Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this is excellent bipartisan legislation, not only between the Members of this body but also between the House and the Senate. This is a good compromise, not only with regard to major facility construction, whether it is to improve, renovate, replace, update and establish new health care facilities around the country. That is an excellent portion of this bill.

I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention that included in this compromise package is some legislation I authored to ensure the ethical treatment and safety of veterans who participate in VA medical research. We spend a lot of money on VA medical research, and there have been some incidents over the years whereby veterans have been harmed. And just the title of what it is called, Human Subject Protection, by calling humans subjects, it even sort of desensitizes the issue that there is a human being here at stake.

The VA medical research human subject protections section of this bill does the following:

We will establish an independent office to oversee research and compliance and assurance.

This bill will also provide that the new office counsels the Under Secretary for Health on all matters related to the protection of human research subjects, research misconduct and impropriety, and also the ethical conduct of research, and research safety.

That office shall investigate allegations of research, misconduct and impropriety; suspend or restrict research

to ensure the safety and ethical treatment of human subjects; and assure compliance in the conduct of research.

The director of the office shall conduct periodic inspections at research facilities, observe external accreditation site visits, investigate allegations of research misconduct and improprieties.

This bill also requires the immediate notification of the Under Secretary for Health when endangerment of human research subjects is evident or suspected and requires that Congress be notified when research misconduct or impropriety has been discovered.

This bill provides that funding for the new office would be independent from the Office of Research and Development.

Finally, the bill mandates that the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study of the effectiveness of this new office and submit a report to Congress by January 1, 2006.

I want to thank all Members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate for including this language in section IV of the bill. In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), for co- sponsoring the legislation. Also, in particular, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for this bill at the subcommittee level, for bringing this to the attention of all of our colleagues. This is good legislation and good work, and I thank everyone for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the measure before the House tonight, the conference agreement on the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act, H.R. 1, is not a perfect bill. But, it is also not the bill that I opposed several months ago when the House first considered the measure. As with any conference agreement, this bill is a product of compromise and negotiations. It is an improvement in the House-passed bill in some respects, a disappointment in others. Nonetheless, I think it is time to end the debate on a prescription drug plan in Medicare and move forward.

While this bill has some troubling flaws, it does take major steps forward in improving access to health care of our nation's seniors. It serves as a blueprint for enhancements to Medicare that will enable Congress to resolve the long-term solvency issues in Medicare's structure.

Reform cannot occur in a vacuum. We must be vigilant as we take these necessary steps to reform Medicare to provide greater choice and health care services to beneficiaries.

This measure will require close scrutiny by Congress to oversee the implementation of the drug plan to insure that it provides cost containment and prevention of drug overutilization. The provisions before us to enhance Medicare are likely to require annual maintenance by Congress.

If the provisions of this bill that expand Medicare Advantage plans, that improve Medical Savings Accounts in Medicare, and that create Health Savings Accounts, are successful in the marketplace, beneficiaries will have alternatives to government-run health care and greater choices to meet their health care needs.

I applaud the inclusion in this bill of provisions to address the needs of rural providers, especially rural hospitals. Under this bill rural hospitals will see an equalization on reimbursement on inpatient care as compared to their urban counterparts. This bill includes provisions which I have urged that give Critical Access Hospitals more flexibility in their bed limits. I also applaud the conferees for including a provision that will enable hospitals to seek a reconsideration of their classification. The bill also extends Medicare cost contracts until Medicare Advantage plans are available. These are good provisions that will directly address patient care in my district.

I am also pleased to see the inclusion of regulatory reforms that this House has passed twice.

Finally, the bill gives seniors help with their prescription drugs almost immediately by authorizing a discount drug card. In a serious level of effort, I worked with four of my colleagues in drafting legislation to add a drug card to the Medicare program. Under our approach seniors would have been able to choose from a variety of discount drug cards available at a very low annual fee. We also included funds for seniors, based on income, to help seniors pay for drugs; a catastrophic limit; and a mechanism for seniors to save and for others to help seniors pay for their drugs.

Frankly, I think this is a better approach and I would have preferred to see it made a permanent feature of this bill, rather than expiring at the end of 2 years. Nonetheless, the discount drug card provisions of H.R. 1 do incorporate many of the ideas that my colleagues and I advocated. It would be my hope that Congress will see the wisdom of extending the drug card program.

I am troubled by the present fallback provisions, by the extent of the subsidies permitted under the bill, and by the uncertainty as to whether Medicare will be adequately reimbursing physicians for providing care to patients needing injectable drugs. I am also concerned that this bill still does not effectively keep the costs in- line with the ability of the taxpayers to fund the benefits.

Nonetheless, the bill, on the whole, is more positive and I am fully aware that Congress will have to tackle difficult issues down the road, however, I will support H.R. 1, to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and create long-term solutions to solve access, choice, and solvency of Medicare when baby boomers become seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, and I

congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Overall, this bill is the blueprint our Nation needs to get us on the road toward greater energy security. It addresses the energy issues in a broad based and strategic manner to build the necessary diversified portfolio of energy resources for our country. For the first time in over a decade it sets a course for a national energy policy.

I commend President Bush for his leadership on this issue as well as the efforts of Chairmen Tauzin and Barton and the conferees for their hard work. This bill addresses many of the most serious energy challenges facing our country.

It balances our need to increase supplies with the need to promote conservation.

It improves our production and distribution infrastructure, while stimulating the development of alternative an renewable sources.

It strengthens our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign sources.

And it helps those having trouble paying ever-higher energy bills.

But Mr. Speaker, I'm also disappointed. There is more that could have been done to increase domestic production by tapping into sources such as those in Alaska's northern slope, western lands, and rich gas fields sitting off our shores. There are still more issues to be addressed such as the need to increase the use of other sources of energy, in particular nuclear power, the upgrading of the electric lines of the grid, and to improve our pipeline infrastructure and increased our refinery capacity. While I am relieved to finally pass an energy bill in the 108th Congress, we should not lose sight of the fact this legislation is only the beginning.

I look forward to building on the work done today. I urge the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and thank John Williams, Mayor of Bedford, Indiana, for completing 24 years of service to the great people of Indiana. I wish John, Jean and their family well in his retirement.

Public service often brings great satisfaction in the ability to help people. During the last three decades, John has worked hard to better the lives of those in southern Indiana. At the same time, those who serve cannot do so alone. John's wife, Jean, too, has been a valuable member of the community in public service and, has given her support, even as she had her own personal health battles.

Mr. Speaker, Indiana has benefitted from the service of these two fine Hoosiers and I am proud to call both John and Jean Williams my friend.

Tonight, I rise to recognize a unique man who has left a positive mark. By my count, Mayor Williams will have served some 8,760 days in office spanning 24 years. During his unprecedented tenure, the city's landscape has undergone a remarkable change for the better as vacant stores acquired tenants and empty lots sprouted new homes and businesses. City pride has swelled and Bedford's reputation of sound government and livability has spread throughout the State of Indiana.

When Mayor Williams entered office he inherited a city with a decaying downtown business district and an outdated and malfunctioning infrastructure. To be successful, he realized that community action and involvement were needed. He established a citizens' committee to lead efforts to rejuvenate downtown and at the same time worked with state officials to improve transportation and utility services.

Mr. Speaker, today that same ``citizens'' committee'' still operates and has evolved into the present-day Bedford Revitalization, Inc. As with many smaller communities, the courthouse square, once a bastion of activity had slowed. In recent years, the community behind the leadership of Mayor Williams, focused upon the development of the Courthouse Square business district and they succeeded in redeveloping it into the center of the community as it once stood. Moreover, they have succeeded in having the district included in the National Register of Historic Places.

Bedford, Indiana, located approximately 76 miles south of Indianapolis, had many of the same challenges regarding transportation and infrastructure of other cities its size. In the early 1980s, Mayor Williams used his creativity to solve the transportation problem for local residents. He worked with state and federal agencies and created the Transit Authority of the Stone City (TASC). In the 1990s, he built upon that effort and initiated a point-to-point, or door-to-door, pickup service that streamlined the operation. This success prompted state transportation officials to cite TASC as a model program for other small to medium-sized Hoosier cities to emulate. Today, the buses record about 80,000 passenger trips a year, providing mobility and independence for many of our citizens.

Mayor Williams' transportation successes, and his efforts to expand and develop opportunities for local businesses and individuals to compete in the marketplace, resulted in a four-lane east-west street connecting Indiana State Road 37 and Lincoln Avenue that is now named after the Mayor. Doing so, opened hundreds of acres for industrial and business development. The process took ten years from inception to completion, but, today, John A. Williams Boulevard is a main artery in the city.

Mr. Speaker, furthering recreation has been a continuing program in Mayor Williams' administration. Today, Bedford has seven city parks and an 18-hole golf course, which has been called one of the best municipal courses in Indiana.

Mayor Williams may be retiring but he still has a lot to give to Indiana and Indiana owes a lot to him. I am pleased to join with the citizens of Bedford and salute my friend, Mayor John Williams, on a lifetime of public service and a job well done. God speed!

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3379, a bill to designate the Bloomington, Indiana, post office in honor of the late Congressman Frank McCloskey.

Indiana has lost one of its more dedicated and valued public servants. Frank McCloskey, his sincerity, his compassion for people not only here in America but around the world, was very profound.

I served with him on the Committee on Armed Services when I was a new Member here, and he was very informative because in the 1993 time period he was very eager to teach a new President at that time about the plights in Bosnia, at a time where our country wanted to turn more inward, and he wanted to focus us more outward.

As I look back on that, a lot of things that Frank spoke of came to pass, and for that reason, for his public service, not only as the mayor of Bloomington but also what he helped do for our country in a very difficult time in the world, this is an honor fitting of the gentleman, and for that, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3379, a bill to designate the Bloomington, Indiana Post Office in honor of the late Congressman Frank McCloskey. Indiana has lost one of its most dedicated and valued public servants. Frank McCloskey's sincerity and compassion for people, not only here in America, but around the world, was profound. My thoughts and prayers are with his family during this time. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and thank the chairman for including my bill to ensure human subject protection in research.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 1720, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act, legislation designed to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out major facilities construction projects to improve, renovate, replace, update, and establish care facilities across the Department of Veterans Affairs.

One provision I would like to draw your attention to is section 11 of the bill. Section 11 guarantees that there is an independent oversight body within the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs to oversee research compliance and assurance.

This provision addresses the important issue of human subjects protection in VA medical research. Since 1999 several hearings have been held by the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I compliment the work of then Subcommittee Chairman Terry Everett of Alabama, who also worked to ensure that necessary actions are taken to assure that our Nation's most vulnerable veterans are protected and not subjected to harm.

This provision is the final language that was worked out by my Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Subcommittee Chairman Simmons of the Health Subcommittee and it reflects the original intent of H.R. 1585, a bill I introduced because I wanted to ensure that our Nation's most vulnerable veterans are protected and not in any way harmed by the very system whose mission it is to safeguard their safety and well being.

In particular, this bill does the following:

Establishes an independent office to oversee research compliance and assurance;

Provides that the new office counsels the Under Secretary for Health on all matters related to the protection of human research subjects, research misconduct and impropriety, laboratory animal welfare; ethical conduct of research; and research safety;

That the office shall investigate allegations of research misconduct and impropriety; suspend or restrict research to ensure the safety, and ethical treatment of human subjects; preserve the integrity and validity of research; prevent mistreatment of laboratory animals used in research; and assure compliance in the conduct of research;

The director of the office shall conduct periodic inspections at research facilities; observe external accreditation site visits; investigate allegations of research misconduct and improprieties;

It requires the immediate notification of the Under Secretary for Health when endangerment of human research subjects is evident or suspected and requires that Congress be notified when research misconduct or impropriety has been discovered;

This bill provides that funding for the new office would be independent from the Office of Research and Development; and

Finally, this bill mandates that the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study of the effectiveness of the new office

and submit a report to Congress by January 1, 2006.

This legislation has strong bipartisan support. I would like to thank all the cosponsors of the original bill. In particular, I would like to thank Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Lane Evans and the Ranking Member of my Subcommittee, Darlene Hooley for their cosponsorship and support. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1720 and strengthen VA research programs so our veterans are never placed in a harmful environment.

Mr. Chairman, in response to all these monies should be in the form of a loan, I disagree. Of the $87 billion, those monies which go to pay for our military and our equipment, our military are not mercenaries. The only cause for which they fight is that of freedom. They do not fight for any bounty of their own. And that should not be.

With regard to reconstruction, I think many of my constituents in Indiana supported the military ouster of Saddam Hussein. These very same Hoosiers recognize that if you are willing to invest in the success of the war, you also have to be willing to invest in the peace.

Our Hoosiers also know that we are in the middle of a jobless recovery with growing domestic needs combined with a growing budget deficit. This amendment attempts to recognize two very important concerns: investment in the success of a new Iraq, a country with the potential of great wealth, along with the concerns of our budget deficits and growing domestic needs of our citizens. I believe the Pence amendment reflects our culture and our heritage.

In an emergency over the years we were there, whether it was a hurricane, fire, flood or even war. Just like the Red Cross or Salvation Army we were always there to respond. And that is exactly what this amendment tries to reflect. In the state of an emergency we are there to help develop the new nation-state and as soon as they are on their feet, then they have the ability to repay.

I think this is only another tool which we can use, our negotiators can use with other countries at the donors conference with regard to getting other countries to forgive these debts that were incurred during Saddam Hussein's reign.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this shortage on natural gas, it is rather stunning when people say there is a shortage in America with regard to natural gas. The stunning part is that, with regard to resources, it is there. The shocking part is that Congress, Congress, is the one who has created the barriers to access the natural gas. So what have we done?

I was a good listener over here. When the Democrats controlled the Congress, what did they do? They said, You know what we are going to do? We are going to make sure that we cannot gain access to the natural gas. All the offshore, they cannot gain access to that. We are also going to lock off lands in the West, and at the same time we are going to pass a Clean Air Act. We are going to set forth new requirements. We are going to move from coal and move to natural gas.

Then what we have in this country is an increased demand on natural gas while you decrease the access to it and get an increase and end up hurting manufacturers and sending jobs out. And that is what you want to do? You are scared to death to even find out what an inventory is with regard to our resources? We owe it to the country to know exactly what we have.

So I can see why Democrats here are holding on tight to the policies of old. That is exactly what Democrats will do if they gain control of Congress. They were not very good listeners to what happened in California. Those policies the Democrats screwed up in California, and they just threw out that governor. One needs to be a very good listener here as to what is happening to the energy policy for the country.

I am one that is not very satisfied with the conference. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is not happy with the conference because she wants to spin it into something else. I am not happy with the conference because I do not think they went far enough. I do not think they went far enough at all. We need to find out exactly what the resources are with regard to our country.

Everybody comes down here to the House floor, loves to give a great speech about reducing the dependency on foreign oil, but you do not want to do anything about it. You do not want to do anything about it.

``I got 100 percent voting record. I am green.'' Yes, you are green. Green is also being foolish. You are foolish if you do not want to even take a look and peek at what you have got with regard to the resources.

So I think the bottom line is vote against the gentlewoman from California's (Mrs. Capps) motion to instruct. I will reluctantly support what they have done at conference even though, with regard to our natural gas, I think the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee is going to come back in the spring and we are going to have to address the natural gas shortage and take this on on behalf of the American people. Otherwise, shame on us.

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this conference report to ban partial birth abortions. This is a good bill and a good day, though a long time in coming.

This measure bans a procedure in which a living fetus is partially delivered from the womb, and then destroyed prior to the completion of delivery. This is a particularly appalling procedure in which the difference between a complete birth and an abortion is a matter of a few inches in the birth canal.

There is an exception in the bill for instances in which the life of the mother is at risk and no other procedure will be sufficient to preserve the mother's life. Congress has conducted extensive hearings on this procedure. The medical evidence presented at these hearings indicates that a partial birth abortion is not necessary to preserve the health of the mother and is, in fact, dangerous to the mother. Partial birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice.'' This procedure offends most Americans who value the sanctity of life.

Partial birth abortion is a particularly cruel and inhuman procedure which should be banned. I urge the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma ruled that the Federal Trade Commission did not have the authority to create a national ``do-not-call'' registry.

While the Court can and did make legal arguments to support its ruling, what it cannot and should not deny is the will of the people. And the will of the people when it comes to a national ``do not call list'' is strong and vigilant.

Since June, when the registry was first opened, over 50 million phone numbers have been submitted to the FTC registry. People are simply fed up with telemarketers interrupting their meals by offering vacations or more credit cards.

In my home state of Indiana, almost 1.5 million phones are registered for the Telephone Privacy program. That represents almost 58 percent of our state, meaning that 3.5 million Hoosiers have chosen to reduce unwanted telemarketing calls. A survey in Indiana found that those on the Indiana Telephone Privacy list had their calls reduced from an average of twelve per week to only one per week. Indiana's Telephone Privacy law works.

One important feature of the Indiana law is that it contains very few exemptions. In fact, Indiana's law has fewer exemptions than the FCC and FTC rules.

While we have permitted these agencies to provide more exemptions on the Federal level, it must be made clear that Congress does not intend to interfere with statutes, like Indiana's, that choose to tighten these loopholes. Indeed, efforts like Indiana's that inspired the Federal ``do not call'' program, demonstrate the critical role that States can play in achieving creative solutions to serious problems. Such efforts should not be discouraged.

It is my understanding that Congress has no intention of preempting State laws that provide protections greater than those provided by our Federal ``do not call'' program. Furthermore, I also understand that Congress has no intention of permitting the FCC or FTC to preempt, by regulation or otherwise, State statutes that provide greater protections than the Federal ``Do Not Call'' program provides.

The FCC and FTC should be reminded that the mandate from Congress is create a ``do not call'' program that provides a nationwide minimum standard of protection for all Americans. States that choose to exceed that standard should in no way be prohibited from doing so.

I am pleased by the swift action of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. H.R. 3161 will allow the will of the people to prevail in light of the judicial interference from yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, today, we pay tribute to Governor Frank O'Bannon--a statesman, loving husband and father and a friend to many.

A loyal servant of Indiana for over 30 years, Frank O'Bannon lived life as a country gentleman, with an unassuming strength to hold to his convictions to lead a State but more important, a deep and endless devotion to family.

The life of Frank O'Bannon is one to look at with inspiration and thanks. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Judy, their three children--Jonathan, Jennifer and Polly and their 5 grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker. Today I am introducing legislation that will add automobile

leases to protections of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. Earlier this year, the House passed a restatement of this important legislation. I believe my legislation adds an important provision that should not be left unaddressed.

I would like to share with you a story of a young Marine reservist, currently attending Emory Law School. He was called to active duty as part of the recent mobilization and was then forced to take a leave from school. He didn't have a problem with this, it was part of his duty. However, he was concerned that he was going to suffer a financial loss because of his car lease. Being unmarried, he would not need a vehicle while deployed, but because of his lease he would still have to pay a monthly payment. His other option was to buy the car from the credit company and then turn around and sell it, even though this would cause him to lose money. Because he knew that activated reservists could terminate an apartment lease, he contacted my subcommittee wanting to know if this applied to automobiles as well. Under current law it does not.

Although our estimates are that this probably only affected a couple of hundred service members during the most recent deployment, I think that is far too many. In an age when we have come to increasingly rely on our National Guard and Reserves, for them to be susceptible to this type of penalty is absurd. When we ask our men and women of the National Guard and Reserve Components to interrupt their lives go off to war, one thing they should not have to worry about is paying an additional price relating to an auto lease. I also want to thank the Auto Alliance for its input on and openness to this bill. As both a current member of the U.S. Army Reserves and Co-Chair of the National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the motion to instruct offered

by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) because I am not going to permit politics to override substance. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) was correct that when the gentleman had an opportunity during the committee when he offered a substitute that he did not bring up this issue. When it came to the House floor on the motion to recommit, the gentleman's recommittal motion addressed hydropower, not mandatory reliability standards. And as a matter of fact, many of the Democrats did not support this bill in committee and did not support the bill on the floor. But now, when we go through a blackout, all of a sudden we need to pull this out of the national energy bill and pass this? No, I do not believe we can permit politics to override substance.

H.R. 6 is an extremely important bill that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has spent a lot of time on. The national energy bill is about a national energy policy. And the United States, as the sole remaining superpower, needs a broad-based and diversified portfolio with regard to our energy sources. So it is about coal, and we need to make an investments in clean coal technology. It is about oil. Yes, we have our imports, but we have to also do domestic drilling, exploration and drilling. It is about natural gas. Boy, have we messed this one up.

The Democrats controlled Congress in 1990 when they passed the Clean Air Act. They want us to move from coal-powered generation to natural gas, and at the same time they passed these laws to lock up the lands. We cannot gain access to natural gas, whether it is off the Eastern Shore, whether it is out of the gulf, whether it is off the Pacific or in the western States or in Alaska. So we move to a demand for the increased utilization of natural gas and at the same time cut off access to natural gas. And people wonder why there is a natural gas shortage. Congress created it.

This bill addresses that. There are also issues on nuclear power. The Federal Government has not even authorized a permit to build a nuclear facility in over 20 years. There is more computing power in our automobiles than what was in the Apollo mission to the Moon. We can do much better today.

The issues also deal with renewables, whether it is in wind or solar or hydrogen or fuel cell technologies. This bill is comprehensive. We should not go and try to pick and choose, pull something out of the bill and then turn to the American people as if we have done something. There is an electrification portion of this bill. My Democrat colleagues on the committee did not like that this was part of the bill. I think it was pretty smart that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) made this part of that bill. Very telling.

We said the power grid was frail and outdated, and guess what happened? Congress was not the Nostradamus, because we knew this grid was outdated. There are utility companies that are undercapitalized. This bill gives those incentives to do things smartly with regard to our infrastructure, not only by trying to bring transparency to the grid but on how we move and distribute that power. Very important.

So I hope that Chairman Tauzin, as he goes to that conference, that he is able to address the issues on natural gas and the other issue dealing with the discussion today at his hearing on the need for interconnection standards on distributed energy.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to oppose the motion of the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mitchell, Indiana, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of its founding. On September 29, 2003, the City of Mitchell will celebrate the establishment and naming of the town of Mitchel after Ormsby McKnight Mitchel.

The origins of Mitchell, Indiana dates back to the beginnings of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad. George Cochran, a merchant from Cincinnati, wanted a more direct route to ship his merchandise, having previously shipped goods via the Mississippi River. On September 29, 1853, Cochran purchased the land that would become Mitchell from local landowner, John Sheeks. Shortly thereafter, Cochran contracted Ormsby McKnight Mitchel to survey a new route for a railroad to run through the land. As a part of the deal, Mitchel requested the new town be named after him. The second ``l'' in Mitchell would be added later due to a typographical error.

Mitchell developed as a ``railroad town.'' Mitchell remained mostly agricultural until the early 1900s. There were several small manufacturing enterprises in town, but in 1902 Lehigh Portland Cement Company opened its first plant, changing the town from agricultural to industrial. Lehigh Portland Cement Company remains one of the area's largest employers. Mitchell is also home to Dana Corporation as well as Regal Beloit who are major employers in the community today.

Mitchell is a place where a sense of small town charm can be felt through its historic buildings and shops in the downtown area. The town of Mitchell is known for its production of cement, which has been used to build the historic downtown buildings and sidewalks where residents gather to share persimmon pie and cobbler with family and friends at the annual Persimmon Festival. In the early 1990s, the downtown area of Mitchell was designated a Historic District.

Most notably, Mitchell was the hometown of U.S. Astronaut Virgil ``Gus'' Grissom. NASA selected Grissom as one of the original seven Mercury astronauts in 1959. Grissom was one of three astronauts who perished in a fire in the early days of the Apollo program. The citizens of Mitchell have dedicated a memorial to his memory.

I am pleased to join with the citizens of Mitchell in celebrating its 150th Anniversary. I am pleased to give special recognition to Jeff Routh and the members of the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce, as well as those others who made it possible for present and future generations to enjoy the history of Mitchell through their research.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for his leadership. There are a lot of different individuals here on many different committees that after September 11 did an assessment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman, also did his assessment. At the same time so were other committees. The real question right now is over the issue on redundancy. I want to applaud the chairman for having his bill passed and it is authorized.

The real question now is on the funding and the timeliness of that funding. I recognize the present objection of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. With regard to some of the comments from my other colleagues with regard to whether the funding has been underfunded or not and we have been citing back to when we did eligibility reform here on the House floor, I want everybody to note this, that during that time period, the Congressional Budget Office and GAO provided testimony to the House and the Senate. They said, if you change eligibility from the core competencies of the VA and let non- service-connected disabled veterans be treated the same in line with combat- or peace-disabled veterans, you will open up the system and you will have a tremendous cost impact.

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff and members on the House and the Senate did not agree with what the recommendations were nor testimony of CBO and OMB. As a matter of fact, the veterans service community and organizations, some in particular mocked CBO and OMB for their testimony. Their testimony was correct. We were wrong.

So what we are doing today is we are trying to now catch up. Members may ask, what do you mean catch up? In the last 5 years in which the gentleman from New York has chaired the subcommittee, we have increased the health budget in the VA 50 percent. Members might say, my gosh, 50 percent, why? Because the category 7's and 8's are rushing into the system. Today we have a system called a no-shame system. A no-shame system. There are things in our society, if you are in a food line and you have already eaten and there are people that have not eaten, do you get in line and cut before them? No, that is shameful. What happens today is that you have individuals who are non-service-connected disabled veterans who are in line before combat-disabled veterans. I think that is shameful. Others can disagree with that, but I think that is. Today this present theme has become that every veteran is a veteran is a veteran. That is the present theme, because we do not want to look back and see what the mistakes were that we made. No one in this House wants to accept the responsibility for having gotten it wrong: Oh, please, Steve, don't tell us the mistakes that we made. Just fund it. Just throw more money at it.

Folks, we are creating a problem. If we do not accept some responsibility here, I am fearful of what is happening to the VA. We need to restore the core competencies of the VA in those categories 1 through 6. I want to applaud the chairman for his work along with the ranking member. It is quality work.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing his amendment. One thing that we often must recognize with regard to the recruiting pool for the United States military, AmeriCorps competes with our recruiting pool for an all-volunteer force. It makes it very difficult and very expensive for DOD to go out there and recruit those soldiers.

I have a question for the author of the bill. When President Clinton created the AmeriCorps, he was touting volunteerism. It is my understanding that at AmeriCorps, they do not call them volunteers anymore. Do you know whether that is true or not?

I would just urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Florida's amendment. If we can move some quality dollars here and prioritization into veterans health care, I think his amendment is in the right intent. I support it.