Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3200) to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2005, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported H.R. 3200, the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Enhancement Act of 2005. Among other things, this bill would provide a permanent authorization for increases in maximum life insurance coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, referred to as the SGLI program, and the Veterans' Group Life Insurance, referred to as the VGLI program from $250,000 to $400,000.

Public Law 109-113, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act For Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, increased the maximum coverage to $400,000 under these programs. However, the authorization expires on September 30, 2005.

It is my understanding that the Senate included the termination date, which was approved in the conference report, to afford the legislative committees the jurisdiction and opportunity to hold public hearings and further consider the specifics of the emergency authorization before it could be made permanent.

The increased level of coverage was requested by the President because of concerns over death benefits for the survivors of servicemembers being inadequate as our Nation fights the global war on terrorism. H.R. 3200 would also repeal the provision of Public Law 109- 13 which prevents a married servicemember from declining SGLI coverage, or opting for an amount less than the maximum, without the written consent of the spouse. Public Law 109-13 mandates spousal consent, even in cases where the couple is estranged, as long as they are legally married.

The committee does not believe providing a spouse such veto authority over life insurance elections is good public policy. The spousal consent requirement could also result, for example, in a servicemember's spouse excluding stepchildren as beneficiaries. The government should not interfere legally in a servicemember's highly personal choices about such family matters.

H.R. 3200 would instead require the military service Secretary concerned to provide written notification to the spouse or the next of kin of an unmarried servicemember as to the servicemember's insurance election.

The committee believes that this is the preferable way of ensuring that the spouse or beneficiary is informed about this important financial decision, while preserving the individual right of the servicemember to make decisions about life insurance coverage.

Finally, Public Law 109-13 also provides for a new traumatic injury program. The traumatic injury program provides financial assistance in the amounts from $25,000 to $100,000 to servicemembers who suffer certain traumatic injuries.

The traumatic injury protection under current law is mandatory for servicemembers who elect SGLI coverage with premiums paid by the servicemember. No hearing had been held on this new program until June 16 of 2005, when the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 3200 in its draft form and on the traumatic injury protection program.

H.R. 3200 would allow a servicemember to decline traumatic injury coverage. This program authorization will be effective December 1, 2005, for servicemembers, but it is retroactive to October 7, 2001, when Operation Enduring Freedom began, for qualifying losses that are a direct result of injuries incurred in Operation Enduring Freedom and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his hard work on this legislation. On April 16, 2005, Mr. Renzi introduced H.R. 1618, which would create a traumatic injury protection program similar to what was enacted in Public Law 109-13.

On June 16, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) testified before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and his comments helped shape the bill which we are currently considering today. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) is a strong supporter of our Nation's servicemen and women, and I appreciate his input.

I would also note that I have had continuous dialogue with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), and I deeply appreciate his passion. In having grown up in a military family, he has great understanding of the sacrifices of the men and women who wear the uniform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations when they took up this matter at the request of the President.

I also would like to commend the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in the consideration of this bill in a timely fashion and ensuring that the Servicemember Group Life Insurance Enhancement Act of 2005 was quickly passed.

I also want to note that the gentleman has been actively involved in these insurance provisions since we were first made aware of them. Following the submission of the supplemental, he convened a roundtable with the administration officials, and he has taken a lead on the crafting of this bill; and I want to thank him for his efforts.

I also want to commend the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), the ranking member, for working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) on this legislation. Her input was valuable, and we appreciate her efforts on behalf of men and women who wear the uniform and our veterans.

I also again want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi)

for his contributions to this legislation. I also reserve the last of my thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of full committee, for his good work.

Congress must act promptly to ensure permanent SGLI authorization is enacted before September 30 of 2005, or the coverage levels for servicemember life insurance will revert to $250,000 on October 1 of 2005. I do not believe any Member of this body would want to see that happen. I strongly urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to H.R. 3200.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3200.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2361, Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

This bill will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with supplemental funding of approximately $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2005. Several weeks ago, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 3130 which provided $975 million in health care funding for the fiscal year. We did that in response to revelations at the time to a line of questioning that I had with Dr. Perlin of VHA at a full committee hearing on health care modeling and forecasting.

We learned that since the spring of this year VA hospitals and clinics were shifting significant amounts of funds into medical services from maintenance and capital equipment accounts. This shifting was driven by underestimates of long-term care requirements and increased use of VA facilities by returning Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans to also include a surge of veterans in categories 1 through 6 and category 7 for health care.

I directed Secretary Nicholson to tell us what additional funds he needed for 2005. I also then immediately informed the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of this issue.

The Secretary returned from meetings with his staff on June 30, bringing to us a number of $975 million. This House acted the very same day in which the Secretary made his request through the President of the United States approving to the penny the VA's request. Yet the number was not even dry on the paper when, in fact, days later we were then informed that number was really $1.275 billion, and they needed an additional $300 million.

The $300 million is for a carryover account which we in Congress permit the VA to utilize. So you will hear this number. What is really important is the $975 million number; and as a matter of fact, just last week the VA said they hold to the number. The additional $300 million is for the carryover account.

The Republican Senate leadership offered a number of $1.5 billion. Now the challenge we have is they passed a number on the Senate interior appropriations bill of emergency supplemental. The House passed a $975 million number that was paid for out of the 2005 budget. As Members go to the interior conference, we have a challenge. We have got moneys which were paid for, the Senate asks for emergency. Now I suppose we are asking for an instruction that is saying make it an emergency supplemental.

So what we are doing is rolling one on top of another. We have $975 million which was paid for out of the 2005 budget. Now we are going to vote for an instruction to the conferees on $1.5 billion on emergency supplemental. So these are issues that conferees are going to have to work out at conference.

But when we look at VHA's forecasting performance which has been the focus at some of our animated hearings in the House, 3 over the last several weeks, in April they provide notice to the Committee on Appropriations that they are going to reprogram $600 million. Then in the latter part of June when we hold our hearing, they testify they are short $975 million, but they have ``work-around solutions.''

Then a few days later while we are on our July break, we learn that the number was short $300 million. They are going to spend down the $975, and the $300 million is the carryover account. We either take care of that in 2005, or we have to include it in the 2006 budget amendment.

If Members watch this, we go from $600 million to $975 million to $1.275 billion. What is it going to be in August? I think that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) are indicating. So that is why I am going to support the motion to instruct, because there is a loss of confidence here in the House with regard to the number that has been given to us. Patience with the VHA bureaucracy has run out.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We have. We have held three hearings. Part of the reason dealt with their modeling and their forecasting. For the 2005 budget, they used 2002 data, and they also had false assumptions. So we have informed them that they have every opportunity to get right the 2007 budget because now they tell us about the use of old data and poor measuring criteria. So they have every reason now to get it right. So what are they changing with regard to their assumptions and how are they improving the data with regard to the 2007, because that is what they are doing right now.

So what has occurred is we get the 2005 right. They come with a 2006 budget amendment. We just held a hearing on the 2006 budget amendment, which is just under $2 billion; and then we told them that we are going to do some handholding as they prepare the 2007 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would say everyone wants the modeling to be correct and for us to reestablish trust and confidence on our predictability of a budget number. When we do that, we bring purity to the process and OMB also brings trust and confidence. I think there is lack of trust and confidence under the budget number, and OMB has proven they are not as good of a caretaker here as they think they are. We will work cooperatively with OMB because they also are part of this process of the pain.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is accountability. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) touched on it and so did the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). The credibility must be rebuilt, and OMB is integral to this process.

I have asked Secretary Nicholson to review the leadership of the VHA bureaucracy to ensure that the right people are running it, and also its finances and some within the health network.

In particular, I am greatly disappointed and have lost confidence in the leadership and management of the Deputy Under Secretary for Health, for Operations and for Management. In the meantime, Congress will ensure that veterans health care is funded. We will hold VA accountable for its use of these dollars in the performance of its mission.

Over the recess, other Committee on Veterans' Affairs members, staff, and I will personally visit VA health care facilities because there is no substitute for boots-on-the-ground examination.

I will specifically visit a polytrauma center in Minneapolis.

One of the harshest realities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is the number of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with loss of limbs and other severe and lasting injuries. With the body armor which we are providing to our soldiers, they can turn that up, and what is happening is it protects the torso, and they are having now loss of limbs and traumatic brain injuries.

VA has four regional traumatic brain injury rehabilitation centers. One of them is in Minneapolis, one is in Palo Alto, another one is in Richmond, and one is in Tampa. These are very important regional referral centers for individuals who have sustained these serious disabling conditions due to combat. VSOs and others are saying that these individual veterans are not being seen because of cuts in the VA. I find that challenging. I want to make sure these allegations are correct, so I am going to go on the ground to see if it is true.

I have also asked the GAO to review the VA's budget process, and I think that will be very important for some other eyes on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, America's veterans will receive the health care they have earned. $1.5 billion is a significant number for an important constituency, and I anticipate that we will act quickly to provide it. We can all see that only 2 months remain in the fiscal year. Unspent funds from this appropriation will be available for their use as down payments on the 2006 budget supplemental so that all funds will be put to good use.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his work. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for this motion. I also commend my colleagues in the Senate for their willingness to act quickly to Secretary Nicholson's request and to resolve this matter. I also want to thank the President, because when this was alerted to everyone's attention, the President acted and sent over a number. He also did the 2006 budget amendment.

In the end, those of us who exercise great care to raise and support the military know that our obligation does not end upon one's discharge. We care for the wounds and the injuries. We care for those who are left behind. We care for them to make as whole as possible and to create a climate so that one may take advantage of economic opportunities to live beyond a disability paycheck so that the defenders of liberty may also enjoy the bounties of the liberty for which they fight. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees in order to ensure that the veterans' funding can be done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, today I am introducing H. Res. 361 recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Veterans Administration on July 21, 1930. I am joined by the Committee's Ranking Member, Mr. Evans, in introducing this resolution.

More than 48 million men and women have served America well and faithfully in military uniform. More than 1 million made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Twenty-five million veterans are living among us today. These men and women selflessly set aside their civilian lives to put on the uniform and serve us. Many return from that service bearing wounds to body and spirit. Many return hungry to take advantage of the fruits of the democracy they defended, and seek education and employment opportunity.

The nation's obligation to her defenders is as old as that defense itself. In his second inaugural address in 1865, President Abraham Lincoln clearly expressed the obligation: ``. . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''

On July 21, 1930, pursuant to a Congressional authorization, President Hoover issued an executive order to ``consolidate and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans,'' creating the Veterans Administration. The new VA was charged with ensuring that America's veterans received the benefits and services they had earned through their military service.

Today the 230,000 public servants of the Department of Veterans Affairs, formed from the VA in 1989, continue the noble tradition of their predecessors in service to veterans and their families.

The men and women of today's VA are dedicated to caring for today's veterans and stand ready to provide for our servicemembers who now defend our freedoms and our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that my good friend from Texas's 1-minute is very unfortunate because, Chet, you and I are working together. We are working with your colleague, Chairman Walsh, to find the right number. And so to try to say that, gee, there is a bogeyman, there is a bad person here, that is false. What we are looking for, Chet, is to get the right number.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I can address the Chair, but I think we know who we are talking to.

I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman who just spoke will be very careful, because we are trying to work together to get the right number. I think it is an embarrassing moment. When we ask the administration for the number, they testify to a number, and then we find that it is not right potentially? We are trying to get the number right and to make sure that veterans are served properly on a bipartisan basis. Please, let us not erode that.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1220) to increase, effective as of December 1, 2005, 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. 1220, as amended, is one of the more important bills the committee brings to the floor each year. This bill, as amended, would authorize the cost-of-living adjustment effective December 1, 2005 for veterans with service-connected disabilities and their survivors.

The projected increase is 2.3 percent, but may be higher or lower depending on changes in the consumer price index. After our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), speaks, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, will provide a more detailed description of this provision.

H.R. 1220, as amended, will also authorize a demonstration project to improve the ability of the Veterans Health Administration to collect funds from third party insurance companies. Under certain circumstances, the VA may bill insurance companies for the treatment of conditions that are not a result of injuries or illnesses incurred or aggravated during military service. Despite improvements, weaknesses in VA's billing and collection process still exist. Every dollar rightfully owed to the VA and not collected is a dollar less to veterans care.

We are working to ensure the VA can accurately forecast health care demand. We must also ensure that the system is able to collect a just debt. I expect that all revenue collected from the project will be returned to the VA medical center where the pilot occurs and not be subjected to appropriations offsets.

Finally, the bill would permanently authorize six Parkinson's disease research, education and clinical centers. Parkinson's disease affects as many as 1.5 million Americans. While treatment exists, we are still in search of a cure.

Currently, the VA has six of these centers. They provide researchers the ability to see results rapidly and put their knowledge to use in helping patients. These centers, working with other VA clinicians, treat tens of thousands of veterans with Parkinson's disease. This section will ensure that the VA continues this invaluable research and treatment.

I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for his work on this part of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for his work and cooperation on this legislation. I also would like to say to him that he is a champion of Parkinson's Disease, and I am proud of his leadership by example and I am proud of his spirit to live and equally am proud to call him my friend.

I also commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), the chairman and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, for their timely work concerning H.R. 1220, ensuring that disabled veterans and their survivors receive their COLA.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for their hard work on reaching a compromise on the authorization of the demonstration project.

I am equally appreciative of the hard work of the staff directors of the majority and the minority, Art Wu and Len Sistek for their work to improve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2005.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1220, as amended, the bill just passed.

Mr. Chairman, in 13 years I have seen a lot of amendments in subcommittee and in full committee and on the House floor. This one is a bit peculiar. I do not even, frankly, know what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to say. I think it is perhaps being used just so he can come to the floor and speak, I suppose.

No moneys can be used in contravention of the OMB circular that states that in testimony before congressional committee and committee before Members of Congress the witnesses give frank and complete answers to all questions. Man, blow me away today.

I want to share with my colleagues with regard to the Veterans Administration. Let me give a record as I understand it from testimony and actions that have occurred with reference to the 2005 budget.

On April 5 of 2005, a letter to Senator Hutchison, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, stating that the VA, as part of good management, prudently uses reserve funding whenever trends indicate the need to refocus priorities, and the Secretary before the full committee on the House Veterans Affairs testified about that today.

On April 7 of 2005, Dr. Perlin testified to the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee at his confirmation hearing that reserve funds were being used to meet operational needs in 2005.

On April 12 of 2005, Dr. Perlin sent a letter to the Senate VA Committee stating that projected carryover of fiscal year 2006 might be diminished to address current operational demands, including care in OIF and OEF returning combat veterans noting that ``we do feel confident that VHA has sufficient resources for the remainder of 2005.''

On April 19 of 2005, VA staff met with both majority and minority Members of the House appropriations subcommittee. During the meeting, management decisions to reallocate capital funds for direct patient care in 2005 was discussed.

On June 3 of 2005, a meeting with the House and Senate majority staff at the request of the staff detailing the modeling differences between the independent budget and the VA's annual budget process.

On June 9, a meeting with Secretary Nicholson and the general counsel regarding the budget shortfall and the extent to which reprogramming had already taken place.

On June 21, a meeting with Secretary Nicholson regarding the upcoming hearing on budget modeling.

On June 22, a meeting with Dr. Perlin, Under Secretary for Health, regarding the mid-year review and the reprogramming of capital assets and rollover accounts into medical services.

I am going down this entire list. I should have opened with a March 24 letter that Secretary Nicholson had sent to the appropriators, in particular to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, along with the very same letter that I have here in hand that was sent to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking member of that subcommittee, regarding the reprogramming and redirection of funds.

I do not want to have to repeat that, but I just want to let my colleagues know that notice was given with regard to this reprogramming. So with regard to this question about hide the ball, there was no hiding the ball.

On June 22, 2005, there is a meeting with Dr. Perlin, the Under Secretary for Health, regarding the mid-year review and reprogramming of capital asset and rollover accounts into medical services.

On June 23, there is a hearing before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs investigating the budget modeling process at the VA and the independent budget and the private sector, and at this hearing is where Dr. Perlin testified with regard to his shortfall of $975 million. That is when the public became fully aware.

On June 28, Secretary Nicholson testified before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, regarding the newly identified budget shortfalls for 2005 and 2006.

June 28, 2005, Secretary Nicholson then testified before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee regarding newly identified budget shortfalls for 2005 and 2006.

June 29, Senator Nicholson joined the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs at a press conference to alert everyone that he was going to come up with an exact number yesterday and then give testimony before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs regarding that number.

Today, he came before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He testified with regard to an actual shortfall, made an oral request for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $975 million to cover the shortfall.

I would say everybody's been pretty up front. I am pretty impressed on how things have moved in a bipartisan fashion. I want to compliment the veterans service organizations. I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), because what we have here is we want to move in regular order.

What happened over in the Senate is that they make it as an amendment on a 2005 supplemental on an 2006 Interior

bill. What I am really pleased about is the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) that they are going to take appropriate action; they are going to act on the Secretary's request for the shortfall.

Why? Because all of us believe and understand in the fabric of the common bond of why we call ourselves American is to care for the men and women who wear the uniform; and when they take off the uniform, we care for them when they are veterans. If they fall in the service of their country, we pick them up and attempt to make them whole. If they fall and die, then we make sure that we give them an honorable burial, and we take care of their widows and their orphans.

That is what this is going to do. We are going to take this measure up tonight. I applaud the chairman for his immediate action. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his cooperation in making sure this happened tonight; and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been equally impatient, but we are going to make this happen, and we are going to come together to make this happen, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership in bringing this supplemental, being responsive to the administration's requests. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking member, for working cooperatively with the gentleman from New York as he has done since he assumed this position. The gentleman's leadership is important and it is valuable.

Yesterday, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I kind of joked with each other when I came up to the gentleman and I said, what is the powerball? And the gentleman looked at me and said, what? And I said what is the powerball, because if the gentleman could actually guess what the number should be for the veterans budget, the gentleman should also know what the powerball is. We kind of had fun, we had some laughter amongst each other because what we are dealing with is hard. It is difficult. There are people that are a lot smarter than me and that have Ph.D.s in how to do the actuarial studies.

And it is rather interesting that the VA, for the longest time, I want to share with my colleagues what had been done was that the VA would formulate the health care portion of their budgets using historical trend analysis, inflation, and then they would also take into consideration new initiatives. Then the VA said, well, we ought to change that. Let us improve workload projection capabilities, and let us do some better forecasting.

And so they go out and they hire Milliman Incorporated, which is an outside actuarial firm that provides expertise and guidance to the top private health companies in America. Well, that sounded like a pretty good idea to do. Then what we learned on June 23 in the Full Committee on Veterans' Affairs as we get into the issue on health care modeling, I know you say, my gosh, why are you talking about this? This is pretty important. What we learn about the modeling is, is that

model wrong that the VA is using to protect the budgets? How come we get into these positions? What we learned is it is not necessarily that the model is in error. The model that is used in the private sector and that is used to guide the VA is adjusted for these private firms on an annual basis.

The VA uses this model and stresses it. They stress the model to project between 2.5 and 3.5 years out. Now, that is not right. So what we are going to do, and the gentlemen from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and myself and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), we are going to work together here because we are going to stop this stuff going on. If they recognize that the data is old and stale and that their assumptions are not right and they are not doing annual risk adjustments, then we are going to have to do it for them. Right?

So it is important for us to continue our oversight. So when this was brought out in the hearing last week, the administration, the testimony of Dr. Perlin was we have some work around solutions. Well, we listened to it. And then we began to talk among ourselves, Republicans and Democrats alike, listening to evidence and stories from our own districts and said, you know, this does not feel right and we should take some action.

The administration responded. What we said to the administration was, and I share with my colleagues in the Senate because their immediate response, we were not even done with our hearing in the House and the Senate calls a press conference and says we are going to fund it at 1.5 or 1.6.

They are making up numbers over in the Senate. We are not going to make up numbers here in the House. I have heard some of my dear friends on the Democrat side say, I am really disappointed it is not $1.5 billion. Where do you get $1.5 billion? We cannot make it up.

If our responsibility to the taxpayer is to get the number right, then let us get the number right. So when we asked the Secretary to come over and testify and he did this morning, we said we want an exact number and that is exactly what he delivered to us.

So of the $975 million supplemental, this morning he said I need $273 million to fund health care for returning Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom veterans, including members of the Guard and Reserve. They also needed $226 million to continue funding of the shared Federal and State VA long-term care nursing home program. They need another $200 million to fund unanticipated increases in the health care for priorities 1 through 6 veterans. He needed $95 million to fund unanticipated energy, fuel, and utility costs. He needed $84 million to buy emergency medical equipment and $39 million to pay for the increase in health care benefits for dependents of 100 percent service connected veterans as the need has increased at a rate greater than expect.

And there is another number that no one has talked about. You know what it is? Accounts receivables. So I asked the VA, you came and told us you need $975 million. What is your accounts receivables? What in the final quarter of 2005 do you anticipate that you are going to collect? $325 million.

So basically what we have, if you are in business we have a cashflow problem. We also have a shortfall. So they have accounts receivables out there and they have a bogey, a deficit. So when we say okay, we are going to do an infusion. So we do an infusion of $975 million, you know what? The number is higher than that. Because it is $975 million plus the $325 million of accounts receivables. It is $1.3 billion is the infusion. That is the monies available for the VA in the final quarter. That is the exact number.

So I am hopeful that when we pass this bill, and I agree with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh). I do not think there is going to be one vote against this because we will all speak together in a unified voice. We will send this to the other body and say this bill comes to a total of $1.3 billion in available resources that the VA can use in the final quarter and those monies that you cannot use we will move over into 2006. We will continue to work on the 2006 number. We will work on that budget amendment.

The next thing we will do is the VA is working on the 2007 budget because they have responsibilities to get that transferred soon to OMB. We will get all this worked out because this Secretary owns that 2007 budget and he owns the 2006 budget and he owns this mistake and he understands that.

I urge all of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion and in a big voice, let us wake up the other body. We pass it tonight. They can pass exactly what we have here, and we can make a tremendous impact on the veterans community. Let us pass this bill.

I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time.

I would like to give an explanation of how we got here. I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague, and his sincerity and his work not only on the commitment of men and women who wear the uniform but also our veterans.

I also extend congratulations. You are either that good, or it was the best guess that turned out to be right. What I really believe in my heart, since you are my friend, is the latter because we do not understand this health financing model as well as we should. So I know you just said I really do not want to say how we got here, let us take immediate action. First of all, we do not even know how to define the word ``adequate.'' To take action, we need to have it based on an intellect, and we are not even there yet.

So what happened here? Let me tell my colleagues how we got here. Everybody in this town seems to be throwing out a budget number with regard to veterans health. Whether it is the American Legion who has a number, whether the independent budget has a number, whether Republicans have a number, whether Democrats have a number, whether VA has a number or the OMB or the President, everybody seems to have a number. So I said wait a minute, time out here.

I looked back into what we did in the mid-1990s when after the BRAC and prior to before we ever created TRICARE for life and we are trying to figure out the military health delivery system's budget number, and we never could get it right, and we always have to come back in the supplementals, right? So what do we do? We held a hearing on the finance models on the predictability of these budgets. So we increased the predictability.

What is going on now? The modeling still is wrong. So on June 23, in the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we held a hearing on the finance of how we do the health modeling with regard to what are the assumptions that are used in the model, what are the risk adjustments that may be necessary, what are the variances, what are the unexpected contingencies. All of these things are very important.

One thing I think is fascinating that we learned was that the model that we used, because the VA contracts with the private sector and when we contract, the model that is used in the private sector is done on an annual basis. In DOD, they use this model, and it is a 2.5 projection. In the VA, it is a 2.5 to 3.5, which means we are stressing the model itself.

I just want everybody to know this is extremely important. We are stressing the health finance model, which means we need to go back and perhaps do more science with regard to how we predict these budgets.

My colleagues say, Steve, what are you talking about? This is extremely important, and we are going to continue our work. Why? Because we need to make sure we define the word, what is ``adequate.''

So when the VA sends this dollar figure to not only the authorizers but, more importantly, the appropriators, so when you pass a budget you know what that budget is and you have confidence in it.

Now there is no hide-the-ball here. The VA conducts a mid-year review. When they conducted the mid-year review, unfortunately a week after the gentleman from New York's (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas' (Ranking Member Edwards) product is passed by the floor, we learned from the mid-year review that they are off on the 2005 budget. They are off because of OIF and OEF and dental and personnel and increase on demand of services for older veterans, and now they have a shortfall with regard to 2005.

The Secretary informs us and says I have work-around solutions with regard to 2005. We in Congress authorize what is called a cushion, whether it is DOD health or VA health, and that cushion is around $400 million that goes from year to year. He says, well, I need to take $380 million out of the $400 million cushion, and I also then need to redirect or reprogram out of the capitalization accounts for 2005.

I agree with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) with regard to our oversight responsibilities. Matter of fact, the Speaker said maintain our oversight to make sure that we maintain the quality of care and the services necessary for America's veterans. That is going to be done.

So as we listen and be a good listener with regard to the Secretary's work-around solutions for 2005, it is 2006. That 2006 budget number, I will submit there is no one here on this floor, despite whatever number they may advocate, that knows exactly what it is today.

Hearings are very important, and the hearings are going to continue. This is, as the Secretary said, evolution. Yes, this is going to be an evolutionary process to get it right about 2006. I do not care about just 2006, I care about getting it right from 2006 on. I care about getting it right in 2006 and beyond because of our commitment to veterans.

So it would be very good and very helpful and very appropriate for us to use the right words on this floor. No one owns a cornerstone in their advocacy to veterans and what they have done for this Nation. No one in this House. We all do. We all respect the service and sacrifice of our veterans.

So let us embrace the challenge of getting into the health modeling issue to make sure these issues are right; that we go in and work with our Senate colleagues to make sure we get the numbers correct with regard to the 2006 budget. And when we do this, we then define what is ``adequate funding'' for the VA.

Mr. Speaker, I want to work with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and with the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). I respect the leadership of Chairman Walsh, and I also thank him for his firmness and for his tough words with the Secretary. I look forward to working on this commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Chairman Regula's, amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of increased funding for programs aimed at getting veterans into jobs.

Mr. Chairman, the National Veterans Employment and Training Institute is run by the University of Colorado under contract to the Department of Labor. Their mission is to train Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (DVOPS and LVERs) how to place veterans who are seeking employment in good-paying jobs.

I want to emphasize that DVOPS and LVERs are state employees who usually work for the state employment service. The extra 500 thousand dollars will allow NVTI to increase its training load for the next year by nearly 20 percent. That means that more DVOPS and LVERs will get basic and advanced training in such skills as case management, compliance investigation, job coaching, promoting partnerships, presentation skills, and Transition Assistance for those being discharged.

The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Act, or HVRP, is designed to get homeless veterans off the streets and back into the labor market. The typical grantee provides the safe living quarters and supportive services to men and women who have hit bottom and are seeking a way out of what may have been decades of homelessness. Recent data indicates this is a highly cost effective program. For a program cost of a little over $2,200 per job placement averaging about $9.25 per hour, an HVRP client potentially returns about $2,800 in taxes per year to the federal government. I call that a good investment in human capital.

The Chairman's amendment will add three million dollars to the $22 million proposed by the President. I salute the Chairman for his efforts on behalf of homeless veterans. This additional funding will provide opportunities for hundreds more homeless veterans. According to the Veterans Employment and Training staff, three million dollars will fund nine to 12 new grantees and service over 1,000 more homeless veterans. Surely, this is a worthy cause.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that every Member can take pride in and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his good work on the Committee on the Judiciary. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for taking up this legislation once again. I would also like to thank the American Legion and the other veterans service organizations for their work behind this legislation before the House.

The legislation before the House today would protect ``Old Glory'' from desecration. This is not about free speech or the ability of our citizens to express displeasure at the actions of government. That right is fully protected by the first amendment and this proposed amendment.

The Supreme Court was right in their rulings to prohibit the shouting of ``fire'' in a crowded theater; and, equally, the Supreme Court was wrong to permit flag-burning. The burning of the flag is conduct that Congress is justified in regulating, and that is what we are doing in this legislation.

The Stars and Stripes is a powerful symbol of our Nation and the ideals that we as a people hold dear: the freedom of American citizens, the courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our people to protect liberty and justice for all from enemies from within and from without. The ideals that it embodies are very powerful and are recognized here at home, but also abroad, by friend and foe alike.

This symbol of liberty is so powerful that Congress should have the right to prohibit its willful and purposeful desecration. It is not a piece of cloth that rose from the ashes of the fallen Twin Towers or that was draped from the Pentagon in the aftermath of September 11. After that day, the flag suddenly seemed to appear everywhere, overnight, across this land, any size of fabric, even those made by schoolchildren from construction paper, I suppose, flags stuck in flowerpots, pinned on lapels, decals posted on the back windows of our automobiles and trucks. The message was the same: I am proud to be an American.

I have seen the flag on a distant battlefield, and those, like me who have seen it there, see it perhaps from a different perspective. Across the river from here is a memorial to the valiant efforts of our Marines to raise that flag on Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of cloth that appeared in the sky on that day so many years ago, just as it is not a piece of cloth that Francis Scott Key saw over Baltimore Harbor centuries ago.

The flag was the physical embodiment of all we as Americans cherish: the triumph of liberty over totalitarianism, the freedoms we enjoy; our rights the government has an obligation to protect; and the duty we have to pass the torch of liberty to our children undimmed.

The flag is a symbol worth defending. Long may she wave. I urge the adoption of this constitutional amendment to protect the flag.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the quality of his work, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). We have had the opportunity to work over the years in the Committee on Armed Services, and we continue to work with them.

I came down here to tell them I am proud of them. They put together a pretty good product. They are operating under new procedures. I am really pleased with regard to the leadership of taking the personnel and housing and coupling it with veterans. I want to work with the gentlemen and the gentlewoman on their committees and their staff because the only way we can get the seamless transition is through working together.

And we are going to end this procurement of I will buy my own systems and VA buys their own systems and then they are incompatible and we have got duplicity and multiplicity and, guess what, it is now up to us to end this.

And we are going to make this seamless transition work. We are going to give the right platforms with regard to IT. I want to thank them for making that cut in IT. A lot of people are going to say, Why did they do that? We are about to set the correct platform under the right form of leadership. And what I would like to work with the gentlemen on is that we are going to hopefully take the chief information officer within the VA and we are going to give them line and budget authority. We are going to end the stovepipes and the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars, because we need to modernize this system. So I want to work with them as we proceed.

Despite this recent comment about $1 billion being a drop in the bucket, they plussed-up health care $1 billion. That is real money. One billion dollars in my congressional district, and I cannot speak for yours, but in my congressional district, I take all of the income tax receipts of my constituents and it is $990 million. So $1 billion represents the labor of every constituent who works in my congressional district.

So they work together and plus this up $1 billion over the President's mark; and as a matter of fact, they exceeded the mark that we gave to the budget views and estimates. So I stand here and congratulate the bipartisan work; 1.64 billion is meaningful, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to their focus on PTSD and following the President's recommendation of the $100 million, I thank them. We are going to be holding a hearing coming up; so to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and his concerns, hopefully he can contact us and we can also address his ideas. I am pleased about the COLA adjustment. We are going to move in June to do the authorization on the COLA.

And I also want to pause for a moment and thank them with regard to the second pilot on revenue enhancement. This is boring stuff that a lot of people do not like to talk about, but it is the operations of these health systems. And we are not getting it right at the beginning, and we are not getting coding right. We are not getting the number right even on collections. So we have this project out in the visit in Ohio, and now we are opening up a second front, a competitive pilot. This is going to be the right thing as we move to improve revenue enhancement.

So I want to thank them, and I want to thank their staff for their fine work. I know I focused my entire remarks on the veterans side, but let me thank them also for what they do for the men and women and the families in taking care of their housing on these bases. It is extremely important and very valued. And they are doing some real grinding, and sometimes it does not get all of the attention, and I know what they are doing on the inside. So on behalf of the men and women in uniform, I thank them and God bless them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because of its timing. It is wonderful to talk about an exit strategy, if in fact it was timely to do so. But I oppose the timing of this conversation and debate.

As a Nation and society committed to freedom and democratic principles and peace, I believe this amendment at this time would undermine our core values and the mentorship that we are having with a new, free country.

When the President declared the global war on terrorism and Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, the United States made a significant investment in world peace. Like any sound investment, our investment in peace is subject to volatility and outside influences. The forces of evil that oppose the U.S. liberation of Iraq are the same forces in Iraq that want to suppress women and children, kill innocent people, attack schools, hospitals and religious institutions.

Asking for an exit strategy for U.S. forces at this time is essentially calling it quits, and that is not the America I know. I believe that peace and freedom are inextricable and inseparable. Forsaking the Iraqi people in their hour of need is counter to the fabric of this great Nation.

As a newly established free society, the Iraqi people are in their infancy of establishing the rule of law. Like the birth of any nation, there will be growing pains and unpleasant and tragic events. But let us be very clear: it has been the United States and our coalition partners that have given the Iraqi people hope.

So this debate with regard to setting an exit strategy or a timetable for withdrawal, again, is not timely. It would be arbitrary. It is the mission that determines the exit strategy.

Mr. Chairman, the debate we are having here really is not too much different from the debate we had during the Balkans, at the time when President Clinton, to his credit, brought the guns to silence. But what he said was, ``I want to commit U.S. ground troops for only 1 year.''

The Republicans immediately said, But, Mr. President, that is not an exit strategy. You cannot say we will only send the troops for 1 year, because it is the mission that will determine the exit. The exit then was determined in the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords by creating benchmarks for the success of the implementation of Dayton.

So it is the mission with regard to stable civil institutions in achieving benchmarks of that free society in Iraq that will determine the exit strategy. The stabilizing of Iraq is extremely important. The training of their security forces is extremely important. And I assure my friends that the more that the insurgents attack security forces and police forces in Iraq, mosques, schools, innocent people within Iraq, it builds the esprit of the Iraqi people themselves, who are a very proud people, that they want to take these insurgents who are not of their land, not of their people and expel them from their land. I assure my colleagues that they equally, at that moment in time, will be just as eager for us to come home.

So it is the mission that will determine the exit strategy. This amendment, while worthy and noble in its cause, is just not timely and, therefore, I will oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today the Congress recognized the 60th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. World War II was a defining moment in the lives of our Nation's Greatest Generation. Men and women whose early youth was shaped in the ordeal of the Great Depression showed the values formed in that crucible when tyranny threatened a world. More than 4 million Americans served in our armed forces in the cauldron of Europe. Nearly 200,000 of them made the ultimate sacrifice there serving the cause of freedom. Today, as we must every day, we recognize and honor the service and sacrifices made by them and by our allies fighting by their side. Their legacy--and the legacy of their generation--is a freer world of opportunity and equality, which we inherit with gratitude and serve with humility.