations with the chairman, not only last night but also this morning, I will work with the gentleman to make sure that we can have this in the drug safety bill not only on humans but will also protect animals, so we will give the authority to the FDA to destroy. I will work with the gentleman.

But we also brought up in the conversation--I understand that a little pain could have been created here today. I want to work with the majority. In other words, they weren't forced to go through the Rules Committee and then we have a big fight on the floor. I agreed with the chairman. We withdraw the amendment.

But I want to work also--please work with Mr. Matheson and I on the electronic pedigree. It builds off of Chairman Dingell's paper pedigree so we can sophisticate America's systems for American people here as we also then fight the counterfeiters who are trying to gain access into our market. And I'll work with the chairman to do that.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

As we discuss H.R. 1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the question before the House is not whether we want to decrease youth smoking as the bill is purported to do. The question is, after years of headlines and alarming stories about the FDA's failure to protect our Nation's food and drug supplies, do we in Congress believe that the FDA is in a place to take on a multi-billion dollar tobacco industry?

I believe that each one of us agrees that the FDA is under-funded and cannot perform its current functions. Over the past 2 years, this Congress has spent enormous amounts of time negotiating legislation to reauthorize programs such as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and the Medical Device User Fee Act. Not only did we reauthorize the programs as they existed, but we added to these programs and increased the FDA's workload.

In the past several months, there have been numerous hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee to try to determine what needs to be fixed at the FDA so that we can assure the American people that their food, their drugs, and their medical devices are safe.

Unfortunately, we all understand the realities that exist within the FDA. Foreign drug manufacturing facilities are mostly going uninspected by the FDA, and the inspections that take place are not effective. FDA's surveillance over the drugs on our market today is not where it should be. Bad actors are getting into our drug supply chain and diverting good drugs out of the supply chain and bad drugs into the chain. Hundreds of thousands of unregulated and potentially harmful drugs

are streaming into our country's international mail facilities every day and being sent to American homes with no FDA inspection or testing whatsoever. And, these problems only cover the problems with FDA's oversight over our Nation's prescription drug supply. We could go on about the problems that exist with our Nation's food supply.

It is important that we look back at our discussions over the past year in this Congress and the discussions that we have before us over the FDA's lack of resources and ability to fulfill the duties that we have vested in the Agency.

Every morning when I pick up the paper there is a new article about the dangers facing our country due to an underfunded and ill-equipped FDA. A few recent headlines have read:

``FDA inspections lag in overseas drug factories.''--Washington Times (2/28/08)

``FDA Chief is in a Budget Bind.''--WSJ (2/27/08)

``FDA Needs $375 million more to address shortcomings.''--Congress Daily (2/27/08)

In fact, just this morning in an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is quoted as saying, ``There's a total inability of the FDA to carry out its mission.''

Many of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been vocal about the FDA's ineffectiveness in recent congressional testimonies.

The FDA is ``a sorry mess.''--Chairman Dingell (7/17/07)

``The warning signs are clear: FDA is an agency in crisis.''--Henry Waxman (author of the tobacco bill) (5/5/07)

``Unfortunately, as this Committee under both Republican and Democrat leadership has documented, FDA's resources have become woefully inadequate given the agency's expansive mission. Accordingly, the agency's ability to protect American families from unsafe foods, drugs, medical devices, and other products has radically deteriorated.''--Bart Stupak (1/29/08)

Despite these strong statements, these very members want to put a multi-billion dollar industry under an Agency that is not adequately performing its current functions.

The FDA itself has expressed its concerns about being mandated to regulate tobacco. The current FDA Commissioner, Andrew von Eschenbach, outlined his concerns in a recent letter to Members of Congress. Commissioner von Eschenbach wrote, ``Enactment of H.R. 1108 would redirect Agency priorities and resources to a new regulatory area, which is not only inconsistent with FDA's mission, but also diverts attention from the significant public health matters of the safety of food, drugs, biologics and medical devices.''

And, if I remember correctly, none of the last few FDA Commissioners has supported FDA regulating tobacco.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we all think long and hard about that one big question before us today. Is the FDA ready to take on this multi- billion dollar industry in the midst of the challenges already before the Agency today?

I agree that we need to keep tobacco out of the hands of our youth. I agree with the statistics that show that people become addicted to tobacco while they are in their youth. I am concerned about the growing prevalence of disease and death attributable to tobacco in our country.

However, I believe that we have means to increase enforcement in our States to keep tobacco out of our children's hands. We do not need a new government bureaucracy which will inevitably be underfunded and ill-equipped to effectively regulate the tobacco market.

Offered By: Mr. Buyer

Amendment No. 28: Page 41, line 14, before the period

insert ``: Provided further: That $7,000,000 of the amount

appropriated in this paragraph shall be for the installation

of alternative fueling stations at 35 medical facility

campuses''.

Offered By: Mr. Buyer

Amendment No. 29: Page 41, line 14, before the period

insert ``: Provided further: That $150,000,000 of the amount

appropriated in this paragraph shall be for the installation

of appropriate solar electric energy roof applications''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6445, as amended, the Veterans Health Care Policy Enhancement Act of 2008, to amend title 38, United States Code, to make a number of improvements to Department of Veterans Affairs health care policies.

H.R. 6445 is a bipartisan bill that includes provisions from four veterans' health care bills that were introduced by members from both sides of the aisle. I thank our new colleague on the Committee, Don Cazayoux, for introducing this bill.

H.R. 6445 would exempt veterans, who have non-service connected catastrophic injuries, from co-payment requirements for treatment at VA facilities. Such veterans require extensive medical care and many have limited financial means. The bill would also require the VA to implement a comprehensive policy on the management of pain experienced by veterans, encourage HIV testing for veterans, and expand the VA's authority to provide counseling for family members of veterans receiving non-service-connected treatment.

I am pleased that this bill also includes the text of H.R. 6366, the Veterans Revenue Enhancement Act of 2008. I, along with Mike Michaud, Jeff Miller and Henry Brown, introduced this bipartisan legislation to help VA better manage third-party collections, and provide additional fiscal responsibility for the department.

The provision would require VA to establish seven Consolidated Patient Accounting Centers (CPACs) modeled after the successful demonstration project in Asheville, NC. The concept of the Consolidated Patient Accounting Center, also known as CPAC, was included as a demonstration project in the Conference Report (House Report 109-95 and Conference Report 109-305) in 2005 accompanying H.R. 2528, requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to initiate a revenue improvement demonstration project within 60 days after enactment of the bill (Public Law 109-114). The VA followed the recommendations in the report, and created the Mid-Atlantic Consolidated Patient Accounting Center demonstration project located in Asheville, North Carolina.

The Asheville project proved to be very successful in enhancing revenue by more than $12.5 million in fiscal year 2007 and $6.5 million so far in fiscal year 2008. Building on this success, would enable VA to secure hundreds of millions of dollars that currently go uncollected. These funds could be used to further improve veterans' health care.

I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans' Health Care Policy Enhancement Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2192, as amended, to establish an Ombudsman within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The extraordinary sacrifices of members of the armed forces have preserved our Nation's liberty and way of life. This bill will help ensure that these brave men and women, who took an oath to defend America, receive the highest quality health care available.

I want to commend the leaders of the Subcommittee on Health, Chairman Mike Michaud and Ranking Member Jeff Miller, for their bipartisan efforts in developing this bill. I also want to acknowledge Mr. Hodes for introducing this legislation to help meet the needs of our veterans.

In 2007, our Nation was outraged when unacceptable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were exposed in a news article. In response, President Bush established the Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes and the Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. Based upon recommendations from these blue-ribbon commissions, VA initiated various programs to better assist VA patients and their families. Such programs included: appointing patient advocates at each VA Medical Center, providing coordinators for returning OEF/OIF veterans, providing Transition Patient Advocates, and establishing the joint Federal Recovery Coordinator Program to assist seriously wounded service members.

H.R. 2192, as amended would establish a centralized office to monitor the performance of these employees, and provide veterans with a single point of contact for assistance with problems that cannot be resolved at the local level. The office would also track patient issues and complaints throughout the system and provide recommendations for improvements in policies, practices and procedures.

I support H.R. 2192, as amended, to ensure that our veterans receive the highest quality health care available. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2192, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4255, as amended, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to the Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic Committee, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the bipartisan manner in which this bill moved forward through the Committee. I want to especially acknowledge Chairman Filner for introducing H.R. 4255, the United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Act of 2008 and working with Subcommittee Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member John Boozman to incorporate into the amended version of the bill several provisions from my bill, H.R. 1370, The Disabled Veterans Sports and Special Events Promotion Act of 2007.

In 2005, the VA and the USOC concluded an agreement to increase efforts to increase participation by disabled veterans in sports at all levels, as part of their rehabilitation from their injuries. I was privileged to participate in encouraging the USOC and VA to reach that agreement and by combining our two bills, we will give VA and the USOC Paralympics some of the resources they will need to meet that goal. I look forward to seeing the VA, USOC Paralympics and their partners ramp up their efforts and am excited that we will have at least 11 disabled veterans participating as members of the U.S. Paralympic Team in Beijing as a beginning of larger disabled veteran participation in the future games.

I am also pleased to see a renewed commitment to providing training opportunities for veterans that will be offered. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I believe you and I have created a bill that will encourage more disabled veterans to participate in sports from the local level up through elite competition such as the Paralympic games beginning with games in Beijing. Through the grant program, this bill uses the USOC and its partners to equip, train and support disabled veterans' sports and I urge my colleagues to support this bill as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4255, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6225, as amended, the Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008. This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, with regard to equitable relief with respect to a State or private employer.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for its bipartisan efforts in bringing this bill before us. Subcommittee Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Subcommittee Ranking Member Boozman have brought together some good provisions from several bills to improve upon existing Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, USERRA, and Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, SCRA, protections for our military servicemembers and their spouses.

H.R. 6225, as amended, incorporates provisions of H.R. 2910, introduced by Representative Susan Davis of California; H.R. 3298, introduced by Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania; and, H.R. 6070 introduced by Representative John R. Carter of Texas.

The intent of the legislation is to encourage courts to utilize equity powers in appropriate USERRA cases that come before them. During discussion of the bill that took place during the full Committee markup, Subcommittee Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin clarified that injunctive relief is available under the discretion of the judge hearing the facts at a preliminary hearing, and that this section is not intended to create a new avenue of appeal in USERRA cases.

The bill, as amended, would also require colleges and universities to provide refunds on tuition and fees for students who are called up for active duty, and it would allow such students to reenter the institution at the same educational and academic status that was held at the time of activation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would extend SCRA protections to enable servicemembers with deployment orders to more easily terminate or suspend service contracts without fee or penalty for such services to include cellular phones, utilities, cable television, or internet access. It would also add penalties to those creditors under SCRA who refuse to reduce interest rates as currently required.

Additionally, H.R. 6225, as amended, would allow a military spouse to vote in the same location of Federal, State and local elections as the servicemember, and pay taxes in the same State as the servicemember.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6225, as amended, provides members of the Armed Forces necessary protections that will enable them to make a seamless transition back to civilian life after their tour of duty is completed. These brave men and women put their lives on hold to ensure the freedom and safety of our Nation, and we owe it to them to provide relief when and where we can.

I support H.R. 6225, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.