Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5554, as amended, the Justin Bailey Veterans Substance Use Disorders Prevention and Treatment Act of 2008, would amend title 38, United States Code, to expand and improve health care services available to veterans from the Department of Veterans Affairs for substance abuse disorders.

Unfortunately, many veterans who have experienced combat trauma have difficulty dealing with the demands of military service and/or readjusting to home life often turn to alcohol and drugs to ease the pain that has become part of their lives. VA has dedicated more than $458 million to improve access and quality of care for veterans who require substance use treatment since it began implementing the Mental Health Strategic Plan in 2005.

H.R. 5455, however, would be much more comprehensive and require that VA provides a ``full continuum of care'' to veterans suffering from substance use disorders at all VA medical centers or through contracts with local providers. This full continuum of care would include comprehensive screening for substance use disorders in all settings, detoxification and stabilization services, intensive outpatient and residential care, pharmacological treatments, and peer-to-peer and family and marital counseling.

This legislation would also direct VA to conduct a pilot program for Internet-based substance use disorder treatment for veterans of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Some of our veterans are confronted with a new form of challenge in their life, which for some is greater than the warfare which they had faced, where it has no clear front and has no clear refuge. And in the case of our OIF/OEF veterans in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 30 percent of those veterans who have received VA care have been diagnosed with a possible mental health problem and 12 percent of these with a possible substance use disorder.

Outreach to every veteran is critical, and I'm pleased that under the leadership of Secretary Peake, VA has started contacting nearly 570,000 recent combat veterans to talk to them about available VA medical care and benefits.

Providing a full continuum of care in all settings will go a long way to enhance access to care and help at-risk veterans recognize the signs, treat the symptoms, and overcome the stigma that prevents many veterans from seeking care.

Problems associated with substance use disorder can have lasting effects on the mental and physical health of our veterans, and I commend the Subcommittee on Health Chairman Michaud and Ranking Member Miller for their leadership on the bill.

We can make significant progress in ensuring that the mental health wellness care that veterans seek and deserve is available with the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 5664, as amended, a bill which would amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least once every 6 years the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas, for introducing this bill, and Subcommittee Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and full committee Chairman Filner for their efforts to bring the bill before the House.

Madam Speaker, many of our most severely disabled veterans qualify for the specially adapted housing program that provides grants for up to $50,000 to modify the veteran's home. This bill would require the VA to update the handbook on adapted homes designs on a 6-year cycle, to include adaptations for a wider variety of disabilities and to provide the handbook to qualified veterans.

In the previous Congress, we allowed the homes of a family member to be adapted where the veteran temporarily resides. I think that was a good move that we had done that, and this measure that Mr. Rodriguez has brought is one that is prudent and it should be passed.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 5729, as amended, the Spina Bifida Health Care Program Expansion Act, which would amend title 38, United States Code, to

direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam veterans born with spina bifida, and for other purposes.

Spina bifida is a developmental birth defect that affects the spinal cord. It is a debilitating disease that can cause a number of neurological problems including paralysis and cognitive disorders.

Under its current authorities, VA is providing monetary allowances, vocational training, and certain medical care benefits to more than 1,100 children of veterans from Vietnam and Korea who were born with spina bifida. The VA Spina Bifida Health Care Program began in 1997 as a benefit for children of Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 2003 Congress expanded this program to children of certain Korean conflict veterans as well. However, medical care benefits under the program are limited to those necessary for the treatment of spina bifida and related medical conditions.

Although VA is supporting about 90 percent of the health care needs of these beneficiaries, the current requirement to receive prior approval for services creates an undue administrative burden for those families seeking treatment for their children. As these children age, it is especially important that the complete and comprehensive health care is available to them.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5729, and I commend the gentleman from Indiana for bringing this to our attention. This bill expands VA's authority to cover all health care services needed for those who suffer with spina bifida as a result of their parents' service to our country.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5826, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008. I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Hall of New York, chairman of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, and Mr. Lamborn of California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as the bill's sponsor, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas, for the leadership on this bill.

This veterans' COLA would increase the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain disabled veterans. The COLA adjustment includes wartime disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, clothing allowance, dependency and indemnity to surviving spouse, and dependency and indemnity compensation to children.

Madam Speaker, this is an important annual authorization, which provides much-needed assistance to our Nation's veterans, and every year receives unanimous support from the House.

With that, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5856, the VA Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act, which would authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2009. I want to extend my compliments to Chairman Michaud and Mr. Miller, and I think when Chairman Michaud thanked me for the interest, I think he meant, Thank you for the cooperation. I enjoyed working with you and your staff and the chairman in getting a bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, this bill authorizes $2.2 billion to improve access to health care for our Nation's veterans. As we consider this construction authorization bill that includes VA's fiscal year 2008 and 2009 request, I would like to share my enthusiasm for the announcement Secretary Peake made on April 24, 2008, to change course in Denver and move to a joint facility, with which I know Chairman Michaud also concurs.

Secretary Peake announced that the VA intends to construct a new bed tower in partnership with the University of Colorado at Denver and the University of Colorado Hospital on university property at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center campus. Madam Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of moving forward with a joint use facility and believe that the idea of collaboration promises significant value as we move in to providing veterans access to care in the 21st century VA system.

There has been a long and detailed history of planning for a shared facility to replace the existing Denver VA Medical Center. Discussions between VA and the University of Colorado Hospital regarding the relocation of the Denver Veterans Medical Center to Fitzsimons campus started in the year 2000, and I am pleased to see this collaboration again moving forward.

H.R. 5856 would provide VA to authorize in the amount of not to exceed $769.2 million for the replacement of the Denver, Colorado VA Medical Center. This authorization was requested by the administration in February in its fiscal year 2009 budget submission.

Madam Speaker, I recommend at this time that we retain this $769.2 million authorization for a major medical facility in Denver contained in this bill as a placeholder. However, as the planning and design of the Denver partnership is further defined, it will be necessary to amend the authorization of this project.

H.R. 5856 also includes authorization for the construction of a fifth polytrauma center in San Antonio, Texas. VA's four current polytrauma centers are located in Richmond, Virginia; Tampa, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Palo Alto, California. These centers provide a valuable service to injured servicemembers and veterans and are designed to provide comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services for individuals with complex, severe, and disabling traumas. Creating a fifth polytrauma center in San Antonio reinforces our commitment to the veterans and servicemembers who have honorably served our country by expanding access to the southwest United States.

I also want to thank Chairman Filner and Chairman Michaud with regard to the report language in the bill. We had some matters outside the bill that we needed to work through. I know the chairman had visited deep south Texas and I also went to deep south Texas to work on these issues that were brought to us by Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Hinojosa, and we were able to work through those, not only working with these members, being on the ground, talking to the veterans, working with the administration, and having that report language in here as we work with the University of Texas, I think, was prudent and wise.

I want to thank Chairman Michaud and Chairman Filner for working through these matters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Rodriguez, when you go back to Texas over the Memorial Day break, I want you to share with your good friends in Deep South Texas how much I enjoyed the visit and their tequila. I don't know what it is about tequila that makes you either forget or remember the most, but I really enjoyed that, and you have much to smile for when you go back to Texas.

When I went to Deep South Texas, I also went to San Antonio and toured not only the burn unit at Brook and the Intrepid at Fort Sam Houston, but also I went over to the VA hospital and met with your hospital director and the team for the polytrauma center, and they are extraordinary. If you have the opportunity at all, I welcome you to visit the other polytrauma centers, or any of them. It is extraordinary what they do in that full continuum of care, and it is seamless as they move from the military to the VA and then back in.

There are always some bumps in the road, so as you take on this fifth site in your backyard, too often we place that burden on the families to be the case manager, and now in Wounded Warrior we say okay, we are going to assign case managers. But as we open up that fifth polytrauma center, we are going to look to your leadership to make sure the fifth site opens up and opens well. I just wanted to share that with you.

Please also know that I spoke with John Barnes, who is the owner of Panther Racing. We coordinated with the Surgeon General of the Army, and he is going to take the Indy car which is sponsored by the National Guard along with some of the Indy drivers to Fort Sam Houston to go to Brook Army Hospital to the burn unit and the Intrepid, and I think that is going to occur the first week of June.

I also would like to compliment Chairman Filner and Chairman Michaud with regard to working with myself and Mr. Latham as we addressed his concerns that were brought to the committee in Northeast Iowa. We also had other issues that were brought regarding Fort Ord. As we all know, CARES was sort of that snapshot in time, and now we are 4 years beyond CARES and it is almost being overtaken by certain events. So I appreciate Chairman Filner allowing us to work through some of these in our language, and we are going to have to address CARES No. 2 probably or redux here in the upcoming future.

With that, I urge my colleagues to adopt the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6048 would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in supporting a contingency operation.

Very briefly, this bill would place restrictions on changes in child custody that a court could order during a period of a servicemember's deployment and upon the servicemember's return from deployment. Also, this bill would exclude consideration of military service from a court's determination of a ``child's best interests.''

Madam Speaker, I would explain to my colleagues that the paramount consideration in child custody cases is the best interests of the child. The simple fact that a servicemember parent is subject to deployment should not be permitted to work against him or her in child custody cases.

At this time I would defer to the author of this legislation, Mr. Turner, who is an active member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, for a more detailed explanation of his legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

As a practicing attorney during my private law practice in Monticello, Indiana, I handled a number of child custody cases, and as an Army JAG officer on Active Duty I provided legal assistance to servicemembers in child custody cases. I have a practitioner's perspective on these issues, and, quite frankly, they are some of the hardest cases I have seen where two parents are in a legal contest over the custody of their child.

From my perspective, I appreciate Mr. Turner's objective of ensuring fair treatment of servicemembers in child custody matters when they are deployed and when they return home.

When I first learned just a few days ago that this bill had been introduced on the suspension calendar without any consideration by the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, I read the bill and had some questions. I wanted to know what were the official positions of the Department of Defense and the American Bar Association, Family Law Section. The answer was that neither had been asked for an official position, so none was available. There has never been a legislative hearing on this bill by any House committee to examine the legislation and to allow stakeholders to present their views.

Mr. Turner's initiative and passion on this issue is commendable. As this legislation moves forward, I would like to work with my distinguished colleague from Ohio to ensure that the final product does what we would all like it to accomplish.

Madam Speaker, this amendment to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act would, to the extent as applicable, have a preemptive effect on the existing body of State case law and statutory law in terms of substantive Servicemembers Civil Relief Act rights and protections, as well as the burdens of proof and procedures of each jurisdiction. However, I want to make clear that this legislation should be construed to provide additional remedies to those already available under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and State law. This measure is intended to expand the rights and protections of servicemembers, and not to result in any limitation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as it applies to military family care plans, other custody cases, and family court matters not having a custody order in effect.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Turner for his active support and advocacy of our Nation's servicemembers and veterans, and I look forward to working with him as this bill goes to the United States Senate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. All of these bills that we brought to the floor today take many, many hours on behalf of not only the staff on the Republican side but also the Democrat side, and they have grown together and they work well together. I want to thank the gentleman for his cooperation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to limit my remarks to the veterans' education benefits that's contained in the amendment.

I don't believe that there is a Member here in the House who opposes improving the GI Bill. What I find objectionable and, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the lectures by the then-ranking member and now the chairman of Appropriations with regard to process over the years and how conflicted he must feel, the fact that his leadership has directed him to bring a bill to the floor that has not gone through the process and, matter of fact, that there's no bipartisanship in agreement. You had brought bills to the floor before that didn't go through the appropriations process, but you two had agreements.

So you must be incredibly conflicted at the moment because you have given us lectures on process, and now you've thrown all of your lectures out the window.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, he's thrown all of them out the window.

What upsets most of us who sit on the Veterans' Affairs Committee is in fact there was a response. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member John Boozman have a bill. It's called H.R. 5684, and that bill was amended through regular order in the House. And what that bill did was improve the existing GI model, and the entire committee passed it.

Now what has happened, instead of using the bill that came from the Veterans' Affairs Committee, she hijacked that process to bring a bill in the Senate that the House here has never even considered. We've never had any hearings on it. It might be the greatest of bills, but if we're about to do this, Mr. Murtha and others, for all of our comrades and buddies and pals, we better make sure it's done right.

So in this process, I also know, and I agree with Mr. Tanner's remarks, Mr. Speaker, about paying for.

Now I'm going to vote for this. I'm going to vote for it not because I like the tax provisions. I would have much preferred some offsets. I also recognize the Senate probably aren't going to go with the tax provisions.

But we better be smart about our business here because if this House adopts this bill, we're going to have to be correcting it in conference instead of doing our business like we should have done in the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 70. The Centennial of the Army Reserves marks our proud heritage of citizen soldiers who have always answered the call to duty with honor and pride. I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Bishop, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Shimkus for their leadership on this resolution. As an original cosponsor of this resolution and as a co-chair of the National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, I'm very pleased that 260 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle recognize the crucial impact the members of the Army Reserve have had on this great Nation throughout its 100-year history.

Over my 28 years of service as a member of the Army Reserve, I have had the good fortune to see firsthand the actions of the men and women of this fine organization--they are the virtual bedrock of our Nation. I've seen the dedication of these Citizen-Soldiers operating across the United States; in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany; during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait and surrounding countries; and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the operating environment or the personal sacrifice required, these great Americans have responded again and again to our Nation's call. From the initial call-up of the Army Reserve to run down the bandit ``Pancho'' Villa, through bloody battles in World Wars I and II, to the wars in the Persian Gulf, they have always answered the Nation's call in its time of need, riding toward the sound of the guns, around the world, without hesitation.

Today's Army Reserve can no longer be characterized as a strategic reserve; it is an operational force called upon to be at the forefront of our Nation's warfighting capability. Of the 180,000 officers and enlisted soldiers serving in today's Army Reserve, nearly 3,000 are Hoosiers. I'm extremely proud of these men and women and the sacrifices that they make every day to keep our Nation free and safe.

Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, the Chief of the United States Army Reserve, recently said, ``Our Citizen-Soldiers depend on their families, friends, civilian employers, and community to help them balance their responsibilities and commitments.'' And so, to those who support our federal Citizen-Soldiers, I offer my heartfelt thanks and congratulations for helping make this centennial possible. And to the families and loved ones of the 156 soldiers of the Army Reserve who have borne the ultimate sacrifice in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, including the family of Staff Sergeant Keith Maupin whose body was indentified only days ago after being classified as missing-captured for nearly 4 years, I offer my deepest thanks and respect for your sacrifice. And to the family of Sergeant Ahmed Altaie, who is still listed as missing-captured after 16 months, I offer my continued hope and prayers.

At any given time, more than 20,000 Army Reserve Soldiers are deployed to no fewer than 18 countries around the world. Their efforts ensure that America's vital national security interests are fulfilled and that our homeland is protected. I am proud to be counted among their ranks.

These Soldiers and their loved ones shoulder a greater share of our burden than at any time in our Nation's history. This resolution represents an opportunity for Congress to recognize the incredible history of service, sacrifice, and accomplishment of those Soldiers who have served in the Army Reserve since its inception. Please join me in celebrating that heritage and recognizing their proud history by supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I would like everyone to know that we all enjoyed Julia very much. But I want you to know this, what just happened in the well is Andre responded to the Speaker with two words that would make Julia very proud. His first two words as a new Member of Congress, he turned and said, ``Yes, ma'am.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican alternative budget for fiscal year 2009. Overall, the Republican budget is $95.6 billion, the Democratic budget is $94.6 billion, and the President's mark is $93.6 billion.

Our budget will provide $49.2 billion in discretionary funding for veterans health care and programs. This is $2 billion above the administration's overall request and it is $1 billion over the Democrats' budget, and we do all of this without a $683 billion tax hike.

Out of the $49.2 billion in discretionary, $44.2 billion is medical care for FY 09. The House Republicans would provide nearly $1 billion more than the President's request. Included in that: We have about $213 million for mental health care; we increase $200 million more for improving health care to rural veterans; $150 million more on long-term care; $50 million more on medical care for veterans for OEF and OIF; we have $50 million more on dental care, which we also ought to be billing the Army for providing a lot of this. We also have $50 million more than the administration for polytrauma care and for caring for veterans with brain injury, i.e., traumatic or mild.

Republicans would also provide nearly $100 million more than the administration's request for medical and prosthetic research. We also add an additional $300 million for medical facilities and nonrecurring maintenance.

Mr. Chairman, to assist in the decreasing of the claims backlog and increased cybersecurity, we increase $200

million for the Office of Information Technology. Part of this money we are investing in funding to create rules-based adjudication systems for the veterans disability compensation claims.

The alternative also includes increases over the President's level in all funding categories, including the Office of Inspector General, grants for State cemeteries and extended care facilities and the National Cemetery Administration, among others.

Now, when we look at what the Democrat budget is doing, we have got a tax increase. This tax increase would hit middle-income veterans and their families, veterans who are low-income earners, and veterans who own small businesses. However, the Republican alternative would increase spending for veterans by $1 billion more than the Democrat budget, and we do this without increasing taxes on veterans.

I also would like everyone to note that I noticed, when I was back in my office watching the floor debate, there was a lot of waving going around of VSO letters. Well, the VSO letters, I think they would also love this Republican budget, because we increased veterans spending $1 billion more than the Democrats.

We also need to remember this: The very same Democrat majority this past year in the committee voted to cut $1 billion in veterans benefits. They did this on a party-line vote. They voted to cut $1 billion of veterans benefits, from who? From wartime disabled, elderly, and indigent veterans. So if you want to talk about who is going to stand for veterans, just go look at the vote in the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. They cut $1 billion.

Chet, that hurts. I know it is tough for you to defend. You didn't do it, and I know you will not stand for it.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

I support the Senate-passed version of the mental health parity legislation. It was carefully crafted between mental health groups and business groups. And everyone should note that not all of the mental advocacy groups support this House language. They see some dangers in it.

In particular, in the bill that we are discussing, employers are allowed to drop their mental health benefits, and there is great concern that employers in fact will do that because of the overly broad coverage mandates as specified in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual which is included in this bill.

The American people must know that the bill before the House today, again, is not supported universally by mental health advocacy groups as the Senate bill is. Heather Wilson offered an amendment in the committee; it was defeated. I am very disappointed that no amendments were offered in the Rules Committee. This is, once again, shutting down the democratic process of this House.

I don't know what you have to fear. I am really concerned about that. I am also concerned about the pay-fors for this. To substantially increase the Medicaid prescription drug rebate as one of the offsets, this significant increase could have a detrimental impact, because when you increase these rebates, there is going to be a cost shift, and that cost shift is going to have a depreciative effect. The effect will be you will increase the price on premiums, you will have an increased price of drugs on someone else.

Also, I am very bothered that the second pay-for of the bill would limit Americans' access to the specialty hospitals. These are benefits that so many people are enjoying, these specialized hospitals. They have higher patient satisfaction, lower mortality rates, and lower overall costs for health care. So at a time when our Nation's health care costs are rising and the quality of our care is a top concern, I am very bothered that this provision would cut out that important market innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank some of my colleagues for their vision back in 2003. They recognized that Congress does a good job talking about Medicare and the concerns about the future, but they realize that very few are very committed to addressing Medicare's challenges.

We, as a Congress, came together and worked with President Clinton in the 1990s when we did the Balanced Budget Act; and at that time, we even realized that Medicare was growing, the growing senior population was going to be a tremendous challenge to us; and in 2003 a small group of Members of Congress, they put in trigger legislation, and now this trigger, as the chairman said, goes into effect if the Medicare board of trustees certifies in two consecutive years that 45 percent of Medicare spending will come from general revenues in any of the upcoming 6 years.

Last year, the trustees certified this Medicare spending level; and again this year, they have certified that the spending is exorbitant and that the trigger has now been hit.

As directed by law, the President had no choice. He sent legislation to Congress to address this spending. We in Congress have a responsibility to the American people to act on the President's proposal. Unfortunately, last year my Democrat colleagues tried to remove this trigger so that they can continue to put off addressing the unsustainable cost of our Medicare program. Under their CHAMP legislation, they slipped in a provision that would have removed this trigger. In effect, it would have allowed Congress to continue to ignore Medicare's growing cost.

Even worse, the Democrats decided to ignore Medicare's growing costs; and when they do that, frankly it just shoves these challenges off into the future and onto the backs of our children, and that is something we should not be doing.

Last week, the majority leader and the minority leader introduced a bill to move forward with the President's proposal to bring Medicare costs back under the trigger level. That is the responsible thing to do.

This Congress now should act on this legislation. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service Health Care Spending, the United States will hit $4.3 trillion by year 2017, nearly double that of 2007, equating to nearly 20 percent of our gross domestic product. In 2007, health care spending accounted for 16.3 percent of our gross domestic product. But more of that cost is expected to shift to government agencies even as the Federal Government struggles to shrink our own deficits.

Medicare spending alone is expected to grow to $844 billion in year 2017. That's up from the $427 billion we spent just last year in 2007. So Congress must stop talking about Medicare and its potential insolvency, and we must take action.

Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care in the United States; and within the next 11 years, the Medicare trust fund could potentially go bankrupt. Our Nation is at risk to lose this important health care program for seniors if we do not reform this program. Future generations will not have access, and that would be unfortunate.

This trigger has forced Congress to be honest with the American people about Medicare's dim future. The future of our Medicare program, as I said, is at risk. I ask my colleagues to join with me to change this trend and protect Medicare for future generations, and we can only do that by working together.

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank our committee chairman, Mr. Filner, for working with me in a true bipartisan manner to expeditiously bring S. 1396 to the floor before we adjourn this year. I'd also like to thank the leadership of both parties for bringing this to the floor before we adjourn.

This bill would authorize $20.5 million for the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out a major medical facility project to modernize patient wards at the VA Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

The President's budget submission for VA for fiscal year 2008 identified this project as the Department's number one major construction authorization request. Without this authorization, the VA would be unable to move forward with this needed project to update and improve patient services for veterans at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.

I also want to thank Senator Johnny Isakson for his efforts to pass this legislation in the Senate, and for the efforts of Senator Saxby Chambliss, who I've also personally spoken with. Both of these Senators have an interest in this project. I'd also like to recognize my good friends, Phil Gingrey and Tom Price, who both introduced a companion bill earlier this year, and for their work and advocacy on this legislation, to also include my colleagues Nathan Deal, Jack Kingston, John Linder and Paul Broun.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, I also would like to mention the work of Lynn Westmoreland, also of Georgia, and once again, I think the clashes over the years between Mr. Filner and myself are legend.

We had a very good discussion yesterday. So I want all of our colleagues to know that Mr. Filner and I sat down. We had a good lunch. We had very good substantive discussions about a way forward, and we've come to the floor with this bill in a bipartisan manner.

We both recognize as we go into next year that the construction bill will be one of the top priorities for both of us to work together. It is very unusual to sever any construction projects out of a bill. I don't care whether it's the MilCon bill or out of the VA construction bill; this is highly unusual what we're doing here today.

But Mr. Filner and I are going to work together in a bipartisan manner for the greater interests of veterans in this country, and we're going to use this bill as a springboard to greater things.

In the end, I also want to reiterate my comments. Senators Chambliss and Isakson are strong supporters of our men and women in uniform and our Nation's veterans during their distinguished careers both in the House and the Senate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I have to agree with my friend and colleague, Barney Frank. We watched someone of great strength suffer from the cruelness of cancer. And it was really hard to watch Julia.

This is an individual that I spent more time in the airport with than ever here in Congress. And those of us who fly back and forth, we know what that is like. For 11 years in the Indianapolis airport is really where I spent most of my time with Julia Carson. She and I shared a subcommittee leadership on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, but that doesn't even come close to the times in the Indianapolis airport.

I would rather remember the lady that I first met. Julia Carson is an individual that, no, this is a lady that wore a big hat, with a witty personality, with a great smile, and a big heart.

And I also pity the individual that fell for any of her, oh, shucky darns wit, I just don't understand; can you help explain it to me? Because you lost if you believed any of that.

She suckered me in pretty good when it came to the support of the Midfield terminal with the Indianapolis airport. She had just got on the Transportation Committee. She understood the need for infrastructure for a city like Indianapolis and, gee, she wanted some of my help. And before I realized it, I am carrying the water heater, getting the letter, getting the support from all of the Indiana delegation, and said, oh, it would be okay if you go down and talk to the FAA. I mean, she was steering me the whole time. But I didn't mind. It was for the betterment of Indianapolis and Indiana. But don't let anybody fool you who was really controlling the strings here. It was Julia.

And what a great lady. A great lady, because this Hoosier treated kindness like grain. She understood that, if she sows it, kindness will only increase. And I think she used that in her life. She used a kindness to go after her political enemies. She used that big smile and kindness to achieve great things. And it was also an enduring quality about her. And that is what I want to remember Julia most by.

I have to end with this, because she loved her Indianapolis Colts. When it came to the redistricting in Indiana, and we all know what redistricting is like: sometimes maps and the lines can go down the alleyways and sidewalks almost. But she made sure that her district, that etched in and it took the headquarters of the Indianapolis Colts and the training facility because she wanted her boys, as she told me. I said, Julia, I have got most of this territory all surrounded, and you went deep down the road and etched out and took them out. And she smiled and she said, Those are my boys. And she loved her Indianapolis Colts, and I am glad that she got to see the Colts have that Super Bowl on her watch, because it only made her smile even that much greater and that much bigger. And that is the Julia Carson that I remember and loved.

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Congressman Hyde, the country lost a true patriot who was deeply dedicated to the American people. He had a distinguished career in public service, beginning with his time in the Navy during World War II, followed by his service in the Illinois General Assembly, and then in the House of Representatives. Henry's leadership and steadfastness to principle quickly became apparent in the House. He always was a stalwart defender of the rights of the unborn, and pushed the Congress to see clearly the impact of its decisions on the defenseless.

I was honored to serve with Henry while he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, enduring long markups to move the Contract with America legislation, equipping our law enforcement with the tools to fight terrorism, and combating the scourge of drugs in our society. His amiable personality hid an individual who did not shy from a fight, especially when it came to upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and other interests of the United States. As a fellow House Impeachment manager, and as one of the ``band of brothers,'' I am truly honored to call him my brother and I will miss him.