Floor Statements

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 67, the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Filner, for bringing the legislation to the floor.

H.R. 67 requires Secretary Nicholson to coordinate and implement a plan throughout the VA to help provide veterans with outreach so that they are aware of potential benefits and understand how to apply for them.

The bill also authorizes a matching fund grants program for State and local governments to provide such outreach.

I'd also like to thank my colleague, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, for his amendment to this legislation with reporting and grant requirements to strengthen accountability for admission.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

I would ask the Chair how much time I have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the Veterans' Affairs Committee and for his interest in outreach.

In the bill previous to this one, I brought up an issue with regard to how we give proper recognition to a Medal of Honor recipient, Jerry Murphy of New Mexico. Jerry Murphy, in his tenure at the Department of Veterans Affairs, even after he retired, was a champion of veterans outreach. Like many of my comrades, when they come back from war, they have seen a lot of things, far worse than what I have ever seen. They call themselves generally, Mr. McIntyre, the lucky ones, because one of their friends or buddies is in worse shape than what they are; they dedicate their lives to them.

That's exactly what Jerry Murphy did in his tenure, not only serving the Department of Veterans Affairs, but, in addition, he was the director of the Veterans Services Division of the Albuquerque, New Mexico, regional VA office from 1974 to 1997. This individual, dedicated his life and received not only the Medal of Honor, he also received the Silver Star.

What I would like to do, so America can reach out and touch and understand the type of individual who would dedicate his life to the service of his comrades, and he would push them in a wheelchair, take them to an appointment in that hospital. The individual he was pushing, they had no idea that they were being pushed by a Medal of Honor recipient.

This individual, Raymond G. Murphy, was a second lieutenant in the United States Marines Reserve, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division, and 3 February of 1953 was an important date, because on that date, for his conspicuous gallantry, and the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a platoon commander of Company A, and actions against an enemy aggressor force, he rose up and distinguished himself.

The citation that he received when he was given the Congressional Medal of Honor stated that although painfully wounded by fragments of an enemy mortar shell while leading his evacuation platoon in support of assault units attacking a cleverly concealed and well-entrenched hostile force occupying commanding ground, Second Lieutenant Murphy steadfastly refused medical aid and continued to lead his men up a hill through a withering barrage of hostile mortar and small-arms fire, skillfully maneuvering his force from one position to the next and shouting words of encouragement.

Undeterred by increasing intense enemy fire, he immediately located casualties as they fell and made several trips up and down the fire- swept hill to direct evacuation teams for the wounded, personally carrying many of the stricken marines to safety.

When reinforcements were needed by the assaulting elements, Second Lieutenant Murphy employed part of his unit as support, and, during the ensuing battle, he killed two of the enemy with his pistol.

With all the wounded evacuated and the assaulting units beginning to disengage, he remained behind with a carbine to cover the movement of the friendly forces off the hill, and, through the suffering of intense pain from his previous wounds, seized an automatic rifle to provide more firepower when the enemy reappeared in the trenches.

After reaching the base of the hill, he organized a search party again to ascend the slope for a final check on missing marines. Locating and carrying the bodies of a marine gun crew back down the hill, he was wounded a second time while conducting the entire force to the line of departure through a continuing barrage of enemy small arms, artillery, mortar fire.

He also, once again, refused medical assistance until assured that every one of his men, including all casualties, had preceded him to the main line. His resolute, inspiring leadership, exceptional fortitude and great personal valor reflect the highest credit upon Second Lieutenant Raymond Murphy, and he enhanced the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

This was the citation he received, was given to him when he received the Medal of Honor. This is the same individual whereby the three members of the New Mexico delegation, led by Heather Wilson, have brought a bill, H.R. 474, to the floor about the VA Medical Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where he worked. As a matter of fact, he was always the humble servant. Even after his retirement, as I said, he became a volunteer.

This brave marine, who earned the Medal of Honor, chose to be buried wearing his VA hospital volunteer smock. This is the type of individual of whom, at a moment like this, as we go into Memorial Day, we think of these individuals, not only what they have done, not only at the moment of calling, it was most difficult during war, but then how did they dedicate their life.

Memorial Day, yes, it's that day, but it's also a day whereby, not those who just died in service to country, but what do they do later on with their life, and we think of them. Here is a gentleman, Mr. McIntyre, I know exactly this is the type of person you are thinking about, who dedicated themselves to outreach.

So I ask you to talk to the chairman, because he is the sole impediment as to why the House and the Senate do not honor this gentleman.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize the VA Secretary to build a national cemetery in Southern Colorado.

Providing our veterans with a place of honor of repose is one of the most sacred missions of the veterans committee, and we have accorded this mission our support over the years.

The National Cemetery Administration's record of satisfaction among the families and its beneficiaries is the envy of the Federal Government, a reflection of the sound administration, the strong congressional support, free of political influence. Yet I have some concerns about the bill.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has a well-established and proven method that uses distance and demographics to select cemetery sites. Congress has long deferred to that process, which is essentially free from this institution's political pressures. Since 1999, Congress has authorized 12 new national cemeteries, all of which went through this process. In the absence of political pressures, the Nation has benefited with a rational distribution of cemeteries that serve veterans their families, and the Nation very well.

This region of Colorado is not on any of the VA's strategic plans for new cemeteries in the next 20 years, nor was it identified by an independent 2002 Logistics Management Institute study that listed the areas with the greatest need for a national cemetery all the way to the year 2030.

Nonetheless, we have before us a bill to develop a cemetery in Southern Colorado, which has not been identified as a priority in any of these studies. Therefore, I ask the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee if you have now, since having brought this bill to the floor, developed criteria with regard to the development of VA national cemeteries whereby Members will know what to follow when they file bills before your committee? I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time. I would like to work with the chairman, because I believe in that answer we do not have the criteria at this moment, and I think all the Members in this body need to know what the criteria would be with regard to placing a VA national cemetery. We have given such

deference to the executive branch. And I know that both gentlemen from Colorado brought up the issue to us about rural areas in the country and felt that, given the way that these studies were structured, that this VA cemetery could never be built. So given that deference, the chairman was very responsive to you.

We took up an amendment by Mr. Stearns, which both of the gentlemen from Colorado had agreed to, whereby we did not want this to displace any of the other present cemeteries in the present priority.

I respect the gentleman, and I want to work with the chairman on coming up with criteria.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the chairman for amending this legislation to address my concern that, as originally drafted, the bill did not provide equity for those veterans whose eligibility period would have expired prior to the enactment of this bill.

At my request, the bill was amended to make sure that those veterans whose eligibility period had ended prior to the enactment and did not enroll in the VA health care would be eligible for an additional 3 years of VA health care services. All veterans who served in combat should receive the same level of care, and I appreciate the chairman for adopting and agreeing to this amendment.

In 1993, Congress enacted Public Law 103-210 to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide additional authority for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide health care for veterans of the Persian Gulf War.

The special health care authority allowed VA to treat those veterans who served in combat operations in the Persian Gulf for possible war- related illnesses, even though there was not definitive evidence that the disorders treated were related to wartime service.

Subsequent congressional hearings on Persian Gulf veterans health care highlighted the importance of early intervention in treating the kind of unexplained health problems experienced by many Persian Gulf war veterans.

In 1998, with the potential of renewed combat in the Persian Gulf, Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, was enacted. This law authorizes the VA to provide medical care and other medical services to combat veterans for a period of 2 years following the service separation date for veterans who served on active duty in theater of combat operations during a period of war after the Persian Gulf War, or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities after November 11 of 1998. Members of the National Guard and Reserves may be eligible for this care if they meet certain requirements which essentially satisfy the definition of a ``veteran.''

The experience of the 1990s taught us the importance of both increasing understanding of war-related illnesses generally, and ensuring that the VA is better prepared to treat veterans of future wars and military combat.

I would also, at this moment, like to thank my colleague, Mr. Salazar of Colorado, who shared with me his statement that he gave honoring the life of a great American, Raymond Gerald Murphy. And I had an opportunity to read his statement that he read into the Congressional Record, and I appreciate him honoring such an American. My only regret is that I never had an opportunity to meet someone like this. And I'm sure that he touched the lives of many, many people.

And so I suppose where we are, Mr. Speaker, is that with regard to how we recognize this Medal of Honor recipient by naming the hospital after him, the Veterans' Affairs Committee has specific criteria that we are to go by. And when you look at the specific criteria, we satisfy all the criteria. He's a Medal of Honor recipient. He has letters of support from all the veterans groups in the State of New Mexico, all of the recognized organizations, I have their letters here, Mr. Speaker, I'll be more than happy to get them to you, along with the support of the Governor, all the Members of Congress, and we should be able to get this done. There's no reason why we shouldn't.

So here we have a situation whereby the committee has specific criteria for the naming of a VA hospital. This Medal of Honor recipient clearly applies. It passed the Senate. Yet we don't have criteria, as the chairman just spoke on the last bill, with regard to the naming of a cemetery. Yet we did it just for a political reason. And so now it's difficult for me to figure out how to follow the leadership of the chairman.

We don't have criteria, but we take action on the floor. But where we do have criteria, we don't take action on the floor. So it is a puzzling moment that we have in how we are bringing these veterans bills to the floor.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank also not only you but also in particular Ms. Herseth Sandlin and Mr. Michaud for their work on this bill.

I'm pleased to support H.R. 1470, the Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act, that would require a phased implementation to provide chiropractic care in all VA medical centers by December 31, 2011.

Under a policy guidance that I gave under the House Republican alternative budget resolution for fiscal year 2008, we provided an additional $100 million for veterans medical services to support the hiring of doctors of chiropractic care at all 155 VA medical centers. I have history dating back to the 106th Congress for supporting chiropractic care.

The Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee worked to include chiropractic care services as a benefit in the military health facilities and through TRICARE.

VA is currently offering chiropractic care in 30 VA medical centers and provides chiropractic care on a fee-for-service basis for veterans who are geographically distant from a VA medical facility. In fiscal year 2006, the VA paid over $1 million to fee-based chiropractic providers to treat roughly 3,000 veterans, and I support the passage of this bill.

I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very concerned because the chairman just spoke that the reason, words to the effect, that he's brought these seven bills to the floor is to represent what a grateful Nation bestows. But what I'm concerned about the seven bills being considered today under the suspension of the rules, only one, H.R. 2199, is being considered with a bill report having been filed.

I believe this is yet another way in which the majority of this Veterans' Affairs Committee is breaking with past practices. When you do not file a report with a bill that comes to the floor, you are essentially denying Members of the minority the opportunity to file supplemental, minority and additional views on legislation under House rule XI, clause 2(i).

Since the time of Sonny Montgomery, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has filed bill reports with every veterans bill other than resolutions such as H. Res. 392 or a facility naming bill; which is what I'm asking for Mr. Filner to do to honor the recipient of the Medal of Honor with regard to the naming of the VA medical center in Albuquerque, NM, and the minority has thus had the opportunity to file views.

The veterans bills being considered by the House today, H.R. 67, H.R. 1660, H.R. 612, H.R. 1470 and H.R. 2239, were all ordered favorably reported, with the exception of H.R. 1470, ordered reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with amendments. However, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs has filed no bill with reports on any of them. Not only does this deprive the minority of the opportunity to file views, but it deprives veterans and the rest of the interested public from having important legislative history which discusses the background of legislation and explains the committee's intent as well as the amendments.

All of this is compounded by the fact that most of these bills were ordered reported without hearings that would have provided an historical record for legislation. The majority also has not bothered to obtain the position of the administration on most of these bills.

There is no reason for taking such shortcuts. I would have filed additional views on H.R. 1660, in particular, if the opportunity had been available. These are not expedited pieces of legislation involving an emergency situation. There has been ample time to follow the customary regular order and do that which is right.

We will now be at a disadvantage when conferring with the Senate. I fully expect the House to pass these bills overwhelmingly, but it is not a good way to legislate on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

I understand all the committees operate under the suspension of the rules to bring legislation to the floor. I wish that there were a collegial relationship between the chairman and the ranking member. It does not exist, unfortunately.

If, in fact, he would confer and work with us, we wouldn't have to work these things out or make an attempt to work these things out on the House floor.

Once again, I will make an attempt, and I will ask Chairman Filner if he would call up Heather Wilson's bill and allow us, when we return after the Memorial Day break, to have Heather Wilson's bill, H.R. 1474, brought to the House floor under the suspensions.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to you.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I would yield to the chairman for a parliamentary inquiry and respond to the question.

Mr. Speaker, once again, reclaiming my time, the American people get to see the abuse of power that I have to deal with.

Rather than working collegially with us, with regard to filing reports, it's just, well, we don't have to do it. We'll just bring it to the floor. It doesn't matter. Really? Is that how we're going to legislate? We're just going to be sloppy about the Nation's business? I don't think that's a proper way of paying respect to our Nation's veterans, and it's very unfortunate.

I yield to my colleague, the chairman of the committee, to respond to my question that will you permit, under the suspension of the rules, to consider H.R. 474 when we return after Memorial Day break so that we may honor Raymond Jerry Murphy and rename the Albuquerque VA Medical Center after him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to you.

I do not yield for a parliamentary inquiry. I think the purpose of my yielding to the chairman was to get a good response, whereby we have criteria, before the committee, with regard to how we name VA medical centers.

There is an individual, all the criteria have been satisfied, and I asked a very simple question of the chairman, if he would suspend the rules and bring it to the floor. I have written him twice. He doesn't respond to the letters. It has passed the Senate. A bill lays upon the desk, and I asked a very simple question.

All he wants to do is a parliamentary inquiry. So maybe we will be enlightened if I let him do a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to you for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Thank you. I would yield back to the gentleman, since he did not address a parliamentary inquiry during his question. I yield to him, if you would like to have a statement.

Pardon? I yield to the chairman.

Well, this is pretty interesting. It's pretty hard to run the Nation's business if the chairman will not even respond to somebody on the House floor.

It's also very disappointing if, in fact, this is the way we are supposed to honor America's veterans whereby the chairman of the majority party is acting like this.

I suppose what I should do is work with my good friend Mr. Michaud, who is the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, who has the ability to call this bill up and to mark this bill up. Obviously, even though he were to mark this up in the subcommittee, it would still be held at the full committee, if the chairman wants to continue to play politics.

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

Let me first take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Michaud, as well as the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Miller, for their leadership in developing this legislation.

H.R. 2199, as amended, the Traumatic Brain Injury Health Enhancement and Long-Term Support Act of 2007, seeks to improve the treatment of veterans suffering with traumatic brain injuries, often referred to as TBI, and the care for veterans who live in rural communities.

However, I would comment that several of the provisions included in this legislation are similar to initiatives that already exist or are getting underway. For example, section 2 of the bill would require the VA to screen eligible veterans for symptoms of traumatic brain injury and create a TBI registry. These are also the recommendations of the President's task force on returning global war on terror heroes. In addition, in March 2007, Secretary Nicholson directed a number of changes to improve the way the VA provides care to our newest combat veterans.

These veterans initiatives include screening all OEF and OIF combat patients for TBI and for PTSD; providing each polytrauma patient with an advocate to assist them and their family; mandatory training for all VA health care personnel to recognize and care for patients with TBI; and establishing an outside panel of clinical experts to review the VA polytrauma system of care.

Additionally, the bill would provide five new centers for TBI research, education, and clinical activities. During the 108th Congress, we recognized the frequency and unique nature of the polytrauma/blast injuries resulting from the global war on terror. These injuries require an interdisciplinary program to handle the medical, psychological, rehabilitation, and prosthetic needs of the injured servicemember.

Public Law 108-422, the Veterans' Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004, directed VA to establish ``an appropriate number of centers for research, education, and clinical activities to improve and coordinate rehabilitative services for veterans suffering from complex multitrauma from combat injuries, and to coordinate these services with the Department of Defense.''

The centers required in Public Law 108-422 became the Polytrauma System of Care. There are four centers located in Richmond, VA; Tampa, FL; Minneapolis, MN; and Palo Alto, CA. The committee strongly recommends that the new TBI centers be colocated with the VA's polytrauma rehabilitation centers. In this way, we can capitalize on the experience and expertise available at the polytrauma centers and enhance the ability to understand and treat the entire spectrum of the TBI injury from mild to most severe.

I want to thank Mr. Michaud for recognizing that we can actually get some benefits by the colocation of these services where TBI is already located. Because we take and concentrate such expertise, the colocation can only have benefits. And the gentleman worked with me, and I think because TBI have a number of comorbidities such as PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders, and while these issues may appear with TBI, they may also exhibit themselves separately from TBI, and I think that is exactly what Mr. Michaud is trying to get to. So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and for bringing this bill to the committee, along with your staff, for their good work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Michaud because he did his committee work. He did his committee work because we brought a bill to the floor. Yes, under suspension, Mr. Filner, but he did his committee work. He filed a report which allowed us to work with him. When you don't file a report, you deny the minority their opportunity to be heard.

So I want to thank Mr. Michaud for working with us and for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my support for a provision in the bill that would require the VA to establish a TBI transition office at each of the polytrauma network sites. Not only is this vital for the DOD and the VA to provide for a seamless transition from active duty to veteran status, but it is also important for VA to aid in the coordination of veteran care between VA and other health care providers for services that could possibly not be provided by the VA. These transition offices would help coordinate veterans care for services not offered by the VA, and have the authority to arrange care with public or private entities to establish long-term neurobehavioral rehabilitation and recovery programs.

The bill also includes two rural health initiative provisions, one of which would establish a pilot program for vet centers in rural areas. H.R. 2199, as amended, included an amendment

offered by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. This amendment will expand the role of the mobile vet center pilot program to include helping veterans in need of assistance in the filing of benefits claims.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke. As a retired sergeant major, we benefit by his expertise not only on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, but also in Congress. We have a lot of people here who have been enlisted, and we have had officers and generals and admirals, but when you get a sergeant major, they speak softly. And there's a reason the sergeant major speaks softly, because he doesn't have to speak loudly because they are so well respected. And so, Sergeant Major, your contributions to the committee are recognized and appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments that he just made. Before you take off, this issue, and I appreciate your interest in it because this is one of our great challenges. We've got the best helmet that we put on our soldiers and marines in the field and even some of the Air Force personnel, Navy personnel. And it protects them against ballistics, and it's the best in the world. But when it comes to blasts and crash, what it does to the brain, we're now on the forefront, and we are pushing the boundary of our knowledge.

And some of the world's experts now are not only at the polytrauma centers, but in particular, when these soldiers end up at Landstuhl, Germany, that's where they are. So they can immediately deal with these neurotraumas.

And when the gentleman said that there could possibly be thousands, what we do know is that at the polytrauma centers, those who are actually being treated for traumatic brain injury, there's less than 400 cases.

But the gentleman is right with regard to individuals who may have had a concussion. Yet, how severe is the concussion?

And if the science is unknown, and we're trying to understand that. That's the purpose of Mr. Michaud's bill. And I appreciate the gentleman's interest, would love to continue to work with you in your interest.

I'd bring to your attention the Veterans Health Administration Directive 2007-013 released April 13, 2007, establishes the VA policy and procedure for screening and evaluation of possible TBI in OEF and OIF veterans. This directive states, ``Not all patients who screen positive have TBI. It is possible to respond positively to all four sections due to the presence of other conditions such as PTSD, cervical cranial injury with headaches and inner ear injury, for example. Therefore, it's critical that patients not be labeled with a diagnosis of TBI on the basis of a positive screening test. Patients need to be referred for further evaluation.''

So we are in an area of science whereby the sand shifts directly under our feet, and I would look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

At the May 9, 2007, full committee hearing on the results of the President's Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, in response to my questioning about the actual number of TBI cases treated in VA as inpatients, Secretary Nicholson responded that VA has treated 369 veterans in its polytrauma centers so far for TBI.

Secretary Nicholson also commented that the VA has the capacity in their polytrauma centers, and that many of the patients in the polytrauma centers are active duty military.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is conceivable that at some point one of these needed Traumatic Brain Injury Centers of Excellence could be located in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which could be named the Raymond G. ``Jerry'' Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, if Chairman Filner would clear either H.R. 474 or take up Senate bill 229 for consideration on the floor of which that Senate bill, Mr. Speaker, sits at your desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and compliment Ms. Herseth Sandlin for her work and Mr. Boozman.

Mr. Speaker, the bill, as amended does two important things. First, it lowers the existing eligibility for servicemembers undergoing treatment prior to discharge to 10 percent vice the current 20 percent. Second, it clarifies existing law to reaffirm Congress' intent that VA provide vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits to eligible service members undergoing what is normally long-term convalescence.

This bill will be especially important to service members being treated at our major trauma centers such as Walter Reed, Bethesda, Palo Alto and Tampa Bay. Many of these service members are facing what may be years of physical and emotional therapy and it makes good sense to begin the process of reintegration into the workforce prior to discharge from active duty. Voc rehab benefits available under this bill will also provide positive reinforcement to DoD and VA therapy sessions by concentrating on issues other than any residual disability(s) they may have from their injuries.

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into the detail here that you have. We have an opportunity to utilize a fund that will help our disabled veterans and get many of them off the street.

I would yield to the gentleman and ask him is that not yet a worthy cause.

Thank you very much. I reclaim my time. That's the commitment that I came to the floor here today knowing that yes, you wanted to create this trust fund and understanding whether or not there are any guidelines, your commitment to me to work with me and others who have an interest, that you'll give preference to homeless veterans, I take you at your word, Mr. Chairman, and I'll work with you.

I rise here today to work with you as we go here and into conference.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am coming to the floor deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee has denied two amendments that would have protected veterans. We in the VA maintain a national formulary based on a system of deep discounts on prescription drugs through a system of price controls, and we maintain this national formulary. We're able to do that because we are able to purchase drugs at 76 percent of the non-Federal average manufacturing price.

It is a price control. But what is happening? The onslaught of the Democrat majority against pharmaceutical manufacturers continues. They want now to extend the price controls, VA pricing, now into DOD.

All I asked for was an amendment. The amendment would have asked for a certification from the Secretary of Defense to this Congress that their ambition to do this would not increase prices on our veterans.

The VA national formulary amounts to about 1 percent of the pharmaceutical marketplace. The more we extend these price controls, whether it goes into the DOD TRICARE pharmacy, they even want to extend it into Medicare. As you do that, we continue to cost shift.

I am deeply disappointed that the Democrat majority would make this onslaught, not just against pharmaceutical manufacturers, that gets their political juices going, but in the meantime they are going to smack veterans right in the face. It is very disappointing. Now, it is a simple amendment, and they should have made it in order.

There was a second amendment. The second amendment that I asked to be in order, that was also denied, was that I asked that with regard to this provision, whereby the Secretary of Defense may now be able to deny a drug being placed on the TRICARE formulary, if they do not offer the Federal pricing schedule, I asked that, with regard to this provision the Secretary shall not be able to exclude from the pharmacy benefits program any pharmaceutical agent that the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee determines to be clinically effective or that the patient or the provider demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee that it is clinically necessary. That's denied also.

I am stunned. I am stunned. But let's be very clear, America, what is happening. This is a socialist policy. You say oh, my gosh, Steve, don't use the word ``socialist.'' No, this is a socialist policy. A socialist policy is one of price controls. Why do we say we do that with regard to veterans? Because we say in the VA there is no greater classification of people in our society that we should be able to give these deep discounts to than our disabled veterans.

But then what does the Democrat majority want to do? They want to take these deep discounts then and give them into TRICARE, give them into the Medicare prescription drug program. They want to continue to use price controls.

What happens when you do that? Not only do you cost shift, but you also have a dulling effect on research and development that hurts, that hurts this country. I am deeply disappointed that these amendments were denied.

Madam Speaker, I am so upset that the Democrat majority has denied my amendments. I am trying to protect America's veterans.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Chair, I come to the floor once again to defend veterans and the country. And I'm also equally disappointed that there are not many veterans willing to stand in the well against provisions in the Defense bill that would increase the price of prescription drugs in the VA.

Now, why don't I have enough friends in the well? Well, they're going to have to answer for themselves for that question.

But what is occurring here in the House is an assault upon drug manufacturers in the country. There is this quest and design that, let's get what available drug there is out there to everyone at the lowest price. How wonderful that would be.

We, in this country, have a unique system. It's called the free market. It's called capitalism. We say unto the world, bring your greatest minds to America. You can go to the capital market, you can make an investment at risk to press the bounds of science that will increase the quality of life of our people and those around the world.

Yet, there's an assault upon that system. The assault continues. It began in January whereby the Democrat majority wanted to extend Medicare drug pricing by saying, let's take the VA Federal Supply Schedule and extend that into the Medicare. Bad idea. Democrats tried that back in 1990 and found out that, whoa, that increased drug prices to veterans, and repealed it. But they passed it again in January.

Now, what did they do in the Defense bill? In this Defense bill they've now taken the extension of the Federal Supply Schedule and extended it into the retail drug pharmacy benefit.

When I did the redesign of the TRICARE pharmacy benefit in the Department of Defense, I created not only the retail network pharmacy benefit, I created the out of retail network pharmacy benefit, and at no time did I ever, ever, believe that we would extend Federal Supply Schedule into the TRICARE pharmacy.

So what is about to happen? When you take the system in the VA and you extend that, and you create the pool and make it larger, you are cost shifting. And when you cost shift, you're going to increase these prices in the VA.

Now, in the VA that's about 7 million veterans. It's about 1 percent of the market. You say, oh, Steve, that's not a big number. Well, it is ironic to me how Members will pound their chests and say, well, you know, I said no to an increase in a pharmacy copay, but they're about to vote ``yes'' to increase drug prices for veterans when they vote for this Defense bill. This is wrong, and it should not be done, and I'm appealing to Members not to do this.

And I am disturbed, disturbed that my good friend, Ike Skelton, denied two of my amendments. I've worked for 15 years with Chairman Skelton on many, many different issues, and I am stunned that he would deny my opportunity to offer two amendments.

One was very simple. It would be to have the Secretary certify that before he could implement this program you have to certify it will not increase prices on the VA. Why would you deny that amendment?

They are going to deny the amendment because they know, going into this, that the creation of this program is going to increase prices on veterans. I just cannot believe we're about to do that here.

Secondly, we should listen to the experts. If you're about to deny a particular drug under the formulary on TRICARE, you'd better have a pretty good reason, and we ought to be able to go to the committee to do that. But they're not going to do that. At this point I am pretty disturbed.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I do not.

Thank you very much for yielding.

I am back on the floor, and I am here to make an appeal to my good friend, Ike Skelton. I am here to make an appeal, Mr. Chairman, because I need you to help me. Help me understand why I shouldn't be so upset here today. You have a provision in the bill that is going to open up the Federal Supply Schedule and extend that pricing into DOD whereby when you do that we expand the pool. When you expand the

pool, you cost shift. Not only do you cost shift, you are going to increase pharmaceutical costs onto 7 million veterans.

So our history here is that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress back in 1992 that said we are going to create the Federal Supply Schedule and we are going to do this cost control. Why? Because if anyone is entitled in our society to have this benefit, it is our disabled veterans. Then what happened? Then in the 1990s we sort of reformed eligibility with regard to the VA and expanded that criteria so the Federal Supply Schedule expanded beyond the disabled veterans now to all veterans.

And now what has happened, you want to expand it, Chairman Skelton, into the DOD TRICARE pharmacy benefit program. When you do that, we are going to increase the price of prescription drugs for veterans.

Do not go home and pound your chest and say I am denying increase in copays when you are about to vote for increases in drug prices for 7 million veterans.

Chairman Skelton, I offered two amendments before the committee, and they were both denied.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Madam Chairman, I offered two amendments directly to the Rules Committee asking one of my colleagues, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to do these amendments, and they were denied. It was dumbfounding to me.

Sure. If Federal discounts expand, price levels would be pushed up, the VA would pay a higher price for the drugs it provides to veterans. So this would place an increased pressure on the funding of veterans health care.

GAO even did an analysis of the expansion.

We asked them to look at it with regard to Medicare, when you tried to do it on Medicare, and pass the House. We know that any time you expand Federal pricing and you increase the pool, drug prices in fact will go up.

As a matter of fact in 1990, talk to Chairman John Dingell because he passed that back in 1990, and they realized they made a mistake and it increased the price on veterans, and we had to repeal it. I ask you to talk to Chairman Dingell.

I reclaim my time. Who has a lot to lose? We all have a lot to lose. If you want to open up and do price controls in pharmaceutical manufacturing, we all lose as a society. We will all lose.

Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Buyer

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I do not.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Hunter and Chairman Skelton.

I am deeply concerned about the unintended consequences that section 703 may have on the price of drugs for America's veterans. I rise today and

ask for your help to request the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the impact of the proposed provision to provide Federal pricing authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask the chairman if he would be willing to request the GAO to conduct such a study.

I yield to Chairman Skelton.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his support of this quest, and I believe that such a review will help alleviate any uncertainty with regard to this proposal, and I want to also thank Ranking Member Hunter.

To my good friend, Chairman Skelton, you and I have had a great history together in this body for the last 15 years, and I consider you a personal friend. I apologize to you for when I let my passion get to the side of me. I am deeply sorry if in any manner you took my words directly personal to you because I would be offended if you felt that way.

You are a genuine human being, and we all recognize that your passion and your support for the men and women who serve in the military is real and, more importantly, it is genuine; and equally, my passion with regard to the men and women in the military and our veterans.

You and I will agree more than we ever disagree, and this is a moment where we may find ourselves in conflict. If I crossed the threshold to my good friend, I deeply apologize to you. I hope you accept my apology.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. Once again, it champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. Setting a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would envelope Iraq in a cloud of chaos and self destruction and expose us to a heightened threat of terrorism at home. It ignores the President's plan for success in totality. It makes no consideration for the effort to make progress on diplomatic and economic fronts--essential components for that success to occur. They offer no solutions in this bill, only criticism.

Mr. Hoyer's failed attempt on April 19th to correlate my involvement regarding the U.S. efforts in Bosnia in the 1990s to that of the situation in Iraq today stretches into the realm of absurdity. However, what was clear from that debate was that Mr. Hoyer at the time, as well as Mr. Murtha, agreed that we should not tie the hands of our President in military operations, even in operations that the Congress did not approve.

Mr. Speaker, let me refresh everyone's memories of that debate which took place in this Chamber, a debate in which I was the lead sponsor of three significant resolutions or amendments that set the course of this Congress--all three which passed by significant margins with support from both sides of the aisle.

But before I begin let me remind the Nation that there are significant differences and some similarities between the debate of Bosnia and today in Iraq. First, Congress did not authorize the President to use force in Bosnia. Congress did authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. Second, we did not begin the conflict in Bosnia, but we did in Iraq. Third, the Republican majority in Congress did in fact try to work with President Clinton to find a solution. Former Senator Bob Dole and I with others traveled with President Clinton to Bosnia and worked with him to set benchmarks for the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I did not assign a date certain to define success for each benchmark, this would have been folly. At the time the leaders of the peace were once leaders during the war and they focused more on these differences than that which brought them together as a nation. President Clinton did a very good job focusing the Bosnian leaders to accomplish the benchmarks and move to resolve their differences and build their new nation.

Last week on the House Floor my colleague, Steny Hoyer attempted to re-write the history of my involvement, claiming that I supported a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Bosnia and therefore I should do the same with our forces in Iraq. The two contexts are dissimilar. Let me set the record straight.

On October 30, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 247, a bill that I sponsored with my Democrat colleague, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 315 to 103. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no,'' Mr. Skelton voted ``yes.'' The bill stated that there should not be a presumption that the United States Armed Forces would be deployed to enforce a peace agreement that resulted from the negotiations regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In early December 1995, the Dayton Accords concluded, laying a basis for the path to peace in Bosnia.

On December 13, 1995, I sponsored House Resolution 302 with Ike Skelton, a bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 287 to 141. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no.'' That bill reiterated the serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that would result in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Despite the expressed will of the House, President Clinton chose to proceed with the deployment of those members of the Armed Forces to enforce the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia. H.R. 302 declared the policy of the House was that the President should rely on the judgment of the commanders of U.S. forces on the ground on all matters affecting safety, support, and well being of U.S. forces. Congress also declared to furnish the resources to support the needs of President and the Secretary of Defense.

Also on December 13, 1995, the President expressed to Congress that the military mission in Bosnia would be accomplished in 1 year, and our troops would be pulled out no later than December 1996. No one believed that the goal could be accomplished within 1 year. A date certain does not define success, the mission does.

However, despite that assertion, in November 1996, without the consent of Congress, President Clinton announced that the timeline was slipping and that our troops would not be withdrawn until June 1998.

By that point, the United States Armed Forces had acted quickly to achieve their military objectives in Bosnia. In short order, the courage, dedication, and professionalism of those personnel resulted in a significant mitigation of the violence and suffering in that region.

However, the implementation of the civil infrastructure--the humanitarian support, the establishment of a judicial system and a validated police force--all of the fundamental parts that help make a society function had stalled and there was no definitive plan to remedy the situation.

In response, on June 24, 1997, I offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 that passed the House by a vote of 278 to 148. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no'', Skelton voted ``yes.'' That amendment would have cut funding to U.S. military operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date set by the President. I did not set the date Mr. Hoyer, this was President Clinton's date. This amendment was later incorporated into the conference report that included provisions that would allow U.S. forces to remain if the President made certain certifications and accomplished certain benchmarks. While I used the date certain given to us by the President, I made it clear that I supported benchmarks that set the conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. forces after the mission had been successfully completed.

President Clinton had set an arbitrary date without articulating a comprehensive plan--he did not identify the conditions to be met into order to trigger a troop withdrawal from Bosnia. He simply set a date, and then revised that date. We in Congress took that date, and required certain benchmarks to be met, while at the same time allowing the President the flexibility to allow troops to remain if he thought it was in the interests of U.S. national security.

In Bosnia, we worked in a bipartisan manner with the President to set the conditions for success in Bosnia and gave the President maximum flexibility. Today, this President gets no such deference or flexibility from the Democrat majority. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha want to enforce a date certain for this President. They do not want to work with this President to set the conditions for success. They simply want to trigger a date for withdrawal, before the mission is done.

It is ironic that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha voted against that amendment--they did not want to set a date certain for withdrawal and tie the hands of their President. They wanted to give him the latitude that he needed to insure that the mission in Bosnia met with success; to re-establish civility, an effective government, a validated police force and civil infrastructure. Today, their position is the opposite. President Bush is not setting a date certain as President Clinton had done.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Murtha all are seeking to tie the hands of this President. They want to cut off funds to our forces who are only doing what this Congress has asked them to do.

Congress should not tie the hands of the President with a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike President Clinton with Bosnia, President Bush had the approval of Congress to go into Iraq. He has given us a plan, conditions that must be met before we start to bring our troops home. Yet, Mr. Hoyer and his party want to set an arbitrary date, a date certain for withdrawal that does not correspond to those conditions whatsoever--cut off funding for our troops who seek only to succeed in their mission. This is defeatist strategy.

We need to help establish a stable Iraq before we withdrawal our forces--the provisions in this bill do not allow us that flexibility and

the price that we will pay is chaos in Iraq and further exposure to terror here at home.

The majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid talks about polling data from Senator Schumer that indicate ``political'' gains by their party on Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Democrat majority think of Iraq in terms of political points, not national security. If we do not resolve this issue with immediacy, the readiness of our troops will be compromised. They are struggling to determine how they will redistribute funds to pay for their operations while we are here politicking. We must stop the defeatist strategy of the majority now-- the one by which they hope to gain political capital from to the detriment of our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise in favor of this bill, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. For over 15 years, whether it was on the House Armed Services Committee or chairman of the personnel responsible for the military health delivery system or now at the VA, issues on seamless transition have been around. It appears that we can only measure success incrementally. For that, it is also unfortunate, because we deal with bureaucracies with both of these very large Departments and their subagencies.

Mr. Skelton had some challenges in front of him because his leadership rushed him to get this bill to the floor. He also then convinced Chairman Filner to waive the jurisdiction of the VA Committee so that this bill could get here.

I want to thank Chairman Filner for complementing the amendment that I had offered in the Armed Services Committee, and I also want to thank Chairman Skelton. I want to thank Duncan Hunter. I want to thank Dr. Vic Snyder and John McHugh for working with me on the amendment that was offered at the Armed Services Committee that profoundly enhances the seamless transition.

In its original form, the bill required a year-long pilot position on transition. Pilot programs can be useful in exploring new ground. But when it comes to seamless transition, and especially during a war, this is not new ground, and we need to proceed.

Back in 1982, is when Congress directed VA and DOD to work collaboratively together on health care. That was 25 years ago. I believe this collaboration is still being stymied by bureaucrats protecting their respective rice bowls. My amendment replaced the pilot project with system changes. It required a written transition plan for wounded servicemembers.

The bill would require an interoperable electronic exchange of critical medical information between the Departments and the use of the electronic DD Form 214, which DOD would provide to the VA. That allows VA real-time access to veterans' medical history.

There are countless examples of veterans seeking care at a VA facility, only to discover that their paper and military health records are not available. The lack of prior DOD health services is especially critical for badly wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The ability to transmit data between DOD and VA will speed the recovery of these warriors by avoiding duplication of unnecessary treatment or, more importantly, failing to provide lifesaving procedures.

Electronic exchange of critical medical information might also prevent bureaucratic intransigence on the part of VA. For example, I recently heard from a former Indiana National Guard member who was wounded in the neck and shoulder by an improvised explosive device. When he eventually filed a disability claim, the VA said the documentation in his military medical record was not sufficient to prove the injury was service connected.

Hopefully this rapid exchange of information will put an end to such bureaucratic injustices. Further, H.R. 1538, as amended, would require the use of a uniformed separation and evaluation of physical by DOD and the VA, but the VA could use more disability ratings. This cornerstone seamless transition eliminates the frustrating requirement for a servicemember to have two physicals, one at the military and one at VA.

I associate my comments with Mr. Filner. Too often, recently discharged veterans filing VA disability claims must undergo a VA physical because their discharge physical failed to address issues affecting the veteran's claim for benefits.

Corporal Murphy, for example, in a hypothetical, gets his discharge physical from Fort Hood, Texas, on June 3. A week later he files a disability claim to the VA for his bad knee. Meanwhile, 90 days later, his physical records at the National Records Center in St. Louis arrive. During that period of time, his medical records are not available to process his claim, and our corporal has already lost 3 months. This is foolishness.

The result is not only costly but also delays the processing of a veteran's claim and possibly entry into life-changing programs, like the VA's vocational rehab program. Finally, the amended wounded warriors bill would collocate VA benefit teams at military treatment facilities and other agreed upon sites to facilitate the transition of recovering servicemembers. Why should a wounded warrior undergo a lengthy period of convalescence and be required to seek out VA benefits counselors at VA offices that are usually far away from the MTF where the veteran is living.

Instead of making Airman Mendez, for example, go to the VA, it is time to mandate the VA to be present where the airman is undergoing treatment. This will give him timely access to VA counselors and benefits that process needed benefits.

These teams would provide preseparation counseling for recovering servicemembers, and records would be transmitted electronically from DOD to VA before the date of separation or retirement, thereby reducing delays, which now bedevil the system. Access to these teams would enable most veterans to leave the treatment facility with their VA benefit in hand.

My own personal experience over the past decade validates the importance of these reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Was the time yielded to the Veterans' Affairs Committee 10 minutes or 20 minutes?

So we have 20 minutes. So as of right now we are still operating under the Veterans Affairs Committee time, not Mr. Hunter's time, would that be correct?

So to the Chair it doesn't matter, with regard to the utilization. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the 1990s, Mr. Skelton, you can remember well that we drew down the size of the military. We cut all the divisions and the wings and the squadrons; and then we had to figure out how we could maintain all those military hospitals and the medical treatment facilities, all the forts and bases. And we found out, with limited dollars, we really couldn't do all of that to the level which we wanted, so we created three centers of excellence, at Brooke and at Bethesda and at Walter Reed.

And I do not want this debate today, for anyone who is working at Walter Reed, to feel as though this Congress is not proud of the level of respect and the enduring appreciation that we have of the doctors and the nurses and the technicians that provide the health care at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Brooke or any other medical facility, from the battlefield throughout the entire process.

We are very disappointed that we had single soldiers that were wounded, convalescing, being held in an unhealthy building. But for that to then be interpreted as though bad care was being delivered at Walter Reed is not a factual basis.

It is a curious thing, though, that one of our centers of excellence ended up on the BRAC; and that is an issue, Mr. Skelton, we are going to have to address.

I do want to also extend though a compliment to Mr. Hunter and Mr. Skelton, because you saw this one coming in 2004, because in the 2005 Defense bill you then created the Disability Claims Commission. It has been extended now and will not report until September of this year. So I want to thank you for seeing this one coming; and I wish that we could have gotten to those results much, much sooner.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

What this means, Mr. Chairman, is we still have work to do. And I didn't want to be overcritical about the pressure the leadership gave you to get this bill to the floor. I think you and I both would have liked to have done something more comprehensive. But with this Disability Claims Commission sitting out there, and they have given 2 years now of labor, we are going to have to come back at this one in earnest. And I am most hopeful that you will continue your work with the Veterans' Affairs Committee as we work in this endeavor of a seamless transition.

I compliment Mr. Ryan for his budget. I speak in support of the Republican alternative for fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

In particular, I would like to address the veterans discretionary health care and programs which would provide $42.4 billion, most of it for health care. This budget is $2.9 billion above the administration's overall request.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican alternative would provide our Nation's veterans with an increase of $8 billion more than the Democrats over the next 5 years, without any tax increases on the very same veterans. That is a budget of $8 billion more for our veterans versus a tax increase of $392.5 billion on America's veterans.

Now think about that. They want to stand up and say, oh, we are going to be against enrollment fees and copays, but what are they really doing? They are increasing taxes on veterans to do what? Increase funding for veterans programs. Think about it. Over 25 million veterans they want to increase taxes on.

The assumptions behind the numbers of Mr. Ryan's budget here, within the $28.5 billion for medical services for FY08, House Republicans would provide $1.3 billion more than the President's request, including $463 more in increasing demands on VA health care system, $200 million for mental health over and above the President. These numbers are over and above the administration. $100 million more on OIF, OEF, $100 million for chiropractic care, $100 million for dental care, $80.2 million on long-term care, $50 million more than the administration on polytrauma care, $65 million for prosthetic and sensory aids, $25 million for blind rehabilitation. Republicans would also provide nearly $100 million more than the administration's request for the medical and prosthetic research.

We also fund $1.4 billion above the administration's budget for construction and facilities. This includes $585 million to the O&M accounts for improving our current medical facilities, an additional $691.7 million to support a substantial investment in the construction, renovation, planning and design of major medical VA facility projects, and $120 million for the gravesite expansion in the National Cemetery Administration.

When you look at the chart, the zeros on the chart, the dots here are the National Cemetery expansions. Those would include Calverton, New York; Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; Canton, Georgia; Abraham Lincoln, Illinois; Dayton Ohio; Houston, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona and Riverside, California.

When you look at the diamonds, what this would include would be advanced planning for construction projects in Tampa, Florida; in Bay Pines, Florida; Seattle, Washington; American Lake, Washington; Seattle, Washington; Roseburg, Oregon; Palo Alto, California; San Francisco, Loma Linda, Los Angeles; Dallas, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Butler, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.

In North Carolina it would be in Salisbury, Ashville and Fayetteville; Wichita, Kansas; Omaha, Nebraska. And in South Carolina, it would be in Columbia and in Charleston. In Alabama, it would be Birmingham. Perry Point, Maryland; Bronx, New York; West Haven, Connecticut.

With regard to major construction projects and full funding, that is depicted by the stars on this map, you would have in Los Angeles, California would be seismic corrections of $103.8 million; Fayetteville, Arkansas, clinical addition $59 million; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a campus consolidation of $105.5 million; Lee County, Florida outpatient clinic of $89 million. St. Louis, Missouri, is medical center improvements of $25.8 million. Columbia, Missouri operating suite replacement of $32.5 million. And in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a spinal cord center of $30 million.

With regard to how we get to the $8 billion differential, it is this: The Democrats assume an assumption over the 5 years of an increase of 5.8 percent. The Republican proposal over 5 years is an increase of 7.2 percent. What I did is I looked at the medical inflation plus utilization rate, and when you work those numbers, we actually come up with a differential of $8 billion. The Republican alternative is an $8 billion increase in veterans funding over and above the Democrat proposal. And we do that without increasing taxes on America's veterans. I think that is pretty important.

When I think about the taxes on America's veterans and families, let's see, those are tax increases on middle-income veterans and their families, tax increases on low-income earners, tax increases on veterans with children, those who own small businesses. Think about it. It is going to be an increase in marginal rates potential, the child tax credit reduction could be wiped out. You've got the increase in the marriage penalty, increase in death taxes, increase in capital gains and other tax increases. That is going to be upon America's veterans, and I think that is pretty disturbing.

So a $392.5 billion Democrat tax increase, who does it hurt? It hurts America's veterans. It hurts our wounded warriors. It hurts our low- income veterans. It hurts veterans with children. It hurts our veterans who are business owners.

Now think about this for a second. I want to go back to it. I support the copays, I support enrollment fees for proper utilization. But what is happening here? You see, my Democrat colleagues will stand up and say to the veterans community, oh, I don't want to increase any copays, I don't want to do enrollment fees, but what are they doing instead? They are taxing America's veterans, who in turn will then take those dollars and roll them back into veterans programs. But they are going to champion that we are not going to increase copays, I am not going to increase enrollment fees, but what I am going to do to 25 million veterans is I am going to tax them, not only during your life, but I am going to tax you when you die.

Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for your hard work on this budget. It is a budget of which we can be proud.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Resolution for veterans discretionary healthcare and programs would provide $42.356 billion, most of it for health care. This budget is $2.939 billion above the administration's request.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican alternative would provide our Nation's veterans with an

increase of $8 billion more than the Democrats over the next 5 years without any tax hikes on those same veterans.

Within our $28.5 billion for medical services for FY08, House Republicans would provide $1.3 billion more than the President's request, including: $463 million more for increasing demands on the VA health care system; $200 million for mental health care; $100 million more for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom; $100 million for chiropractic care; $100 million for dental care; $80.2 million for long-term care; $50 million more than the administration for polytrauma care; $65 million for prosthetic and sensory aids; and $25 million for blind rehabilitation.

Republicans also would provide nearly $100 million more than the administration's request for medical and prosthetic research.

We fund $1.4 billion above the administration's budget for construction and facilities. Included in this is $585 million for improving our current medical facilities and an additional $691.7 million to support a substantial investment for the construction, renovation and planning and design of major medical facility projects. The Republican Alternative also includes $120 million for the National Shrine Commitment of the National Cemetery Administration and expands gravesites in the following locations: Annville, PA; Canton, GA; Elwood, IL; Riverside, CA; Calverton, NY; Houston, TX; Elwood, IL; Dayton, OH; and Phoenix, AZ.

This is why the Republican alternative also funds an additional $691.6 million above the administration's request to support a substantial investment for the construction, renovation and planning and design of major medical facility projects.

$105.5 million for the consolidation of campuses in Mr. Doyle's district in Pittsburgh, PA. Constituents in Mr. Altmire's, Mr. Murphy's, and Mr. Murtha's district will benefit as well.

$103.8 million for seismic corrections in Mr. Waxman's district in Los Angeles, CA. Constituents all over the Los Angeles area would also benefit including constituents in Ms. Harman's and Ms. Watson's district.

$32 million for a Spinal Cord Center in Ms. Moore's district in Milwaukee, WI. Constituents in Ms. Baldwin's, Mr. Sensenbrenner's, and Mr. Ryan's district will benefit.

$89 million for outpatient improvements in Mr. Mack's district in Lee County, FL. Constituents in Mr. Mahoney's, Mr. Diaz-Balart's, and Mr. Buchanan's district will benefit as well.

$59.9 million for a clinical addition in Mr. Boozman's district in Fayetteville, AR. Constituents in Mr. Snyder's, Mr. Blunt's, and Mr. Ross' district will also benefit.

$92 million for medical center improvements in Mr. Carnahan's district in St. Louis, MO. Constituents in Mr. Lacy Clay's and Mr. Akin's district will benefit.

$25.8 million for operating suite replacement in Mr. Hulshof's district in Columbia, MO. Constituents in Mr. Graves', Mr. Skelton's, and Mr. Akin's district will benefit.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Members also fund advanced planning for medical facilities. The funding represents about 5 percent of the estimated cost of the project and is an important first step in the construction of these new facilities.

$36.8 million for a co-located joint use medical facility with the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, SC. This project is in Mr. Brown's district but constituents in Mr. Clyburn's district will benefit as well.

$8 million for Poly-trauma center expansion and a bed tower in Tampa, FL. The project is in Ms. Castor's district, but it will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Putnam, and Mr. Young.

$1.9 million for seismic improvements in Seattle, WA. The project is in Mr. McDermott's district but will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith.

$6.8 million for inpatient and outpatient clinic improvements in Bay Pines, FL. This is in Mr. Young's district and the project will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Castor, and Mr. Putnam.

$26.5 million for land to build a new medical facility in Louisville, KY. This project is in Mr. Yarmuth's district but will also benefit constituents in the districts of Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis.

$14 million for seismic correction in ambulatory care in Palo Alto, CA. This project is in Ms. Eshoo's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Honda, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Stark will also benefit.

$2.4 million for seismic corrections in American Lake, WA. This project is in Mr. Smith's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Reichert will also benefit

$3.6 million for seismic corrections for the mental health building in Roseburg, OR. This project is in Mr. DeFazio's district but constituents in the districts of Ms. Hooley and Mr. Walden will also benefit.

$2.9 million for a spinal cord injury center in Dallas, TX. This project is in Ms. Bernice Johnson's district but other constituents in the Dallas area will also benefit.

$4.1 million for a spinal cord injury center in Bronx, NY. This is in Mr. Serrano's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Rangel, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Engel will also benefit.

$4.3 million for seismic corrections to five buildings in San Francisco, CA. This project is in Speaker Pelosi's district but constituents in the districts of Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Lantos will also benefit.

$7.5 million for seismic corrections to thirteen buildings in Los Angeles, CA. This project is in Mr. Waxman's district but all constituents in the greater Los Angles area will benefit especially those in the districts of Ms. Harman and Ms. Watson.

$2.2 million for an outpatient clinic in Butler, PA. This project is in Mr. English's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Altmire and Mr. Peterson will also benefit.

$6.5 million for seismic corrections for buildings in Seattle, WA. The project is in Mr. McDermott's district but will also help constituents in the districts of Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith.

$3 million for an outpatient clinic in Palo Alto, CA. This project is in Ms. Eshoo's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Honda, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Stark will also benefit.

$8.5 million for outpatient clinic expansion in Washington, DC. This project would affect constituents in Eleanor Holmes Norton's district but also benefits constituents in Mr. Davis's and Moran of Virginia, as well as constituents in Mr. Wynn's and leader Hoyer's district.

$2 million for a clinical addition in Salisbury, NC. This project is in Melvin Watt's district, but constituents in Mrs. Bono's, Mr. Baca's, and Mr. McKeon's districts will also benefit.

$3.75 million for medical and surgical bed, and ambulatory modernization in Wichita, KS. This project is in Mr. Tiahrt's district but will benefit all veterans in Kansas.

$2.6 million for diagnostics and specialty care facility renovation in Columbia, SC. This project is in Mr. Wilson's district but the constituents in the districts of Mr. Spratt, Chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Clyburn will also benefit.

$5.9 million for clinical expansion in Dallas, TX. This project is in Ms. Bernice Johnson's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Sessions and Mr. Marchant will also benefit.

$1.6 million for an outpatient clinic in Huntsville, AL. This project is in Mr. Davis' districts constituents in the districts of Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Bachus will also benefit.

$2.5 million for a nursing home care unit in Perry Point, MD. This is in Mr. Gilchrest's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Miller and Mr. Sarbanes will also benefit.

$5.2 million for a clinical ward tower in West Haven, CT. This project is in Ms. DeLauro's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Hall, Mr. Shays, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Courtney will also benefit.

$7.8 million to fix heating and air conditioning and clinical deficiencies in Omaha, NE. This is Mr. Terry's district but I am sure all Nebraskan veterans will benefit.

$1.8 million for outpatient expansion in Ashville, NC. This project is in Mr. Shuler's district but constituents in the districts of Mr. Davis and Mr. Duncan, of Tennessee, will also benefit.

Mr. Chairman, I now turn to my next chart, which shows the Republican alternative budget outlays for the next five years.

As you can see, the President's five-year average budget growth rate for VA discretionary spending is 1.60 percent, the Democrat's is only 5.8 percent and the Republican alternative five-year average growth rate is 7.2 percent.

This number accounts for the cost of medical inflation that is calculated by the consumer price index and annual increased use of VA by all veterans.

What this means Mr. Chairman is that over the next five years Republicans would increase spending by $8 billion more than our friends on the other side of the aisle and we will do this without a tax increase.

Mr. Chairman, at first blush the Democratic budget appears good for veterans, but it is really just smoke and mirrors.

The Democratic budget contains a $392.5 billion tax hike. This includes tax hikes on middle income veterans and their families, veterans who are low-income earners and veterans who own a small business. Democrats also blocked every amendment offered in the Budget Committee that would stop unfair taxes on veterans and their families.

Mr. Chairman, the last time Democrats were in the majority they passed the largest tax hike in history. Now, with only 3 months in office they have already broken their own record. This is the wrong message to send to our veterans and their families.

Mr. Chairman, we are a nation at war, and we will win this war. The best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is not to micromanage the fight, pretending that's good for the troops; it is to make tough decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom.

I believe that the Republican budget helps do exactly that, while honoring the promises we have made our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Mississippi be recognized for 1 minute out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 47--a resolution establishing a national day of remembrance, reflection, and celebration for those citizens who so valiantly defended our Nation and protected their fellow servicemembers through extraordinary feats of courage and achievement--recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I extend a thank you to my colleagues from the House Armed Services Committee for leading the effort to commemorate the recipients of our Nation's highest military honor. As a Nation, we can never forget the sacrifices these men and women have made to keep America free.

The first Medal of Honor was awarded on March 25, 1864. As we approach this anniversary, let us reflect on the lives and deeds of those brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have received this honor throughout our Nation's history.

In 1782, General George Washington started the tradition of recognizing the valiant actions of American soldiers by establishing what became known as the Badge of Military Merit. Washington presented a heart of purple cloth to three of his soldiers in August of that year, an act that was largely lost in history as the Revolutionary War came to a close. This honor was the predecessor to what we now know as the Purple Heart.

Though the Badge of Military Merit faded into the past, the idea of awarding a decoration to recognize the gallant efforts of our soldiers never died. In 1847, not long after the outbreak of the Mexican- American War, a ``certificate of merit'' was established to recognize troops who distinguished themselves in battle. No medal accompanied the certificate and the award was again discontinued at the end of that conflict.

During the Civil War another proposal arose to establish a medal, but the idea was rejected by then General-In-Chief of the Army Winifield Scott. The Navy, however, adopted this concept, and in December 1861, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation that established a Navy medal for valor. Not to be outdone by their friendly rival, the Army quickly followed suit with their own resolution to establish a similar award, signed into law in July 1862.

In 1863, Congress established the Medal of Honor as a permanent means to recognize our Nation's most gallant warriors. Since then, it has been awarded to almost 3,400 of our Nation's bravest citizens.

Today, the number of living Medal of Honor recipients is at its lowest point in history--there remain only 111 as of February 1. This resolution is a lasting tribute to those 111 men and women, the recipients who are no longer with us, and to those to come in the future who stood up and answered the call to protect and defend this land.