[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10915-H10925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2528, MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE AND VETERANS 
                    AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 564, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2528) making appropriations for 
military quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, 
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 564, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 17, 2005, Book II.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
do intend to be brief, but this is an important bill for our military 
and I would like to expand a little bit on some of the points within 
it.
  But before I do that, I would like to describe the conference that we 
had with the Senate as successful. I would like to thank my ranking 
member, Mr. Edwards of Texas, who has been at my shoulder all the way 
through this process. We worked very, very closely together. We have 
had the same priorities and we have tried to work out any disagreements 
that we had along the way.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Lewis for his leadership and his 
forethought in realigning the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
  The House bill included the accounts for basic allowance for housing, 
facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization, environmental 
restoration and the Defense Health Program. This was designed as a 
first step toward examining military quality of life as a whole, from 
active duty through retirement.
  We have received nothing but positive feedback from the senior non-
commissioned officers all the way up to the four-star service chiefs. I 
would hope that our colleagues in the other body would take a look at 
what the House has done and follow suit, but for this year, while the 
subcommittee retains jurisdiction over these four accounts, the 
conference report before the House today does not contain that funding. 
The funding will be included in the Defense appropriations bill and 
will return to the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs bill 
next year.
  The conference report provides $6.2 billion for military 
construction, including quality of life facilities such as child care 
centers, medical facilities and training facilities. It also provides 
$4 billion for family housing construction and maintenance. This 
funding will continue moving toward the goal to eliminate inadequate 
family housing for our military, through both the privatization program 
and traditional construction. In addition, the bill includes $1.7 
billion to maintain readiness and transform the military through the 
base realignment and closure process, the Army's modularity initiative, 
and the global repositioning of our forces.
  For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agreement provides a 
total of $22.547 billion for medical services. This amount includes the 
original budget request, plus $1.1 billion to reverse policy proposals 
included in the budget request, but not endorsed by the conference. 
These are $496 million for long-term care; $202 million for pharmacy 
copays; and $454 million for enrollment fees.
  In addition, the agreement provides for workload increases and 
corrections of errors as identified in the budget amendment submitted 
on July 14, 2005. A portion of these additional funds are only 
available upon submission of a revised budget amendment by the 
President which declares the funding an emergency. This is necessary 
for us to effectively provide these funds and still remain within our 
302(a) allocation from the Budget Committee.
  The conference agreement also includes a number of reporting 
requirements so that the committees will be fully informed about 
potential problems that the Department may encounter throughout the 
year of execution before it is too late.
  Other significant changes to the budget request include:
  The creation of an Information Technology Systems account to allow us 
to keep track of information technology programs at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  $2.2 billion of medical services funding is fenced to be used only 
for specialty mental health care, a priority of many members of the 
committee and the House. We received testimony after testimony 
encouraging us to make sure that a minimum amount was provided for 
mental health care, and that is what we have done.
  $15 million for research into Gulf War Illness.
  $19 million over the President's request for medical and prosthetic 
research.
  $85 million for grants for State Extended Care facilities. This is 
$85 million above the President's request.
  We have fully funded the cost-of-living allowance of 4.1 percent for 
veterans compensation.
  We also provide an increase of $273 million for medical services for 
veterans returning from Iraq.
  $200 million is included to cover workload growth in priority 1-6 
veterans.
  $600 million is provided to correct errors in the calculation of 
funding needed for long-term care.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying I think we have a good bill to 
put before the Congress. I am very grateful to our Appropriations 
Committee staff for their professional work and their patience as we 
worked through this process and for the late hours that they spent 
preparing the bill. I believe it is a bill everyone can support.

[[Page H10916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.001



[[Page H10917]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.002



[[Page H10918]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.003



[[Page H10919]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.004



[[Page H10920]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO05.005



[[Page H10921]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from New York. He always does a fine job. On this bill, he 
has not only done a good job on substance, he has dealt with the 
ranking minority member, Mr. Edwards, with fairness and openness and we 
appreciate it.
  In contrast to the Labor-Health-Education bill which caused so much 
trouble yesterday, I am happy to support this bill today, and I know 
Mr. Edwards will be, too. But before we vote, I would simply like to 
recite some facts about the history of veterans health care, because I 
think it is important that no matter how divided we might be on any 
given military action, whether it be Vietnam in the past or Iraq in the 
present, we should not be divided on the question of what we owe to 
each and every person who has worn the uniform of the United States and 
defended the national interests of the United States, often at great 
risk to their own lives and at great risk to the future economic 
security of their own families. That is why this bill is so important.
  I want to recite what has happened on veterans health care in the 
hopes that the divisions which we have had over the level of funding 
for veterans health care in the past will not be repeated in the 
future. Here is that history.
  In March of 2003, House Republicans voted for a budget resolution 
that called for cutting veterans health care by $14 billion over 10 
years.
  In July 2003, after agreeing to reduce some of those budget cuts in 
the House, the GOP reneged on its promise to increase funding for VA 
health care and passed an appropriation bill providing $1.8 billion 
less than what was called for in their fiscal 2004 budget. Mr. Edwards 
tried to offer an amendment to that bill to add $2.2 billion for 
veterans health care, but he was blocked.
  In October 2003, I offered a motion to recommit on the Iraqi 
supplemental that called for an additional $1.3 billion for veterans 
health care. The majority rejected it.
  We continued to push for veterans in fiscal 2005. For 2005, the 
administration requested $18.3 billion for veterans medical services. 
In subcommittee, the House recommended $19.5 billion. At that time, 
veterans groups and many Members on this side of the aisle indicated we 
felt that those numbers fell far short. The Republican chairman of the 
Veterans Committee agreed. Unfortunately for him, a year later, he was 
removed from his position as chairman and he was removed from the 
committee by the Republican leadership because he had the temerity to 
agree with us and with veterans groups that more funding was needed in 
order to meet our obligations to veterans on the health care front.
  In full committee, Mr. Edwards in July 2004 offered an amendment to 
try to do the right thing and bring the VA medical services account up 
another $1.3 billion. He was defeated on a party-line vote. Of course, 
the bill had so many problems that the majority could not even bring it 
to the House floor. It ended up getting wrapped up into the omnibus.
  On September 29, 2004, I again offered a motion to recommit on the 
first CR, trying to add $1.3 billion for veterans health care, and that 
effort was rejected.
  On June 23, 2005, we learned how wrong that original mark had been. 
The administration admitted they were a billion dollars short and even 
admitted that they had known about it for months. The next day, Mr. 
Edwards tried to offer an amendment to the Labor-Health bill on the 
House floor to try to use that vehicle to make up the $1 billion 
shortfall in VA health care, but again we were blocked by the majority.

                              {time}  0945

  After that failed, I offered a motion to recommit with instructions 
to include the $1 billion for veterans. Again, I was blocked.
  On June 29, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was blocked again 
from bringing up an amendment to add to the veterans budget $1 billion. 
This time we tried to use the transportation appropriation bill as the 
vehicle. And now we come to the subject of this conference for 2006.
  When the request came at the beginning of the year, the 
administration was only asking for $20 billion for medical services. On 
the other hand, veterans organizations' independent budgets said that 
$22.5 billion would be needed.
  In May 2005, the subcommittee increased the medical care account to 
$21 billion, a half step in the right direction. In full committee, I 
offered an amendment that would have added $1.5 billion to this medical 
care account, plus increased funding to some other areas. That would 
have brought us pretty much to where we are today, except that my 
amendment would have been paid for because I proposed reducing somewhat 
the tax cut that was scheduled for the wealthiest of Americans, those 
making over $400,000 a year. This agreement before us uses an emergency 
designation so the costs will go directly to the deficit. The majority 
defeated my amendment.
  Then, in July of this year, the administration finally admitted that 
the 2006 bill was short as well. They amended the VA budget request, 
asking for an additional $2 billion.
  Some of the carryover funds from the additional $1.5 billion that was 
provided last summer is being used, and the conference agreement before 
us includes, guess what, $22.5 billion for VA medical services. I hope 
that number sounds familiar. I will repeat it, $22.5 billion in medical 
services. That is what the veterans organizations said they needed. It 
is what we were trying to get on this side of the aisle. I simply say 
``Welcome Aboard'' to our friends on the majority side.
  I want to make clear, I believe every Member of this House, 
regardless of party, recognizes their commitment to the veterans. The 
problem is that all too often in this place we wind up with pressures 
of party or party program getting in the way of our better judgment and 
making choices that really do not measure up to the facts.
  I believe that was the case over the past 3 years, because I believe 
that fealty to the Republican budget resolution and to the Republican 
leadership's desire for tax cuts, especially tax cuts that were aimed 
at the very high-income people, I believe that that fealty prevented 
the House from doing what it really knew needed to be done on both 
sides of the aisle, or at least had a strong suspicion needed to be 
done, and when the numbers finally were revealed, it has become 
difficult for people to avoid reality, and so I think this bill 
reflects reality.
  I will say that with one caveat. I hope that we can count on the 
numbers that are coming from OMB and the Veterans Administration on 
this bill. I hope we can count on them, because if we cannot, then we 
will have to be back here again asking for yet more money. It is not 
enough for us to applaud the troops when they are leaving to go to war, 
when the bands are playing, when everyone's blood is up. What we have 
to be willing to do is to remember our fundamental obligation to those 
troops when they return.
  I do not believe that we are doing enough to meet our obligations to 
those troops, but this bill is certainly a good-faith effort, and I 
congratulate the gentleman from New York for the role he has played in 
trying to get here.
  I most especially want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), the subcommittee ranking member. There is no one in this 
House who has had a more dedicated history of fighting for the needs of 
veterans on the health care front and on so many other fronts than has 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I am pleased to stand in 
for him temporarily this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate very much the kind comments of the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee regarding our work product today, and I note 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague, has joined 
us, and I look forward to his comments also.
  I think that the gentleman from Wisconsin made some points that I 
would like to give my reflection on.
  First of all, we agree. Both parties and every individual Member of 
the

[[Page H10922]]

House holds our veterans in the highest regard, and the House, having 
the power of the purse, establishes its priorities by setting funding 
levels. Clearly, there is no budget within the Federal Government which 
has grown faster or been more plentifully supplied with funds than the 
Veterans' Affairs health care budget.
  It is the fastest growing budget, I believe, within the entire 
Federal budget, and that is as it should be because we have a growing 
number of veterans from the Iraq War. We have a number of aging 
veterans whose health care becomes more and more expensive, and we have 
struggled every year to meet those needs.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out that within 
the last year and a half or so there have been some disagreements about 
the dollar amount required to meet those needs, and he is right about 
that. What we found was that the model that was being used by the 
Veterans Administration was wrong. It was inaccurate, and the resultant 
changes in the budget, the funding level over that period reflect that, 
but I would like to add that each and every year that I have chaired 
this appropriations bill for veterans, we have had similar 
disagreements about how much money is actually needed to meet the needs 
of the Veterans Health Administration.
  I can cite year after year when the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) and others came to the floor and said there is just not enough 
money for the veterans budget, for veterans health care, and I remember 
saying over and over and over we are providing record increases for the 
Veterans Health Administration.
  I think out of this 6, I believe now 7, years that I have chaired 
this subcommittee, we have had that debate every time, and other than 
this year, I think it is pretty clearly documented that we have been 
right, that the dollar amounts that we have provided have been 
sufficient, in some cases more than sufficient, to meet the needs of 
our veterans health care.
  So while we did have a glitch in the model, we have actually put 
language in the bill and provided resources to try to remedy that 
situation so that does not happen again. That was an aberration. We 
have been very solid in our estimates and very supportive of it through 
our budgeting of the Veterans Health Administration, and that always is 
the key aspect of this budget because of our concern about keeping the 
commitments that this Nation has made to our veterans.
  So, I do not think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was saying 
that we do not care enough about our veterans to provide those 
resources. I do not think he was saying that the White House does not 
care enough. I think he is saying, quite to the contrary, bipartisanly, 
bicamerally, and compared by the differences between the executive 
branch and legislative branch, we are all in agreement: Our veterans 
are our highest priority, and we have funded our veterans benefits and 
our veterans health care accordingly.
  There have been disagreements in the past. There will be 
disagreements in the future, but not over our commitment to keeping our 
commitments to our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at long last we are supporting America's veterans with 
our deeds and not just with our words, and in that process, I want to 
salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my colleague, friend 
and chairman of the Veterans' Affairs, Military Quality of Life 
Subcommittee in that effort.
  This is a good bill that takes positive steps to redress the wrongs 
done to veterans over the last several years when, in fact, we were 
cutting veterans services during a time of war, something that many of 
us on the floor of this House time and again said was immoral.
  This bill increases VA medical services by $2.5 billion over the 
President's original request. I salute this committee and the House and 
its leadership for doing that. I also would point out that that itself 
suggests that the administration has woefully underfunded veterans 
health care needs during a time of war. Never again should our country 
send young Americans into war and then scrimp on supporting those who 
have sacrificed the most to their service during that war.
  This bill specifically sets aside $2.2 billion for VA mental health 
care medical services, and on that particular point, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) deserves special recognition for taking the 
initiative to see that the VA does put more resources into helping 
those young Americans, men and women alike, who have paid a serious 
mental health care price for their love of country and service to 
country. The fact is that we have and the VA has been underfunding 
mental health care services to our veterans.
  Third, this bill restores funding of $85 million for State nursing 
home construction. We have an aging of the veterans population. I guess 
I had a great difference with the administration in its original 
proposal to cut by as much as two-thirds the number of veterans that we 
provide for in long-term nursing home care. This bill corrects that 
mistake of the administration.
  I salute the bipartisan effort in this bill to reject the 
administration's proposal to have a $250 enrollment fee for every 
veteran wanting to sign up for VA health care services. Many of us have 
long felt that our veterans have paid their enrollment fee when they 
put on our country's uniform and went into harm's way in protection of 
all of us. I am glad this committee rejected the administration 
proposal to double prescription copays for veterans, veterans who are 
struggling every month to make ends meet.
  I think a very important part of this bill that was put together 
somewhat at my urging, but truly on a bipartisan basis, and that is, 
that no longer are we going to be just completely dependent upon the VA 
Secretary or OMB to tell us whether we are cutting veterans services 
during a time of war. This bill has some very stringent reporting 
requirements to be done on a quarterly basis, where the VA must provide 
this Congress with information about whether we are reducing staff, 
cutting services, underfunding health care for veterans, especially 
during a time of war. I think this Congress has a moral responsibility 
to make its own independent judgment about whether we are adequately 
supporting our veterans and not have to be completely dependent upon 
what the Director of OMB or the Secretary of the VA have said.
  Having said all of that about the very positive things in this bill 
for veterans, I must just for a brief moment add to what the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said about this process.
  I hope this step forward for America's veterans in a tangible way 
ends what I think has been a sad chapter over the last 2 years. How 
ironic it is that the funding for veterans health care in this bill is 
equivalent to the funding called for over 2 years ago by Republican 
Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey who chaired the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. How did the House Republican leadership, not this committee, 
how did the House Republican leadership respond to the gentleman from 
New Jersey's call to adequately support veterans health care? Did they 
thank him? Did they salute him? Did they award him? No. They fired him. 
They took away his chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and 
even took him off the committee itself. That was a sad moment in the 
history of this House in our service to veterans, and I hope never 
again will a chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee be fired for 
standing up for veterans and putting his commitment to veterans above 
his commitment to partisan loyalty.

                              {time}  1000

  I salute this bill and the chairman of this subcommittee for the step 
forward in military construction. It provides about $2 billion more 
than we spent on military construction last year. These are training 
ranges. These are houses and barracks and much-needed quality-of-life 
improvements for our service men and women.

[[Page H10923]]

  I am proud of what this committee has done under the leadership of 
the chairman and on a bipartisan basis for military construction 
commitments and improving the quality of life for Americans who are 
sacrificing so very much every day for our Nation.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just express two concerns, not about 
this committee's work, but about the future for veterans and our 
military. One is the VA is still grossly underestimating the net number 
of new veterans coming into the VA health care system. The latest 
numbers I saw said they projected 84,000 net new veterans this year in 
the VA medical system. That is in total contrast to a net increase of 
about 250,000 each year for the last 2, 3, or 4 years. I think it is 
going to be important for our subcommittee and for the full 
Appropriations Committee in this House to monitor every month in the 
months ahead whether the increase in the number of veterans into the VA 
medical care system makes even this substantially improved medical 
budget inadequate. I look forward to carrying out that responsibility 
on a bipartisan basis.
  Finally, in terms of military construction, I am not sure we yet have 
from the administration or the Department of Defense a full cost 
accounting for the cost of construction, military construction, as a 
result of the base closing and realignment process and the redeployment 
of our troops from Germany and South Korea. My own prediction is that 
the administration has grossly underestimated the actual cost of 
military construction. So while this bill does have a very significant 
increase in MILCON projects, and, again, I enthusiastically support 
that increase, I think it is going to be important for this House to 
monitor what the true cost of military construction will be so that 
over the next 12 to 24 months, we are not cutting corners for better 
housing for our service men and women and their families even as they 
sacrifice for all of us during time of war.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I salute the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Walsh; the leadership of the full Committee on 
Appropriations, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey, for asking the question of what 
is right for America's veterans. I think this bill is a great step in 
the right direction, and I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the full 
Appropriations Committee, a gentleman who had the great vision to 
assemble new jurisdiction for this committee and create this 
subcommittee and a personal mentor of mine.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, to the chairman and to my 
colleague, Mr. Edwards, from beautiful downtown Texas, I want to 
congratulate both of them for this very fine piece of legislation. It 
reflects a great deal of the variety of mix that we needed to be able 
to focus upon in a very special way in the arena that involves not just 
veterans, certainly our veterans, but beyond that, the families of the 
men and women who serve us and ofttimes put their lives on the line, 
questions like their housing, other kinds of benefits that are very 
important to their being able to have decent lives while they serve us. 
Focusing on all those issues within one subcommittee, I think, is going 
to produce real results down the line. The bipartisan spirit that is a 
part of this committee, and we can see it reflected in the House today, 
is very much a part of that.
  I would like to mention just one thing to my colleagues, an item that 
has been of concern to me for most of my career here. In the past, Mr. 
Speaker, I had the privilege of chairing the subcommittee that did the 
funding for our veterans. One of my concerns during those years was 
that ofttimes within the community that is Washington, DC, we expressed 
great support for our veterans, raised funds to try to improve the 
funding flows, and then did not do very much about following the money 
when it went down to the communities where veterans are served.
  Particularly, I have been concerned over the years with the kind of 
treatment that ofttimes took place at the hospitals, and I have been 
urging the veterans service organizations to do more than be proud of 
the money that is appropriated here, but rather make sure that money is 
used in a quality way in terms of the service at the other end of the 
line.
  We are beginning to do some things like involving clinics in rural 
areas where there are open spaces and the hospitals are not close by. 
All of that, I think, portends well for the future here.
  But I would raise just one cautionary note: It is very important that 
we continue to put pressure on those organizations whose design and 
purpose is to support our veterans, to help us follow the money down to 
the local communities, make sure that it is being spent well. It is 
great to have increased dollar flows, but throwing money at problems is 
not always the solution. We all know that. So in this instance, I would 
say to my ranking member, Mr. Obey, as well as to the chairman and 
ranking member of the subcommittee, together we ought to form a 
partnership to make certain every one of those dollars is spent well on 
behalf of our veterans at the local community.
  With that, congratulations on your work. It is a very fine product.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
for yielding me this time.
  When we left here last night, we had spent the evening in bitter 
rancor over serious political issues, however we arrived this morning, 
and the first thing we do is take up a bill where we all agree on 
something. And I think that is the beauty of the United States 
Congress. We can disagree and we can have partisan fights, but there is 
one thing we have in common, and that is that we all support the people 
who volunteer to serve in our United States military and support the 
veterans who have served in that military, and the benefits that they 
should receive afterwards. It is sort of promises made and promises 
kept.
  I think, also, that the reason why we do not have any rancor on this 
legislation is, we have two of the finest Members of Congress, Mr. 
Edwards and Mr. Walsh, Mr. Edwards as ranking member and Mr. Walsh as 
Chair, of a committee where the divergent members come together. We 
still have strong political differences on either side. We have 
different backgrounds, life experiences that we bring to the committee. 
In fact, I think it is kind of ironic that Mr. Walsh and I, who are 
former Peace Corps volunteers, are now very active in the committee 
that deals with the quality of life for the military, but I think that 
the things we have learned in the Peace Corps about service to human 
beings are very important to the subject matter in this committee.
  I also would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Lewis, 
and the ranking member, Mr. Obey, because they have given us sort of 
that parental consent to go ahead and do the best we can do with the 
money allocated.
  There are a lot of good things in this bill mainly because we have 
added money to it, and Congress has been more supportive than the 
administration to our veterans, and I think that that ought to be made 
very clear. We are providing a second increment of $1.5 billion in 
addition to what Congress has already passed, $1.2 billion in emergency 
money. But now there is still some talk that there is going to be an 
across-the-board cut. We cannot provide the services that Mr. Lewis 
just talked about one day and then come back here later and provide a 
cut to those services. That is total hypocrisy, and we do not want to 
see that across-the-board cut affect our veterans and our active duty 
members of our services.
  This committee has a lot of issues that we have to deal with. Are we 
providing enough care for our returning service members? I have been 
out to Bethesda and to Walter Reed Hospital, talking to the people who 
have been injured. We have seen a difference between the rehabilitation 
care that is given to spinal cord injury soldiers than that of the ones 
that are amputees, and we ought to try to bring coordination to one 
place, that they both

[[Page H10924]]

get the same kind of rehabilitative care.
  Are we doing enough to reduce the waiting period for veterans for 
health care? Is there enough money to meet the staggering mental health 
care, something that we have never really put enough focus on? 
Posttraumatic syndrome, how long does it take sometimes? Veterans and 
active Reservists and National Guardsmen who have served in Iraq and 
Afghanistan may not develop their mental problems from serving for many 
years after they leave the service. Is there going to be adequate 
mental health care for them?
  How about the price tag for prosthetics? Our centers for our wounded 
military are quality centers of excellence in trying to develop the 
latest technology in prosthetics. Yet we do not spend enough time 
looking at it and making sure that those things are funded well, 
because the private sector just cannot meet that responsibility. This 
is a responsibility of the United States Congress. And are we hiring 
enough people to make sure that we can serve those who need that 
service, whether it be in a health care clinic or whether it be at the 
military hospitals? These are questions that we have got to address.
  We also have got to address the fact that we have closed military 
bases, and in those bases we have a lot of unexploded ordnance. Those 
are ordnances that could only be cleaned up by people that have Federal 
special training, a very limited specialty field, and yet it is one of 
the lowest priorities of the military. Obviously, their duty is to 
train people to defend our country, not necessarily to do environmental 
cleanup, but we cannot turn that real estate over for subsequent use to 
the community unless there are enough funds to clean it up, and we have 
been sorely lacking in enough funds. Fortunately, the chairman and 
ranking member of this committee have really worked with me in trying 
to get additional funds for cleanup, although we are way short of the 
billions of dollars that are needed.
  So today is the day where we bring together the differences that we 
had last night and show that Congress can, indeed, unanimously support 
the needs of the men and women in uniform and all voluntary service.
  I am very proud to have served on this committee. I am proud of its 
leadership, and I would urge that all my colleagues support the men and 
women in uniform, support the quality of life that we provide for our 
services, and help the veterans of the United States by approving this 
appropriations bill. Thank you.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with several comments. First, I could 
not agree more with Mr. Lewis, the chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee, that it would be a positive step for all of us to work in 
carrying out our responsibility for congressional oversight over VA 
health care programs, and I would add to that, over military 
construction programs. I know that is something the chairman of the 
subcommittee has worked on and actually started the process on, and I 
look forward to continuing that effort. It is important that we not 
only adequately fund veterans health care and other veterans programs, 
the quality-of-life programs for military servicemen and women and 
their families, we need to be sure those dollars are being spent in the 
way that Congress intended them to be spent.
  I want to thank several groups. First, I want to thank our veterans 
service organizations, made up of millions of men and women who have 
served our country proudly in uniform during time of war and peace. And 
yet like so many veterans, when they take that uniform off, their love 
of country does not wane, and their continuing commitment to service is 
an inspiration to all of us.
  Without the strong leadership over the last 2 years of the veterans 
service organizations who have never let up in saying it would be 
wrong, and it is wrong, to cut veterans health care services during a 
time of war, I am not sure we would be at this funding level today. So 
I salute them.
  I also want to salute the incredibly able staff of this subcommittee. 
On the Democratic side: Tom Forhan and Bob Bonner. On the Republican 
side, hard-working, dedicated employees as well: Carol Murphy, the 
staff director of this committee; Tim Peterson; Sarah Young; Walter 
Hearne; and Mary Arnold. What a privilege it is for the chairman and me 
to be able to work with a staff that at every step of the way is simply 
asking one question: What is the right thing to do for our servicemen 
and women and their families and what is the right thing to do for our 
veterans?
  Like so many of our veterans that are not honored with memorials in 
this Nation's Capitol, this subcommittee staff is working every day 
behind the scenes to make a positive difference for very, very 
deserving people, and I want to thank them for all they do, day in and 
day out, without any expectation of public acclaim.
  My final note is left to honor a veteran. As we approach Thanksgiving 
and in a few minutes pass this bill, I cannot help but think, Mr. 
Speaker, about a young veteran, 20 years old, that I met at Walter Reed 
Army Hospital on Thanksgiving morning 2 years ago. He had come back 
from Iraq with an amputated leg, sitting in his room alone with the 
exception of being there with his mother. When I walked in and saw his 
condition, the first thing he said to me was, ``Sir, I don't want 
anyone to feel sorry for me. I'm proud to have served my country, and I 
would be proud to serve it again.''

                              {time}  1015

  I hope we will always remember that is what this bill is all about, 
standing up for those who have stood up for our Nation and the American 
family.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction for the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the progress 
here. I know all of us want to move forward and conclude as early as 
possible today.
  I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to Mr. Walsh for 
working with the authorizing committee so well. For years we have 
established, I think, an example for this House in how the authorizers 
and appropriators should work together, and the gentleman has followed 
in that tradition.
  If Members remember, when we first began to look at this early in the 
year, we had those early meetings together, and we thought the outcome, 
because of the reorganization, might be very, very different than what 
we have today. The outcome, I think, is a good outcome. I think we are 
taking care of infrastructure needs that need to be taken care of in an 
area where so often these kinds of things become billpayers for other 
things.
  Particularly when we are in the midst of a war and there are all 
kinds of demands, it is awfully easy to say with military construction 
and these feel-good things for our soldiers that we just put those off 
another year. We can put them off another year, and then we will do it, 
and next year maybe we do it and maybe we do not.
  In this case all of the way around you have done an excellent job. We 
have provided for the soldier. We have provided for the infrastructure 
needs, and I am very, very pleased with the kind of relationship we 
have had in working with this. Your staff has been just terrific. With 
that, I will just say thank you and let you get back to your normal 
schedule here.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my 
colleague Mr. Edwards, especially regarding our staff who have done a 
really great job and worked through all of the issues with us. They do 
so much of the detail work and just leave a few things for us to 
resolve. We are very grateful for that.
  To the veteran service organizations, I have often said pressure is a 
good thing. We need that. It creates a dynamic tension within this 
legislative process, and it is always constructive. We may not agree on 
every single detail, but for the most part we are on the same page.
  And lastly to our Nation's soldiers, Active Duty sailors, airmen and 
to our

[[Page H10925]]

marines, thank you for your service, God bless you, and come home safe 
and sound.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________