Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2562) to increase, effective as of December 1, 2006, the rates of compensation for veterans with service- connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2562) the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2006, and move for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the annual cost-of-living adjustment, S. 2562, as amended, is one of the more important bills the Congress considers each year since it was first provided in 1976. Briefly, S. 2562, as amended, would authorize a cost-of-living adjustment--COLA--to VA's disability compensation effective December 1, 2006, as well as publication of the rates.

The Congressional Budget Office currently projects the COLA will be 2.2 percent. However, it may be higher or lower depending on changes in the Consumer Price Index. The exact percentage will be calculated in the next few weeks and the COLA will go into effect on December 1, 2006.

The cost of providing a COLA is assumed in the Administration's budget baseline. Likewise, H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007, fully funds this year's veterans COLA.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ranking Member Lane Evans for all his hard work and cooperation this Congress in his advocacy for veterans on this and other legislation. It has been truly a pleasure to work with him as Ranking Member this Congress. I do not think he ever forgot the core values shared by his family, and taught by his parents where he grew up. These same core values were polished by the United States Marine Corps. He embraced them and they were enduring and they helped guide him here in his service to country. Mr. Evans will be missed on this Committee and in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members will support this bill and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on S. 2562, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Hunter, as stated in section 948k of the legislation before us, military defense counsel shall be detailed to the accused as soon as practicable after the swearing of charges against the accused.

Section 949a of the legislation permits the accused to represent himself. That section also defines how the accused will conduct himself and when the military judge, in his discretion, may partially or totally revoke this right.

Of concern to me and some military lawyers is that, should this right be revoked, a delay of trial could occur while waiting for the detailed defense counsel of the accused or an appropriate authorized civilian counsel to get up to speed and to begin to perform the defense.

It is my understanding that the intent of the legislation allows the detailed military counsel to remain as an associate counsel should the accused exercise his right of self-representation. This ensures that even if the accused's right is revoked by the judge, the trial will continue in a timely and efficient manner.

Chairman Hunter, I want to thank you for entering into this colloquy with me and for your work on this provision and the legislation as a whole. I would also like to thank the President. He said he would work with the House and the Senate. He has done that. Chairman, you have done that. I want to thank Senator Lindsey Graham for having done that.

Let me just share to all of my colleagues that I do believe this is a good product, Chairman Hunter; and I want to let everybody know and understand that.

This Code of Military Commissions, it has a good balance. You have struck that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the debate has clarity. To the gentleman, when you say this bill applies to everyone or all American citizens, that is completely false. I want the gentleman to know that.

I would like you to know that when you refer to page 61, at the top it says, provisions of this chapter. So an earlier speaker brought us this issue about, well, it doesn't say the word alien. In order to be tried under the Code of Military Commissions, you have to be an alien. So when you go to page 7, you look at line 17, section 948c, it says the persons who are subject to a military commission is any alien unlawful enemy combatant.

So this does not apply to American citizens.

I just want to share with the gentleman, I have to go back, you have to look at the four corners of the document. Please don't dive into rhetoric.

When you go to the four corners of the document, it is very clear who is subject to the Code of Military Commissions. So, in title 18, you will have the Federal Code that applies to U.S. citizens; you will have the UCMJ creating a third chapter that will apply to unlawful enemy combatants, the Code of Military Commissions. It will not apply to United States citizens.

It is very, very clear. If you think it applies to somebody else, sir, I cannot get into your mind, but I just want you to know that the world will be able to see what we have created here does not apply to American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5835) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve information management within the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5835, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, having moved H.R. 5835, as amended, the Veterans Identity Credit Security Act of 2006, I, along with Ranking Member Lane Evans and Acting Ranking Member Bob Filner, Chairman Davis, and Ranking Member Waxman of the Committee on Government Reform, Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and other members of this body introduced this legislation on July 19, 2006.

Since 2000, the Veterans' Affairs Committee and our subcommittees have held 16 hearings on information technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and as a subset, information security issues. These hearings have covered a variety of IT issues, including the budget, organization, authorities, actions VA has taken regarding its IT programs, and of course information security.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 4061 to address problems in IT at the VA. The Senate and the administration can best be described as having stiff-armed us in our proposals to centralize the IT architecture at the VA, opting for more of what they call now a federated model, or what I will also refer to as an incremental approach. That is how they wanted to proceed. Then bad things happened.

This summer, we held 8 hearings in response to the May 3 theft of a loaned lap-top belonging to the VA that held the sensitive personal data of 26.5 million veterans and 2.2 million Guard and Reserve component servicemembers and families. We heard from 23 witnesses during our hearings. These witnesses included the VA's Secretary, the Inspector General, the General Counsel, as well as others from academia, the Government Accountability Office, and experts in data security, information technology management, and identity theft.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson for his stated commitment to making the VA the gold standard in information security. H.R. 5835, as amended, will provide the Secretary with some of the tools needed to make the VA that gold standard and set an example for the Federal Government.

H.R. 5835, as amended, provides the chief information officer the authority to enforce information security in the Department. It also requires a monthly briefing to the Secretary on VA's compliance with the Information Security Management Act of 2002, which we refer to as

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

Mr. Speaker, I will cherish the sincerity of the compliment from Mr. Filner. I do not question his commitment nor his motive to the service of veterans in this country. I think members of the committee over the last 14 years have recognized that Mr. Filner and I have had some real battles, but at the same time, when it comes to this particular issue on IT, there is no difference. We walk together in lockstep.

It is not just Mr. Filner and I. It is the entire committee over the years we have taken this on, even when I chaired the oversight investigations. So I appreciate the commitment on both sides on improving the IT infrastructure.

I also want to compliment the Government Reform Committee, because they have taken this issue on over the years.

Mr Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and thank him for his cooperation in working with our committee. He introduced his own bill on notification provisions. He worked with us and waived jurisdiction. We incorporated that in our bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina has requested 2 minutes of me, and I have great fear that the slowest talking man from the First District of South Carolina may not make the mark. But let's see how he does.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of my friend from South Carolina for delivering those remarks within the limits of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

I appreciate the chairman's contribution to the bill. He chairs the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, who also worked with us on the bill. He had his own bill, H.R. 6109, dealing with encryption; and we worked with the gentleman. We have three legacy platforms which are basically older operating systems. We were not able to achieve everything the gentleman has been seeking, but I want to appreciate the gentleman's sincerity and his effort and want to continue to work with the gentleman.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray), who helped us work on the provisions of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allotting the time for us to bring this bill to the floor. This is bipartisan legislation. It reflects proposals introduced in this Chamber over the past months. I thank the Members and staff who contributed to this legislation. I am especially grateful for the support of Lane Evans and Bob Filner in moving this bill through the committee and to the floor.

I want to thank Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman of the Government Reform Committee in our work on the FISMA component of the bill. I also would like to thank Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank of the Financial Services Committee for their assistance in moving this bill to the floor, as well as the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards, and to recognize again that information security is crucial to our veterans and have provided valuable support for this legislation.

I also commend Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Strickland, the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for their oversight of IT at the VA. I am indebted to the chairmen and ranking members of the committee's Subcommittees on Health, Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs and Economic Opportunity for their help in reviewing the VA's data security and coming up with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, several Members introduced legislation after the May 3 loss, including Representatives Hooley, Salazar, and Bilbray from the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Representatives Blackburn, Andrews, Drake, Capito, and Granger also introduced legislation, and all of this legislation was taken into account to create this product that has come to the floor. So this is a pretty good work product, to also include that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I also want to thank the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; the staff director, Art Wu; and minority staff director, Lynn Sistek, for their work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our veterans by passing H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act of 2006. This legislation will safeguard the sensitive personal information of veterans, and help lay the groundwork for a national solution

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge all Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5835.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce H.R. 6096 the Disabled Warriors' Family Education Act of 2006. I am especially pleased that the Ranking Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee Honorable Lane Evans, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Honorable John Boozman and Honorable Stephanie Herseth join me as original cosponsors.

The Disabled Warriors' Family Education Act of 2006 would allow spouses and dependent children to access their Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance under chapter 35 of title 38, U.S.C. prior to the severely injured servicemember being discharged from active duty.

Many of our disabled warriors have spouses who find themselves faced with being the breadwinner of the family. It is important that these individuals have access to their education benefits to improve their ability to compete in the job market. Therefore, once the servicemember receives a VA rating stating that their injuries are permanent and total in nature, the servicemember's spouse, and college-aged dependent children may begin their education during the servicemember's convalescence period, which in some instances may be 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation that will help families of our servicemembers who have sacrificed so much for the safety of our nation in the Global War on Terrorism, and I urge my colleagues to support the Disabled Warriors' Family Education Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5815) to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

H.R. 5815, the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization Act of 2006, would ensure that we will act officially and provide the right facilities at the right places given the current veteran populations that we can expect in the coming years.

I thank my colleagues, Henry Brown, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, and Mike Michaud, the subcommittee ranking member, for their hard work on a bipartisan bill that deploys new models for providing health care. These models show great promise for veterans who want cutting-edge care as close to their home as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the very nature of health care delivery has changed dramatically over the last 15 years, yet the VA has not built a single hospital in that time. Some challenges ahead of us deal with, for example, in New Orleans the damage by Hurricane Katrina and that along the coast of Mississippi. Some put a price tag on a new New Orleans VA facility at around $600 million. I recently toured a new cutting-edge tertiary care hospital in Indiana built for about $280 million. So trying to figure out how we build new hospitals for the government and at the same time trying to do one that is cost effective is the challenge.

When we look at the VA, the VA has some aging infrastructure and we must replace some facilities, not only the ones damaged by the hurricanes, but also we need to modernize others. This bill will help rationalize the work, including the actions necessary along the Gulf Coast where we restored the VA medical centers in Biloxi and in New Orleans.

We will also move forward with construction in Charleston, South Carolina, with regard to delivering a new model, and Mr. Brown will be talking about that in a moment. We will be purchasing property in Denver. We will work toward a facility in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The bill would authorize the construction of 17 major facility projects authorized in the last session of Congress, including Las Vegas and Orlando, all of which align with the demand projected for the next two decades.

Mr. Speaker, after World War II, the VA faced a huge influx of returning service members and a worrisome shortage of doctors. Responding to the challenge, the VA in 1946 formed its affiliation program with medical schools.

A wise decision at the VA, made two generations ago by some far- seeing leaders, among them Army General Omar Bradley, a post war VA administrator, enabled the agency to avail itself of the country's best doctors and nurses, and opened VA to the country's best health care practices, ensuring it had the capacity to care for millions of new patients.

According to VA, more than 150 VA facilities have affiliations with more than 100 medical schools, dozens of dental schools and more than 1,200 other schools across the country. VA trains 50,000 students and residents each year, more than half of the physicians practicing in the United States, and a similar portion of nurses, I might add, have experienced parts of their professional education in the VA health care system. The VA has built up considerable experience leveraging service and quality throughout this collaboration.

As the visionaries of 1946 dared to look beyond the familiar patterns, we must now be willing to consider the possibilities that new ideas generate. These new ideas can also generate controversy. Some veterans are concerned that some form of collaboration may dilute the ``veterans' identity'' of a VA hospital. That is not an intention on our part at all.

Mr. Speaker, the facts show that the last 50 years of affiliation have meant better VA care for veterans. If a veteran in the Capital area went to Washington, DC Veteran Center for an emergency, that veteran would likely be seen by a doctor also on staff at the George Washington University Medical Center. A veteran being seen at the Ralph Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, South Carolina, is almost certain, the chances are about 90 percent, to be seen by a doctor also on staff with the Medical University of South Carolina. You do not hear complaints from veterans about these arrangements.

H.R. 5815 would position VA to leverage existing affiliation relationships with top notch medical universities and build a new relationship with these universities, while preserving the veterans' identity through a collaboration of shared facilities.

In Biloxi, the bill would take advantage of the joint-use facility being shared with Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi.

Veterans in the New Orleans area would benefit from a new agreement that we are most hopeful could have fruition with Louisiana State University for the construction and operation of a collocated joint-use medical facility.

In Charleston, South Carolina, we would move forward with the building and operation of a joint-use facility with the Medical University of South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would authorize the purchase of a site in Denver for the ultimate replacement of the medical facility there and would require the VA to report to us and our Senate counterpart on the viability of engaging in a public-private partnership that would reduce taxpayer burden as construction begins.

Mr. Speaker, resources are not on the side of isolated facilities. Enhanced collaboration means that the most expensive equipment, such as medical imaging devices, could be shared between VA and university facilities. As new technology becomes available with its inevitable steep price tag, it could be more easily acquired through these collaborative efforts.

Sharing expensive capital assets reduces duplication and waste. Physicians can more easily travel from the university facility to the VA's facility. That, in turn, means that the veterans will get quality care much faster. This logic has appealed to veterans advocates with whom I have spoken.

This bill would also help the VA grow the expertise that has gone fallow over the past decade and a half, since VA's last construction project. H.R. 5815 would establish within the VA a senior Civil Service position whose role would be to provide department-wide executive leadership over all construction and facility management.

Mr. Speaker, the total cost of this legislation is approximately $2.4 billion.

Shortly I will turn to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, for a detailed explanation of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the delegate from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

I thank the delegate for his work on this bill.

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to Mr. Stearns of Florida

I yield to Mr. Feeney of Florida 2 minutes.

(Mr. FEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Likewise, you do such good because you are a genuine human being, and I want to thank you for your leadership. And it was a treat and joy to work with you and Chairman Brown on this, along with your staff.

I appreciate you also recognizing the staff. Mr. Tucker who is sitting there next to you, when I think of his work, and Mr. Weekly and Ms. Dunn, but also that of Jim Lariviere, Jim who now has been activated as a colonel in the Marine Corps in Afghanistan, Kelly Craven and Jim Holley who is also here on the floor for their hard work.

But I also want to pause and, if I might, this is a pretty large bill and we have had to work with a lot of different Members. So if I might, I would like to thank, in particular, Mr. Michaud for your work. I want to thank Mr. Evans for his bipartisanship and his good work and his leadership. I also want to thank Chairman Brown for his work on the Charleston project, Mr. Fortuno for his work in Puerto Rico, Ms. Berkley in Las Vegas, Mr. Beauprez in Denver, Mr. Baker for New Orleans.

And we got a full court press when it came to Orlando. We had leadership of Mr. Stearns, Mr. Feeney, Ms. Brown, Chairman Miller, Mr. Keller, Chairman Bilirakis, and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite. So we got the full court press when it came to Orlando; we got the message. And it was just a real treat in working with all of them, and I thank the gentleman for recognizing them.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5815 is a well-thought-out bill. It is the product of thorough bipartisan collaboration. I urge my colleagues to act favorably now and move this legislation to the Senate so that we can give our veterans the assurances of new and improved medical facilities

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material relative to H.R. 5815, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I am just now reading this. Mr. Edwards, this is a very bad idea. If you support increasing the cost of medications to veterans, then support this motion to instruct.

If you support increasing the cost to veterans to obtain access to their drugs, support this motion to instruct.

Over the years, those of us have guarded, guarded the Federal Supply Schedule. Now, why did Congress pass the Federal Supply Schedule? Because we said, you know, we have said to veterans out there, whom are disabled, we recognize that they are a precious part of our society, so we create the Federal Supply Schedule, which is really the government mandating a particular price, and then we jealously guard that. We jealously guard that. Why? Because everybody wants to gain access to the FSS, the Federal Supply Schedule.

I have to come to the floor, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, appalled, appalled. I am just dumbfounded that we are, what, going to vote on a motion to instruct that we should accept what the Senate does?

It seems that some people in this body are possessed in their fight against drug companies. Oh, my gosh, these drug companies are trying to seek all kinds of profits. I like to beat up on drug companies, until you get sick yourself, and then you want to gain access to all these types of drugs whether it is for Medicare pricing or Medicaid pricing,

Would the gentleman yield?

The rebates go to the government, they do not go to the military retiree. Therefore, the price is not affected by the military.

Would the gentleman yield?

That is a valued argument from your position, given how you have drafted the motion to instruct. That is a valued argument.

I would just ask of the gentleman that when we extend price controls to a greater population, as we contend, whether it is military retirees as you are talking about or whether we go to Medicaid or Medicare, what happens is we begin, at some point, we begin to dull our efforts on research and development and going after whatever the new blockbuster drug is that presses the bounds of science that our society gets to enjoy, improves the quality of our lives.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I follow the logic of your argument until you say it is going to help the military retirees because

the military retirees don't get a specific benefit.

I concur with you when you say, Steve, let DOD gain access to FSS pricing, let them get their rebates. I get DOD savings, and with those savings, I can buy equipment and other things. That's your argument.

To say it is going to help the military retirees gain access through the formulary to lower drug prices is not true.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Edwards for yielding to me and having this conversation. This is important.

Members are going to be walking in here, Mr. Edwards, and they are not going to know completely what happened with this debate. It would not be right for Members to walk in here and think I will vote for Mr. Edwards' motion to instruct because I will help a military retiree lower his drug cost when he goes to the retail pharmacy. That is just not true. So I want the offices that are listening to this debate to understand that.

My greatest concern is opening up the Federal Supply Schedule. So I do not want to open up the Federal Supply Schedule to other departments or agencies of government, whether it is DOD, whether it is the Medicare or Medicaid program, and we can debate each of those. We might disagree on things. That is the only point I wanted to make.

The plausible arguments in defense of your motion, I disagree with what you are trying to do here today, and I just wanted to make sure that I made that point.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to respond to Mr. Edwards' comments that he understands there is a lawsuit because the drug companies do not want to give discounts on their drugs to the retail pharmacies, paraphrasing what I believe you said. That is not what the lawsuit is. That is not what the lawsuit is about.

What the lawsuit is about, as I understand this, is that DOD created a virtual depot, and they created this virtual depot or warehouse because they had no authority under the statutes to do this. They needed to create a warehouse so they could obtain access to rebates that are being done out in the private sector. So it was clever. It was smart and clever, but they had no authority to do this.

I warned DOD, and I spoke to Dr. Winkenwerder. I said, please don't do this. If you do this, there are going to be lawsuits because you have no authority to do this at all. He felt that he did. That is what the lawsuit is about.

Madam Speaker, the United States has a long history of supporting the state of Israel and the strong example of democratic values it has brought to the Middle East. The recent events that have enveloped the region will not waiver the resolve of our relationship.

Israel has found itself strained on two fronts. It is battling both Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, nations known to sponsor terrorism and dedicated to the destruction of Israel. While the ferocity of Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldiers by these terrorist groups may be in question, Israel has only acted to defend its way of life and the intrinsic right for a nation to defend its very existence.

Easing tensions in the region will require that neighboring nations take an active role to stabilize the conflict. Egypt and Lebanon must have the fortitude to take a leadership role to pursue regional stabilization. They must grasp this opportunity to demand that immediate steps are taken to resolve the conflict and work to bring peace to the region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 427, which will

provide the use of the Capitol rotunda for the recognition of the 75th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It is altogether fitting to use the rotunda, which is reserved for only the most special and solemn occasions, to commemorate the establishment in 1930 of an agency charged ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.'' Those words, spoken in 1865 by Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address, have been adopted by VA as the department's motto.

When President Herbert Hoover signed the executive order establishing the Veterans Administration, and consolidating and coordinating federal support of veterans, America had 4.7 million living veterans. The new VA administered 54 hospitals with 31,600 employees.

Today, VA cares for our veterans and their families with 235,000 dedicated professionals who operate and manage the largest health care system in the Nation. These public servants, helped by more than 130,000 volunteers, provide high-quality health care to more than 5 million patients in more than 1,300 sites of care, including 154 medical centers.

The VA provides about 3 million veterans with disability compensation and pension payments, and nearly 600,000 spouses, children and parents of deceased veterans receive benefits.

Our revered dead lie in honored repose in 123 national cemeteries administered by VA in 39 States and Puerto Rico. VA also provides grants to States to encourage the development of State cemeteries; funds have been awarded for 63 operating State cemeteries, and 5 more are under construction.

VA research has won the Nobel Prize and it has been instrumental in developing the CT scan, the pacemaker, and improvements in artificial limbs. The Nation's first liver transplant was conducted by a VA surgeon, and VA has pioneered treatments for schizophrenia, high blood pressure, and tuberculosis.

Many veterans know VA best for its able administration of the 1944 GI Bill. Veterans Administration educational benefits have to date sent more than 21 million veterans, service members and family members to college, many of whom have also used VA loans to buy a home. The GI Bill essentially created the modem American middle class that has brought this country unparalleled prosperity and global leadership.

Today our Nation is engaged in a global war on terror. As they have for generations before them, VA's professionals and volunteers are at their stations in hospitals, rehabilitation centers, offices, and clinics ensuring that our newest veterans and their families have the best support possible.

The contribution of VA and the importance of support for America's veterans were officially recognized on March 15, 1989, with VA's establishment as a Cabinet-level department. Hailing the creation of the Nation's 14th cabinet-level position, President George H.W. Bush said, ``There is only one place for the veterans of America, in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America.''

Madam Speaker, there is only one place to celebrate the 75th anniversary of this remarkable agency. That is in the rotunda of the Capitol of the United States of America, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4843) to increase, effective as of December 1, 2006, the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4843, as amended, is one of the more important bills the committee brings to the floor each year.

On April 6 of this year, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, chaired by Mr. Miller of Florida, took testimony on H.R. 4843. The subcommittee then marked this bill on June 8 and reported the bill favorably to the full committee by unanimous voice vote. The full committee reported the bill, as amended, on June 22.

H.R. 4843, as amended, would provide a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA, to disabled veterans and certain survivors in the same amount given to Social Security recipients. All veterans who receive disability compensation and qualified survivors would receive the adjustment beginning December 1 of this year. Congress has acted on COLA legislation every fiscal year since 1976.

More than 2.6 million veterans receive service-connected disability compensation. These benefits are paid monthly and range from $112 for a 10 percent disability to $2,393 for a 100 percent disability. Additional monetary benefits are available for our most severely disabled veterans, as well as those with dependents.

Spouses of veterans who died on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability may also be entitled to monetary compensation. The amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation is $1,033.

Additional amounts are paid to survivors who are housebound or in need of aid and attendants or have minor children. Currently, about 340,000 surviving spouses and children are receiving survivors' benefits.

The amendment to the bill by Ms. Berkley would also provide a COLA to the dependency and indemnity compensation transitional benefit. Established in Public Law 108-454, transitional DIC is a 2-year benefit; and it is intended to ease the family's transition following the death of a service member or veteran.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a 2.2 percent COLA increase, but it may be higher or lower depending upon the changes in the Consumer Price Index. The exact percentage will be calculated as of September 30, 2006.

The cost of providing a COLA is assumed in the administration's budget baseline; therefore, it will be budget neutral. Additionally, H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill of 2007 fully funds a veterans' COLA effective December 1, 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4843, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like the Members to note that last year when we came to the floor, we thought that the COLA was going to be about 2.7 percent. Once they did the adjustment on the CPI, it ended up being about 4.1 percent. I don't know what it is going to be this year. That was a huge change. Even though we are saying approximately 2.2, I don't know what it is going to be.

I would like to thank Lane Evans and Bob Filner for their work. I would also like to thank Mr. Miller and Ms. Berkley. I would like to thank Mr. Udall and Ms. Brown. Also, I thank them in appreciation for the timely fashion in which they moved this bill through the committee and now onto the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006.

I will readily admit that the underlying goal of this bill is commendable. Reducing government waste and unnecessary spending is an admirable goal, one that this Congress should pursue diligently. In fact, I voted in favor of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

I have seen the line item veto in action . . . by President Clinton on a military construction appropriations law. Experience is a cruel, but effective teacher. That experience has shown me that the line item veto in its practical application would abrogate Congressional authority and give the executive additional power over the legislative branch, threatening the fine balance of power that our Founding Fathers wisely ensured.

Since 1996, the Supreme Court has ruled the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional for its violation of Article 1, Section 7, known as the Presentation Clause of the United States Constitution. Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion in Clinton v. New York, ``Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies''. I stand by the decision of the Court and believe that its judgment is applicable to the bill before us.

In the Supreme Court ruling on Clinton v. New York the opinion of the Court stated that the ``cancellations'' of the 1996 Act were not merely exercises of the President's discretionary budget authority but a violation of Article I, Sec. 7, giving the President ``unilateral'' power to change the language of a duly enacted statute. In plain English, the bill did not allow Congress to exercise its constitutionally invested powers.

The bill before us today, H.R. 4890, attempts to avoid this hazard by requiring an up or down vote on each rescission. While these rescissions come to Congress for forced consideration, it does not get around the objections of the Court that the President, in his rescissions, is unilaterally changing a duly enacted statute. By forcing Congress to take up rescissions I fear this measure would tip the scales of power in favor of the executive. The Clinton ruling states that ``Statutory repeals must conform with Article I, (INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954,) but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. The constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellations occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part'' (Clinton v. New York pp. 17-24).

This gets to the heart of my argument that Congress has still not addressed the objections of the Court. The ideals of the 1996 Act for fiscal restraint did not match the practical application leading me to question the ability of the executive to faithfully carry out this legislation, no matter how well intentioned. I cannot in good faith and a clear conscience hand over legislative authority to the executive branch and vote for legislation that seeks to dilute this process.

With regard to the practical aspects of the line item veto, when I voted in favor of the 1996 Act, it was my hope and likely the hope of everyone who supported the measure that the power would be used responsibly, wisely, and prudently. I saw this power abused and misused.

After signing the Military Construction Appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 1998, President Clinton used the line item veto authority for 38 construction projects. The Clinton administration cited three criteria for canceling

the projects. The projects (1) were not requested by the military; (2) could not make contributions to the national defense in FY 1998; and (3) would not benefit the quality of life and well-being of military personnel. The Clinton administration did not even follow its own criteria! The Clinton administration even acknowledged that it had used erroneous data as the basis for striking 18 of the 38 projects. The overwhelming majority of the projects were on the administration's own 5-year construction plan. It cut critical funding for our Nation's Guard and Reserves.

This was a blatant use of raw executive arrogance and power. It was simply an exercise of the White House wanting its way and ignoring the spending priorities set by Congress. Furthermore, the Clinton White House made very clear that it would use the line-item veto as a matter of politics, rather than objective fiscal policy. The line item veto was being used as leverage against Congress to obtain consent to the White House's demand for both more spending and for policy positions.

The Clinton administration made illegitimate the fundamental rationale for the line-item veto . . . to reduce spending. They used the power to threaten the cutting of Members' projects to extract more spending for the administration's priorities; thereby, the line item veto was used to increase spending, not decrease spending.

Despite the need to trim federal spending, I am convinced that this legislation, if enacted, could again be misused by the executive branch, as has already been proven by the example of the Clinton administration. As Justice Kennedy wrote, ``That a congressional cession of power is voluntary does not make it innocuous'' (Clinton v. New York p. 4).

I am a voice for the Fourth District of Indiana. My constituents want controls on the budget and restraint in federal spending. But, neither will I have their voices muffled by an executive power grab. I took an oath to ``defend the Constitution.'' I must protect the voice of my constituents and the power the Constitution invests in me as their representative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 731. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Moran and Mr. Ryun of Kansas for their leadership. I offer my deepest appreciation to the men and women of the Patriot Guard Riders, dedicated and committed Americans who will not wait for others to act, but they took upon themselves the solemn responsibility of right action.

On Memorial Day, before President Bush attended the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, he signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. This new law prohibits disruptions of military funerals at national cemeteries and Arlington, which is owned by the U.S. Army.

Standing behind the President as he signed the bill in the Oval Office was the executive director of the Patriot Guard Riders, Jeff Brown, and five of his Patriot Guard Riders. They stood beside the families of two soldiers who had made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, that of Sergeant Rickey Jones of Kokomo, Indiana; and the family of Sergeant Joshua Youmans of Flushing, Michigan. Both families had endured harassment by protesters who were cheering the deaths of their sons.

Patriot Guard Riders, acting out of decency, compassion and respect for the law, often place themselves between the families and the hateful perversions of those who would sharpen the pain of a mourning family's unspeakable loss.

The mission of the Patriot Guard riders is simple: Show sincere respect for our fallen heroes and their families, their communities; and shield the mourning family and friends from interruptions created by any protester or group of protesters. Patriot Guard Riders attend the funerals at the invitation of the family, and they adhere to strictly legal and nonviolent means. These patriots use their vacation time and fund their own expenses to stand with the grieving families.

Among the hallmarks of the American character is our compassion and human decency. It is how we care for each other in difficult times. In towns across this country, this is evident in the thousands of Americans who line the roads in condolence at the passage of a loved one to attend the military funeral. The independent action, I think, is another of America's sacred traits.

The Patriot Guard Riders, seeing an injustice, chose to rise up and not permit the desecration of the sacred. Their courage, their conviction, and their simple decency on behalf of families grieving at the loss of a loved one represent the very best of our Nation.

In return, we as a Nation offer them our gratitude for unselfishly serving to protect the sanctity of military funerals and for easing the burden of mourning families and their communities, thereby setting a worthy example for everyone.

I urge adoption of this resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, the issue I bring before my colleagues is that we have done a very good job in protecting the soldiers on the battlefield, and I want to compliment Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha for all you have done. And you have done that to protect them against ballistics. So we have given them the body armor. They have the side plates, the shoulder plates, throat plate, groin plate, and they have this helmet on them and it protects them against the ballistic and crash.

But we have a problem. The problem is now, when these IEDs go off, we have blast injuries. Where before you would be close to a blast and the body or the torso would absorb part of that blast, now that blast hits all that armor that we have put on them, and part of that goes up the face where the helmet is strapped onto the chin, and when it goes up into the helmet there is no place for the force to be released. So you get a concussion, and as the force

then comes back down you get a precussion. So we have traumatic brain injuries.

We need to examine this, and I want to work with Mr. Young, with Mr. Weldon, and Mr. Murtha. We need for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct a series of comprehensive, nonballistic and ballistic tests and an evaluation of the Marine Corps light combat helmet and Army combat helmet with all qualified sling, pad, and suspension systems available in accordance with the operational requirements applicable to such helmets.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman for his good work.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I thank the chairman, and I yield to Mr. Murtha.

I thank the two gentlemen and look forward to working with you as we go to conference.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

Immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001, this Nation's focus was on countering the fundamental ideals of terrorism that spawned the attack on our homeland. Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban, connected together through the terror they inflicted, had shared ambitions to destroy our way of life. Five years later, we have witnessed successes of historical proportions. Saddam--imprisoned and on trial for acts against humanity; Osama is on the run and we captured his number two; the Taliban no longer exists--for the first time in Afghanistan, their citizens are free to hope and dream; women are receiving an education. Al Qaeda is demonstrating what comes from the crushing pains of defeat, left only with cowardly acts of desperation in a weakening effort to survive the blows that we have dealt it.

Today in Iraq we are on the verge of the blossoming of a successful new republic, accomplished by the perseverance of its citizens, and the sacrifices of many. Yet, some of our own countrymen are showing a dangerous tendency to waiver, their faith shaken by the drive-through mentality of our society. They are verbalizing their doubts at a time when we need them to stand strong. The peace-doves who turned hawks of circumstance after September 11 were predicted to not have the intestinal fortitude to see this fight through to its necessary resolution. They are living up to that prediction despite the threat of terrorism still lurking around the world.

We cannot forget that the goals of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are to destroy western culture in all of its forms and manifestations. All across America, our constituents live their lives--take their kids to school, go to work, earn a living--and this is the strength of our Nation. However, we still live in the shadow of a real and looming threat to our way of life. We must remain vigilant of that threat and stand firm in our vow to dismantle it. While we have not been attacked on our own soil since September 11, we cannot afford the ramifications of complacency. The recent arrest of bomb-building terrorists across the border in Canada is clear evidence of that. We have forced the terrorists into making this an ``away game,'' the battlefield pushed from our homeland, but nonetheless the outcome must be in our favor. Yes, the victories in this battle are many, but we must have the resolve and determination to defeat terrorism here at home and abroad. To succeed we must be absolute and have constancy of purpose.

For decades Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with an iron fist of repression. In the midst of that oppression was the intense yearning of the Iraqi people to taste freedom. They were forced to keep their hopes hidden, wrapped in a cocoon that they could one day blossom into the living principles from which they could rebuild their nation. They have emerged from that cocoon and are attempting to fly. The elements that were forming in it have manifested themselves in the formation of their new government, two successful national elections, and a successful national constitutional referendum.

Iraq cannot continue to succeed in the transition from war to building their Nation without our continued help. The people of Iraq have appealed to us in this critically important period. We have pledged our commitment to them and we need to see it through. The Iraqi people are proud of their accomplishments thus far, but they have asked for a steady hand of reassurance from us to help guide them in this transition.

The pride and motivation that the Iraqi population has demonstrated to this point are key elements to making their young government a success. We must continue to nurture their growth of confidence so that they can effectively govern, defend, and sustain themselves. The motivation to man a completely volunteer Iraqi army is one point of evidence that these people have pride and faith in their new republic. We cannot fail the security of our own Nation and the people of Iraq in a time of such dire need. The consequences of walking away at this point are too great to fathom. We must maintain our resolve to follow through with our commitment to the people of Iraq and in the global fight to free ourselves from the grip and fear of terrorism.