[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2902-H2943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1045
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to House Resolution
821 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 5385.
{time} 1045
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5385) making appropriations for the 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, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Shimkus in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I am proud to present the Fiscal Year 2007
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill for consideration of the House.
The Appropriations Committee has dedicated to providing a suitable
quality of life for our servicemen and women from recruitment through
retirement. I believe this bill is fiscally responsible, while
improving the quality of life for our all-volunteer force throughout
their military careers and beyond. It also builds upon initiatives
begun last year to get the Defense Department and the Department of
Veterans Affairs to be more cooperative and expand synergies that exist
between them.
The bill totals $136.1 billion. It stays within our discretionary
allocation of $94.7 billion, which is $824 million below the budget
request. But, more importantly, the bill is $8.5 billion over last
year's level after adjusting VA medical services for contingency
funding.
The increases above last year are in four areas: veterans medical
care, active duty military medical care, housing allowances for
military families, and the first year of major construction for the new
BRAC round recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, the bill continues to improve military health care and
recommends $21 billion for fiscal year 2007 for the defense health
program. This is a sizeable increase of $1 billion above last year's
level and represents more than a 40 percent increase in this budget
since fiscal year 2003.
For veterans medical care, the bill recommends $25.4 billion, a $2.9
billion increase, or 12.7 percent, over last year's level. This program
has increased $7.6 billion, or 43 percent, since
[[Page H2903]]
2004. I do not know what could speak more for the priorities of this
House or this Congress or our committee than this commitment to our
Nation's veterans.
For military construction, including funding to support the global
war on terrorism, the bill provides $16.3 billion. The remainder of the
bill funds a variety of defense programs and four related agencies,
most of which are funded at the budget request.
I would like to mention that an additional $40 million in funding is
recommended for two programs to accelerate environmental clean-up at
formerly used defense sites and closed installations dating back to the
1988 BRAC round.
Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to make sure the limited
resources we have are spent efficiently and effectively and that
programs achieve their mission. We are, after all, at war; and we need
to make sure that our current active duty personnel understand that the
commitments to our former warfighters are kept. If we keep our promises
to our former warfighters. We will keep our promises to those who are
fighting today. This bill accomplishes that, while maintaining fiscal
responsibility.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the
full committee, Chairman Lewis, for his vision and leadership and for
the allocation that he has provided our subcommittee, probably the most
generous of all of the subcommittee allocations.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank sincerely my ranking member
and colleague and friend, Mr. Edwards of Texas, for his hard work. He
knows these issues cold. He is a good collaborator, a good person to
work with. I respect his thoughts, I respect his work ethic, and I
think this is a product of both of our vision.
I would also like to thank Mr. Obey, as ranking member of the full
committee, for working with us throughout this process. While we may
have some differences, I think overall clearly this is a bipartisan
bill that expresses the views of this House that our veterans and our
active duty service personnel are our highest priority.
[[Page H2904]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.001
[[Page H2905]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.002
[[Page H2906]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.003
[[Page H2907]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.004
[[Page H2908]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.005
[[Page H2909]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.006
[[Page H2910]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.007
[[Page H2911]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.008
[[Page H2912]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members, there are three reasons why I intend to
support this bill.
First, it has a significant increase in funding for VA health care,
approximately $3 billion, even though I believe the VA needs and
deserves more. The increase is significant, it is real, and it is
important.
Secondly, this bill includes military construction funding. It is
vital to support our troops and their families during a time of war.
And also it includes military construction funding needed to implement
the BRAC proposals.
Thirdly, I am going to support this bill because Chairman Walsh's
leadership in this effort was, at every step of the way, professional
and bipartisan. This is the kind of leadership I believe Americans
would want and expect from Congress when we are dealing with military
and defense and veterans issues.
I salute the chairman for that leadership, for his extensive
hearings, for listening to all members of his subcommittee and the
Appropriations Committee and Members throughout this House, and for
having numerous hearings, listening to veterans and other organizations
testify and have input on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear on my position. In my opinion, the
House budget resolution passed earlier this week would have better
served our Nation if it had been less willing to give the just-retired
Exxon CEO a $2 million dividend tax cut and had saved that money for
deficit reduction and providing more funding for defense, military
construction, veterans health care and defense health care, which we
have in this bill.
I did not support that budget resolution, which was passed on a
partisan basis. And today, very quickly after that resolution's
passage, we start to see the impact of it in real terms. In real terms,
our subcommittee was allocated $824 million less than President Bush
felt we needed in this area for VA funding, defense health care, and
military construction.
Had we had a better budget resolution, a bipartisan budget
resolution, I do not think we would have had to cut $824 million from
the President's request for the important responsibilities under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
But the reality is that the budget resolution has passed the House,
and the House leadership intends to implement those budget rules and
numbers, at least for now, and our subcommittee had to deal with those
numbers.
I think the subcommittee dealt with the limited budget, in my opinion
an inadequate budget, in a responsible way, a bipartisan way, and tried
to put the limited dollars in the highest priority needs.
I want to talk about what is good in this bill, given that we had so
many fewer dollars than the President had asked for in this area. One,
the VA health care increase for about $3 billion, I think that is
important. It is a huge turnaround from a year or 2 ago, where I, many
Democrats, veterans organizations, were pleading with the Republican
leadership and the administration to more adequately fund VA health
care, because we felt the administration budget request, particularly
last year, would have caused significant and serious cuts in VA health
care during a time of war.
This is a great turnaround from that and is supported on a bipartisan
basis to increase VA health care spending by $3 billion. I am glad,
frankly, that the OMB in particular and the administration have heard
the voices of Congress and our Nation's veterans that we are going to
adequately fund and significantly increase funding for VA health care.
I do want to point out this is a not a Cadillac budget, if anyone
wants to suggest that, for our veterans health care system. Because the
fact is and the challenge is that the VA system has seen a net increase
of veterans needing VA health care between 150 and 250,000 a year.
The reality is that, even this year, the number of Iraqi war veterans
needing VA health care is significantly higher than what we had
projected, or the VA had projected, and we need to keep our eye on
that.
In addition to the increase in VA health care funding which I
commend, I want to pay special focus and tribute to Chairman Walsh's
leadership on mental health care. I think it is vital that we provide
our veterans who have served in combat, risked their lives, given so
much for our country, receive the health care they deserve, whether it
is mental health care, or to deal with their physical wounds.
In many cases, Mr. Chairman, mental health care wounds last longer
than physical wounds; and I think one of Chairman Walsh's great
legacies in Congress will have been to send a clear message to the VA
and the Congress that we must make VA mental health care a priority. I
salute the chairman for that legacy and that leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we on a bipartisan basis rejected the
Administration's proposal to have a $250 enrollment fee for men and
women who served in uniform to be considered for VA health care.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Congress believes that our veterans paid
their enrollment fee when they put on our country's uniform and agreed
to go into harm's way.
We also in a bipartisan manner rejected the Administration's proposal
to go from $8 dollars to $15 for a copay for veterans prescription
drugs. That may not sound like a big increase for many. But when you
are an 80-year-old World War II veteran and you are taking six, seven,
or eight drugs a month, that prescription copay increase would have
created a lot of harm. I salute the subcommittee and the leadership of
the subcommittee for rejecting that proposal.
Finally, and Chairman Walsh mentioned this earlier, I think the
entire Congress, as well as this committee, ought to be proud of the
quality of military health care services our troops wounded in combat
are receiving. I was proud to be on the trip to Germany where we went
to the Landstuhl Hospital where our medical personnel are saving lives
every day.
Mr. Chairman, it is because of the decisions and the budget funding
of Congress that men and women are alive today that would have died in
any other previous war. That is a great tribute to the effort and
leadership of this Congress on defense health care spending.
Finally, I think it is good that we are having the $6.5 billion
increase in military construction funding. I also want to put that in
perspective, though. Do not let anyone conclude, Mr. Chairman, that
that is a Cadillac budget for military construction. That pays for
vitally needed construction to support our troops fighting the war on
terrorism and those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also is needed
to help implement the Base Realignment and Closing Commission
recommendations, which will cost taxpayers additional funding up front
but will save billions of dollars in the out years.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say my concerns. My biggest single concern
is that, because of the inadequate budget allocation to this
subcommittee, again, $824 million less than the President requested, we
actually have a bill that underfunds defense health care spending by
$735 million less than President Bush said was needed to maintain our
quality of care system.
If I felt that the final bill were going to underfund defense health
care that drastically, I simply could not vote for this bill. But I
hope and I trust that we will work on a bipartisan basis from now to
the final passage of the conference report on this bill to find those
dollars, because I hope we all agree it would be morally wrong to cut
the quality of defense health care for our troops and our military
retirees, especially during a time of war.
My second concern is, we have got a huge backlog of cleaning up past
military installations that have been closed. I want to urge the
administration which, along with the previous administration, frankly,
did not recognize the need for these programs.
Thirdly, while we increase VA spending, health care spending by about
$3 billion, because of the inadequate allocation for our subcommittee,
we had to almost effectively freeze VA health care research. We are
going this year from a backlog for veterans having their claims
considered by the VA from being an average of 167 days to 185 days.
[[Page H2913]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge the VA and I urge Congress to take a look at
that. We do not need to be moving backwards, because so often,
especially for our older veterans, justice delayed is justice denied.
Mr. Chairman, I also wish the same week we gave the retired, just-
retired Exxon CEO a $2 million dividend tax cut we do not say that if
you are a veteran making 28 or $29,000 a year, you make too much money
to deserve VA care if you did not have combat wounds. I think our
veterans making $28,000, $29,000, $30,000 have earned the right to
receive VA care.
{time} 1100
But having expressed those concerns, I have to salute this
subcommittee and its leadership for working on a solid, professional,
bipartisan basis to take a limited budget, a budget almost $1 billion
below the President's request for this area, and putting the money
where it was most needed in very, very positive ways.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Colorado, the chairman of the Readiness
and Military Construction Subcommittee on the House Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Hefley, for 3 minutes.
Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
As chairman of the authorizing committee for much of this bill, I
rise today in support of H.R. 5385.
This is a good bill. It provides more than $16 billion for military
construction activities for the Department of Defense, including more
than $5 billion to implement Base Realignment and Closure decisions and
$4 billion for family housing for military personnel. It will make
meaningful improvements in the facilities which our military people and
their families live and work.
At the same time, I don't want to argue that it is a perfect bill.
For instance, I would have liked to see an increase in funding for
military construction facilities restoration accounts. I would also
have preferred full funding of the BRAC's 2005 account, as cuts in this
account will impact DOD's ability to implement BRAC moves in a timely
manner. However, in general, it is a good bill which I am pleased to
support.
With respect to the MILCON projects appropriated within the bill, I
would note that they largely mirror those projects authorized in the
Defense Authorization Act that passed the House last week. This
approach whereby specific projects are both authorized and appropriated
is unique to military construction activities and is a longstanding
practice. Over time, it has helped ensure that construction activities
for the Department of Defense are reviewed by multiple bodies within
the Congress to ensure that they are viable, affordable, and necessary.
This year, through close scrutiny of the President's budget request,
the authorizing and appropriating committees found numerous projects
and requests that were flawed, unnecessary, or of low priority. By
cutting those projects, we were able to do some of the more crucial
projects.
The projects added to this bill are critical to military readiness
requirements, such as the child development centers for families of
military personnel, alert complexes for pilots, fighter jets that
patrol the skies over our cities, and urban training facilities to
teach our servicemembers how to fight in city environments.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the
members and the staff of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee for
their efforts. Their professionalism and willingness to maintain the
working relationship and spirit of cooperation between our two
committees is extraordinary. I especially want to thank Chairman Walsh
and Ranking Member Edwards and their fine staff for their help in this
process, and applaud them for producing such a very good bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I didn't earlier salute Chairman Hefley and Mr. Ortiz, the chairman
and ranking member, respectively, of the Armed Services Committee that
authorizes these programs.
It is not often and certainly not always, many times not often that
the authorizers and appropriators work so closely together, and I
salute the leadership on both sides of the aisle of the authorizing
appropriations committee for doing this in the right way and doing it
together. I thank Chairman Hefley for his leadership in that area.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak. I appreciate Mr. Edwards' leadership, that of Chairman
Walsh, and my good friend, Sam Farr, for taking the attention to the
problem of the toxic and explosive legacy of 225 years of military
operations in the United States. We are not talking about problems
overseas, we are talking about communities in every single State in the
Union.
Mr. Farr's experience with Fort Ord over, I don't know, over 15 years
now, has demonstrated the scope and scale of the promise, if we do it
right, there are tremendous opportunities. Many of these bases are
jewels that can be returned to productive use.
His experience has also shown how complicated they can be; that if we
don't have the right plan, we don't invest the resources, it can drag
on and on and on. Sadly, we have over 3,000 sites around the country
that still are a part of this toxic legacy.
I do appreciate what the subcommittee has done. You have a difficult
job. I wouldn't want to have to balance those equities. But I am here
today arguing for more attention and more resources to deal with
accelerating the problem in the past and the promises of the past.
I am going to offer an amendment in a few minutes that would transfer
from the 2005 BRAC account money that will be used to deal with the
first four rounds and those communities that are waiting.
Now, there are going to be some who will say, well, you are
offsetting a much bigger number than the mere $77 million. And that is
because the 5.3 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion that is
technically set aside for 2005 is not going to be spent. The payout
rate is something like 5 percent for this next year. You are not going
to use it. It is a phony number. You can safely transfer resources to
help people who have already suffered closure and who have not been
dealt with fairly by this Congress. You can look at Mather Air Force
Base in California, closed in the first round, and their cleanup isn't
slated to be completed until 2072. That is unconscionable.
I would respectfully request that Congress no longer be missing in
action when it comes to cleaning up the bombs, the munitions, the fuel
depot, the multiple problems that have been left by communities, for
communities to deal with, and impede the recycling. On base closures
under BRAC, the unexploded bombs and chemical contamination prevents
140,000 acres on closed and realigned bases from being transferred
right now to local communities for redevelopment.
The last point I would make is that it goes far beyond this
subcommittee. Again, I appreciate their attention and the work they
have done, but we have to have the appropriations committee and the
authorizing committees to get serious about this. We have an up and
down cycle where we put some money in and then the money goes away. We
transfer it in areas when all of a sudden there is a huge problem that
gets the attention, like Spring Valley in Washington, DC. on the campus
of the American University. That is where we tested and developed
chemical weapons during World War I.
We have had three cleanups to try and solve that problem. The more
that we focus on this, the more that we invest on an ongoing basis, the
more that we develop the techniques, the technology, it is not just
going to save people around the country from this problem, but that
same technology that will help us figure out whether it is a hub cap or
a 105 millimeter shell will be able to be used to protect our soldiers
in Iraq. That is how I lost my first constituent, was a land mine.
Now, I would suggest that, if we get serious about this, we will not
only accelerate the technology and the research that will make our
communities safer and healthier here at home, but it will protect lives
of our service people
[[Page H2914]]
overseas and will also deal with the vast amounts of munitions and land
mines that are scattered all around the world that kill innocent
victims every day.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would like to do is ask, if there is no objection of my
colleague from Texas, I have two brief colloquies that I would like to
enter into with two of my colleagues.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would yield for the purpose of colloquy
2 minutes to Mr. Wicker of Mississippi, a member of the committee.
Mr. WICKER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, may I say initially that I certainly support the
passage of H.R. 5385 and urge my colleagues to cast an ``aye'' vote.
But I rise at this point to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Walsh
regarding Columbus Air Force Base in Columbus, Mississippi.
During fiscal year 2006 military quality of life appropriations
process, funding was authorized and provided for the first phase of the
mission support complex at Columbus Air Force Base. Currently, mission
support facilities are spread across the base and are too small for
their functions. The proposed mission support complex will consolidate
many of the command and control functions into one complex adjacent to
the wing headquarters. Also, this new facility will meet new force
protection antiterrorism standards.
Funding for the second and final phase of this complex is needed to
complete the project. I realize this project was not authorized in the
House version of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, and this fact
prevented the project from being funded in this appropriation bill, Mr.
Chairman. However, I hope the chairman will work with me as this bill
moves through conference in order to complete the project on schedule.
Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman will yield for the purpose of colloquy. I
thank the gentlemen for bringing this issue to our attention.
Funding in the amount of $10 million was provided in last year's
bill, fiscal year 2006, to begin construction of this project. I
appreciate the importance of completing this project on time, and the
committee will keep the gentleman's concerns in mind as we go to
conference with the Senate. I know this is also a priority for the
gentleman's Senators from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. I thank the chairman very much for yielding and this
colloquy.
Mr. WALSH. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would yield 30 seconds to my
colleague, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, for a brief statement.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I know Chairman Walsh and Representative Beauprez from Colorado
have been working to solve veterans' needs in Colorado. And, Mr.
Chairman, I would respectfully ask unanimous consent to submit for the
Record the following statement by my friend and colleague
Representative Beauprez from Colorado.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request will be handled under general
leave.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for 2 minutes.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague
from Texas for this time and for his work on this bill.
I support this bill because it represents a vast improvement over the
administration's budget request. But I don't think that we have in this
bill the answer, the sufficient funds that we need particularly for our
VA health care system.
I know without a doubt that all of my colleagues in this House want
to support our veterans, but the fact remains that the Veterans
Administration is chronically underfunded, and it is struggling to
provide very basic services and benefits to the veterans as we have
promised them.
The answer to our VA funding problem? Let's adequately fund the VA in
the budget so that the veterans will receive the kind of care that they
were promised when they signed up to defend this country.
While I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee saw fit to
increase the VA funding from the wholly inadequate amount that the
President had suggested, I am disappointed that the efforts of several
of my colleagues, including Mr. Farr, to provide an additional $2.6
billion for our critical health care needs of our Nation's veterans was
not successful in this committee.
{time} 1115
As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I believe fiscal
responsibility should be one of the Federal Government's top
priorities, but there should be no higher priority than honoring the
promises that we have made to our veterans.
We cannot in good conscience balance this budget or reduce the
deficit at their expense. How we treat our veterans, how we treat our
veterans is a sign of our character as a Nation. The men and women who
have sacrificed so much in defense of our country deserve no less than
the very best that we have to offer in return.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee of the House.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the good work of
Chairman Walsh and my good friend Chet Edwards on the bill. I have
never questioned the sincerity of both of you in your service for my
comrades and the men and women who wear the uniform. I appreciate your
service.
I appreciate the advocacy also of the previous speaker, but I also
have to disagree with some of her words in context because I think what
we have done here is put together a pretty good bill.
Also, at the same time, I have to turn to the administration and
express my appreciation to them to send one of the largest increases of
any Department once again to Congress. I think it reflects our
commitment to care for the veterans who need us most. It also ensures
the seamless transition from military to civilian life and to provide
our veterans with economic opportunities. At a time when most Federal
spending will see very few increases, this spending increase for
veterans will rise another 10 percent for fiscal year 2007.
After the budget shortfall that I identified last summer, I commend
VA Secretary Nicholson for taking the challenge presented last year as
we examined the concerns with regard to VA's budgeting process within
the model that is used. Secretary Nicholson took ownership of the
fiscal year 2007 budget, and it appears that improving the integrity of
the process has born fruit with this legislation.
I would also note that that responsibility did not rely solely upon
the Secretary. We can demand accountability of others, but we also have
to demand accountability to ourselves. So what I did was I also changed
the process here in Congress and said for a long time we would take the
counsel and advice from military service organizations and veterans
service organizations and we receive that counsel after we put together
the budget, and it had been done that way for decades. Now, does that
even pass the straight face test? Does that even pass common sense? I
think the answer is no.
So what we did was we changed the process on how we receive the
testimony from our veterans organizations and military service
organizations. Before that decision was made, I met with most of them
at Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania at a veterans summit, and then the
decision was made to sever the joint hearings and receive their
testimony as soon as we received the President's budget and before we
put together the budget use and estimates, extremely important.
So let me share with all my colleagues that this is something that
has never been done before. This right here is the testimony of 19
veterans service organizations and military service organizations that
was received prior to the formulation of the budget. What a radical
thing to do. It only makes sense to do this. So I am really pleased,
and as a matter of fact, it is reflected in what Chairman Walsh has
been able to put together, and I have such deep respect for Chairman
Walsh and what he has done here.
The other thing I would like to do is I agree with the gentleman from
Texas
[[Page H2915]]
(Mr. Edwards) commending the leadership of Chairman Walsh on mental
health. I also want to share and enlighten my colleagues with something
we are dealing with.
In the VA, we are dealing with the consequences of many of these
roadside bombs, and when I say the consequences, let me pause, and once
again, I am going to applaud you again. When we created the four
polytrauma centers, the ones in Palo Alto, Minneapolis, Tampa and
Richmond, these polytrauma centers are caring for the traumatic brain
injuries. These wounds that we are dealing with are so much different
from wounds from other wars. The American people have placed such
demand upon us, and rightfully so, to do all we can to care for the men
and women who are serving us, and what do we do? We reach into the
Treasury and we do everything to protect the torso. We have them in
their body armor. We bought them a new helmet. That helmet is strapped
on. The soldier then takes the body armor, they flip it up, they have
got on the helmet, the roadside bomb explodes.
Now, typically in an explosion the torso will absorb part of the
blast; but right now, we have protected the torso. So when the force
comes in and hits the torso, the force goes up, and it disseminates,
but that which goes up hits them in the face and goes up into the
helmet and cannot escape. So as it goes up into the helmet and cannot
escape, we now have more traumatic brain injury than ever before.
I am enlightening all my colleagues to this because I want to work
with Mr. Edwards and the chairman because I think what we need to do is
redesign a new helmet. We need to design a helmet that can have some
type of vent system with regard to this force, at the same time not
compromise the integrity of the helmet.
Will you join me in this one? We need to do this because when you
visit our polytrauma centers and all the traumatic brain injury and the
eye injuries that we are receiving, you will have your maxillofacial
damage, but some of that can be taken care of. But these brain injuries
are very severe, and so we need to look at this helmet, and I want to
work with both of you to do that.
I also want to comment on, we are on the authorization side. You are
ahead of us here, and we are working on the construction budget, and we
have a tremendous challenge in front of us. I want to work with you.
On the construction side of this, it has been 15 years since we have
built a VA hospital. So a lot of the institutional knowledge on how to
build VA hospitals is no longer there, and this spending $625 million
for 170 beds, wow, is a lot of money. So our challenge is we have got
Las Vegas and we have got Denver, we have got Orlando, New Orleans and
Charleston, South Carolina. As we examine this collaborative effort
between a medical university and a VA and how we could share
facilities, as we were working on that, then Katrina hits. So then we
say, okay, we can leverage that perhaps in New Orleans, and that is
what is being done right now between the VA and LSU.
But I want to work with both of you as we move on the construction
budget and I commend you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank Chairman Buyer for not only his kind comments but
also even more importantly for his service to our country, his military
service to our country in Operation Desert Storm in the first Iraqi
war.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the
chairman and the ranking member for putting together this legislation
and for the appropriations.
It is interesting because I do not serve on Armed Services or
obviously Appropriations or Defense approps, but I think every Member
of this House is affected by what is in this bill because all of us
have seen our young men and women who have come back, who have been
injured, and that is what this bill is about, the VA medical
facilities, the medical facilities for these service personnel who are
injured, and it is great to hear some of the good things that are in
this bill. I know it is under very strict limitations, but I want to
thank the committee for doing this.
I want to talk about something that is very specific briefly, about
an important project in my own area. Now, in Houston we do not have a
base. We have a lot of reserve units, but we have the Ellington Field
where they have F-16s, and we have a fire station that needs to be put
in there. We have one that does not meet either Air Force standards or
OSHA standards, and it is a facility that serves not only our Air
National Guard but our Army National Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard, NASA,
and of course, civil aircraft.
The existing facility, like I said, is rapidly deteriorating and does
not meet either OSHA or Air Force standards. Roof leaks and lack of
insulation result in equipment being destroyed and extremely high
operating costs. The lack of adequate facilities and space do not allow
for proper integration of female firefighters. Storage facilities do
not exist and require hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of
equipment to be stored outside, and traditional Guardsmen must store
issued equipment at their homes.
New firefighting apparatus must be parked outside the station because
they do not fit in the truck bays. Currently, our 147th has one fire
truck valued at $1 million which is unable to fit into the station, and
the unit is expecting delivery of another one this year. This results
in slower response times, degraded performance, and vehicle
deterioration.
The funding I requested for this new fire station will not only bring
the facilities up to OSHA and Air Force standards but will protect the
investments already made in the equipment in the base.
Plans are under way to move 2,300 Army, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve
troops from elsewhere in the Houston area to Ellington to make it
really a joint Reserve base. As this happens, we must ensure there is
sufficient infrastructure to support these units.
Again, the fourth largest city in the country affecting not only
Johnson Space Center and the petrochemical industry, but I would
appreciate any consideration by the committee during the conference
report.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to
commend the committee chairman, as well as the ranking minority member,
for working on this very important bill.
Coming from Florida, I represent the highest number of veterans of
any Member of Congress. We have worked very hard in the last few years
that I have been here to make sure that veterans' needs are adequately
funded. Obviously, this bill before us today has a record level of
funding for veterans' needs.
The committee, for the first time, used the veterans service
organizations' independent budget as kind of the baseline for the
fiscal year 2007 funding. Obviously, the veterans groups want to make
sure that every single need is met. This appropriation does do exactly
that. The total funding is $2.6 billion above last year's level and
$100 million below the President's request.
We are improving health care substantially, as well as opening up
additional community-based outpatient clinics. The C-BOCs are very,
very well received in each one of our districts and do meet the
veterans' needs.
Obviously, we were able to again ward off the additional fees that
were proposed in the administration's budget.
We want to make sure that we continue to be able to go home and tell
our veterans that this Congress, the people on this side of the aisle,
people on the other side of the aisle, recognize the need to make sure
that our veterans, whether they are from World War II or whether they
are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, that they are adequately
cared for.
The bill also contains an additional $20 million over last year's
level for veterans nursing homes, and I again want to commend the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for the purpose of a colloquy.
[[Page H2916]]
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as you know, many veterans live
hours from major hospitals, making it very difficult for them to get
the care they need; and oftentimes, for those who have to travel there
two or three times a week, they have a terrible quality of life. That
is why our local veterans health care clinics, known as Community-Based
Outpatient Clinics, are just so important to deliver quality care for
veterans. These have been stalled in recent years; yet, my
understanding is that in this bill there is a strong commitment of $25
million to build the highest priority Community-Based Outpatient
Clinics in the country. Is that the case?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
concern for veterans and for his leadership on this important area of
veterans health care, community outreach clinics; and, yes, in fact,
the subcommittee prioritized $25 million for the VA to open up 10 of
the highest priority CBOCs in the country, and so the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, let me just conclude with this. One of my
communities, Conroe, the veterans and I have worked for a number of
years to try to make this a reality. This is great news for our
veterans; and, more importantly, I think it is great news for all those
communities that will get help for their veterans care, and I will just
tell you that we are grateful for Chairman Walsh's leadership. This is
just awful good news.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
{time} 1130
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding, and I want to enter
into a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Walsh.
I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work on this bill and also
for his dedication to our brave young men and women serving abroad. I
come to the floor today to raise an issue that I know is very important
to all of us, as well as to you, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of the
mental health of our troops who are deployed in harm's way.
An investigative report this week by the Hartford Courant, based on
records obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request, revealed,
and I quote: ``United States military troops with severe psychological
problems were sent to Iraq or kept in combat even when superiors had
been aware of signs of mental illness.''
We all know that going to war can be psychologically very difficult,
yet it was found that less than one in 300 troops received a referral
to mental health professionals before being sent to war. Still, the
Pentagon's own physicians have estimated that one in 11 troops going
into conflict suffer from some form of major depression, anxiety, or
post-traumatic stress disorder.
The 1998 Defense Authorization Act included explicit direction to the
Defense Department to include an assessment of mental health in its
medical tracking system for troops deployed overseas. However, the
Department's predeployment health assessment form has only one question
on mental health.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a disservice to our troops, and I
understand that there is additional money for the military services to
begin to integrate mandatory mental health services into the standard
operating procedures for our soldiers. I support the chairman in that
effort, and I look forward to working with him on the initial
assessment of mental health for troops being deployed and to ensure
that the intent of the 1998 law is fully implemented.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank her for
expressing her concern on this very important issue. This is a priority
of the highest order for our subcommittee. We take it very seriously.
As you heard Mr. Edwards say, we have moved on this issue in a number
of ways. So I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I
agree with her on the need for the increased mental health screening
and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. I want to assure
her that we will be mindful of this issue as we move this bill forward.
Ms. LEE. Let me just thank the gentleman for his attention to this
issue, and I look forward to working with him and the ranking member to
be ensure it is moved forward and is addressed as he just stated.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, soon
our country will be rightfully commemorating the sacrifices made by our
military servicemembers on Memorial Day, and words alone can never
sufficiently express our gratitude for their service and their
dedication to our country, especially those who have made the ultimate
sacrifice.
Today, the House is considering H.R. 5385, a bill that would fund
essential medical programs for our courageous veterans. With the return
of our servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, we have
learned last year that the demands on our veterans health care system
have risen at a rate for which we were not prepared.
While I am pleased that H.R. 5385 contains significant increases from
last year and does not recommend the administration's fee increases for
TRICARE recipients, I am still concerned that this bill does not fully
reflect the needs of our returning troops, nor does it guarantee that
our veterans receive the very best health care.
I encourage my colleagues to support increased funding so that our
veterans have accessible, timely, and affordable health care. I
especially support more funding for mental health assessments for
servicemembers returning from abroad, particularly now that our troops
are stretched incredibly thin and the psychological burdens and the
stresses on them are tremendous. We need to make sure that they have
sufficient support when they return home, whether it is counseling
services or other things, to help them fully integrate into society. It
has an effect on them, their families, and society as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that we learn from past mistakes that
we cannot and must not shortchange the veterans who have so selflessly
served our country. Mr. Chairman, it is our job and our duty to ensure
that our veterans receive the benefits that they were promised and the
recognition that they deserve.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the committee.
Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman.
As a member of the subcommittee, I strongly support this bipartisan
bill, and it contains a key reform to ensure that Americans in uniform,
veterans, sailors, and their families, will join together in a new
joint VA-Navy Hospital to be built in north Chicago, Illinois.
I have worked on this for 5 years. In 2000, the previous
administration announced plans to close the north Chicago VA, saying
that veterans in northern Illinois could easily get to downtown Chicago
in just 30 minutes. Only a Washington consultant with a map and a
string would think that.
We knew that we could do much better; that we could dramatically
improve health care for veterans who wore green, who wore white, who
wore blue, and their families, at a joint Navy-VA facility. This bill
begins the funding of that hospital. It includes $23 million for the
first joint VA-Navy Hospital in the country.
Already, we have moved many Navy services into the north Chicago VA,
and this summer we will open several state-of-the-art rooms. But this
embraces the new vision of a brand-new facility taking care of
Americans in uniform, veterans, and their families.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Military Quality
of Life Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5385). This is an improvement, albeit
a small one, over the President's budget request for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. In total, the Committee provided an additional $635
illion above the President's budget. Everyone on my side ofthe aisle--
and all of
[[Page H2917]]
the veteran service organizations--viewed that figure as inadequate.
Several of my colleagues--including Mr. Edwards, Mr. Farr, and Mr.
Obey--did their best to get the committee to fund adequately hospital
construction, personnel hiring, and health care delivery initiatives
that are vital to meeting our veterans needs. Instead, the committee
voted to give still more tax cuts to millionaires.
Whom do we value more--those who make millions, or those whose valor
made it possible for the millionaires to flourish in peace and freedom
in the first place?
On January 17, 2003, the Bush Administration stopped enrolling new
Priority 8 veterans for VA medical care, and the President's budget
continues this restrictive policy. This Republican policy has denied
health care to 273,000 and prevented 1 million veterans, who make as
little as $26,902, from enrolling in VA health care. Those who are
eligible are often forced to wait in line for care. As VA officials
admitted to Congress in February, the VA has treated more than 144,000
returning veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom,
and nearly 30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first
appointment--double the number last year.
Nearly a third of returning veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan have
been diagnosed with mental disorders, with nearly half of those PTSD,
according to the VA. The number of troops back this year from Iraq and
Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder could total 15,000 or
more--five times higher than the VA predicted. And as the Kansas City
Star noted on April 30, the ``miscalculation on PTSD echoes last year's
underestimation by the Bush administration of how many Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans would need medical treatment.''
The President and his Congressional allies don't seem to have any
problem paying for the weapons of war, but they do seem to have a
problem paying for the consequences of war. But the country that sends
its people into combat--its sons and daughters, its husbands and wives,
its sisters and brothers--has a sacred obligation to take care of those
people when they come home--and to care for their survivors when they
do not. It is an obligation that goes back to Abraham Lincoln in 1865.
It is an obligation we have never fully met--under administrations and
Congresses of both parties.
This budget, while better than what the President submitted, does not
truly meet that obligtion. Any member of this body who has committed
this country to a war costing $400 billion can surely find it in their
hearts to their budget to produce the $2 billion that the veteran's
organizations say is missing in this bill. Yet this bill fails to
provide $6 billion from what current veterans need over the next 5
years for their health care. I hope that next year we will pass a
budget that veterans feel meets their needs, rather than one they view
as ``the best they could get.''
Finally, there is a VA clinic in my district leasing space at Fort
Monmouth which is scheduled to close under the 2005 BRAC
recommendations. Secretary Nicholson has pledged to me in writing that
this clinic will stay open through 2010 at its present location and
working to maintain its location in Monmouth County beyond that. While
the Pentagon must take into account the care and well-being of the
veterans served by the base when following BRAC procedures, the VA must
have sufficient resources meet the veteran's needs. In this case, it
means having the resources to acquire a much needed facility after the
Army leaves town. At present those resources are not there. I look
forward to working with my colleague to ensure that the veterans of my
district will continue to receive the same high quality care they
currently have.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to acknowledge Chairman
Walsh and the members of the Military Quality of Life--VA
Appropriations Subcommittee for their willingness to work with the VA
to meet the needs of Colorado's veteran population.
The VA's effort to coordinate and reassess the current and future
health care needs of our Nation's veterans has been a monumental
undertaking. The CARES report cited numerous locations throughout the
VA's nationwide network of medical facilities that are in need of
improvement. A replacement facility for the VA Eastern Colorado Health
Care System in Denver was one of the top priorities listed in the CARES
report. Unfortunately, the original plan to share facilities with the
University of Colorado was deemed infeasible. After years of hard work
and negotiations, the VA has finally found a workable solution that
meets their needs, and will allow them to continue their 50-year
working relationship with the University of Colorado.
I commend Chairman Walsh for his commitment to this project, and for
helping the VA reprogram existing funds for the purchase of the land.
This is a critical first step in accomplishing the mission at hand.
While there is still much to be done in order for this project to be
a success, I am optimistic that we will be able to overcome the
obstacles and provide the veterans of the Rocky Mountain region with
the hospital they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Chairman Walsh for his
commitment to our Nation's veterans, and more specifically to the
health care needs of Colorado's veterans. Without question, this
project could not move forward without his assistance.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5385
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 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, 2007, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Construction, Army
(including rescission of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $1,756,298,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2011: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $220,830,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Army'' under Public Law 109-114, $43,348,000 are hereby
rescinded.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
(including rescissions of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,193,834,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $72,857,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps'' under Public Law 108-132, $30,000,000
are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated for ``Military Construction, Navy and Marine
Corps'' under Public Law 108-324, $8,000,000 are hereby
rescinded.
Military Construction, Air Force
(including rescission of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $1,187,550,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That of
this amount, not to exceed $97,504,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons
therefor: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law
108-324, $2,694,000 are hereby rescinded.
Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 11, line 11 be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
[[Page H2918]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 11, line 11, is as follows:
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer and rescissions of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $1,107,606,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $172,950,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Defense-Wide'' under Public Law 108-132, $9,000,000 are
hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated for ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide''
under Public Law 108-324, $43,000,000 are hereby rescinded:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for
``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'' under Public Law 109-
114, $58,229,000 are hereby rescinded.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$512,873,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$207,088,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $167,774,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2011.
Military Construction, Navy Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization
Acts, $55,158,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $56,836,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2011.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $200,985,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing Construction, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$578,791,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $674,657,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $308,956,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $509,126,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
(including rescissions of funds)
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$1,169,138,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated for ``Family Housing
Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law 108-324,
$23,400,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated for ``Family Housing Construction, Air
Force'' under Public Law 109-114, $42,800,000 are hereby
rescinded.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $755,071,000.
Family Housing Construction, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for construction, including
acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and
alteration, as authorized by law, $8,808,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2011.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $48,506,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, for
family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section
2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative
means of acquiring and improving military family housing and
supporting facilities.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with
the provisions of section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the
destruction of other chemical warfare materials that are not
in the chemical weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by
law, $90,993,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011: Provided, That such amounts of this appropriation as
may be determined by the Secretary of Defense may be
transferred to such appropriations of the Department of
Defense available for military construction as the Secretary
may designate, to be merged with and to be available for the
same purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation to which transferred.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $216,220,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Under the heading ``Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990'', insert after the dollar amount (page 11, line
17) the following: ``(increased by $27,500,000)''.
Under the heading ``Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 2005'', insert after the dollar amount (page 11, line
24) the following: ``(reduced by $440,000,000)''.
Under the heading ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly
Used Defense Sites'', insert after the dollar amount (page
18, line 14) the following: ``(increased by 50,000,000)''.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk go ahead to read the
numbers, because I think that we want to get one point clear from the
outset. It looks like there is a big cut of $440 million in order to be
able to spend $77,500,000. The point is, it is the same number.
There is a vast increase in the amount of money that has been set
aside, a $3.6 billion increase, for the
[[Page H2919]]
2005 base closure account. But we are not going to spend that money.
The payout rate is only 5 percent. That is why you have to reduce it,
under our arcane budget rules, by over $400 million to get $77 million
back. The point is the tax dollars are exactly the same; and,
additionally, the point, is where are we going to spend it?
I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment with my
colleague Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida because we are trying to
focus on the serious problem of the toxic legacy of military operations
in this country. I have a map behind me where we have identified 3,398
sites around the country already. There are more that we are
discovering.
The particular area we want to focus on today is that we are not
spending adequate resources to deal with the bases that have already
been closed. We have 140,000 acres that cannot be transferred because
they haven't been adequately cleaned up from the previous BRAC
closings. And this isn't just a case of, well, don't worry about it,
put up some barbed wire and it will go away. These are problems that
continue over time.
Unexploded ordnance has killed dozens of people. I have interesting
little materials here. These are promotional materials that the
Department of Defense gives to our soldiers to try and recognize it.
This is a problem that threatens the health and well-being of our men
and women in service right now on our bases.
One of my favorites is Larry the Lizard. This is being distributed in
Southern California, coloring books, to tell children not to pick these
things up. Now, if it is your son, your niece, your granddaughter, your
little brother, maybe you feel better that there is a Larry the Lizard
coloring book. But wouldn't you feel better if we stepped up and met
our obligation and actually picked up those bombs, those unexploded
munitions? I think you would. I know I would.
I think it is time that Congress no longer be missing in action on
the issue of military cleanup. We don't know at this point whether
there are 10 million acres or 40 million acres with unexploded
ordnance.
Now, I appreciate, and I have expressed my admiration for this
subcommittee's sinking their teeth into it and trying to do something,
like my colleague, Mr. Farr, for his tireless championing of this
cause. But this amendment today, this little amendment, shifting the
same amount of money that will be spent from the most recent round of
base closures with $5.3 billion to increase the small amount of money
that has been allocated to deal with prior facilities is a step in the
right direction.
It would be a tragedy if we are going to continue to stretch this out
over time. Our first obligation ought to be to those people who have
suffered this experience before. Mather Air Force Base in California
isn't slated to be cleaned up until 2072 under the current rate of
expenditure. They were closed in the first round. That is
unconscionable.
At the rate we are going, it is a 200- to 300-year problem, and every
delay means that we do not return the land to productive use. It means
that people's lives are in jeopardy. We are coming up to fire season,
and we are probably going to have to pull firefighters out of some of
the forests where there had been training and there is a danger of the
bombs exploding.
We are spending enough money on national defense that we can
prioritize dealing with this toxic legacy that will make families safer
at home and people around the world. Because, bear in mind, the sooner
we develop this technology and refine the techniques, not only will it
help us clean up here at home, that technology will be available to
make our soldiers safe overseas as well.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, while I certainly understand the intent of the
gentleman's amendment and the sincerity with which he brings it, we
can't accept this offset.
I understand the problem, and the subcommittee has included an
increase of $40 million for formerly used defense sites in the 1990
BRAC Round.
{time} 1145
Additionally, we have included report language directing the
Department of Defense to place a larger emphasis on these sites in
future budgets. It is a problem. Clearly, it is a problem. Mr. Farr,
Mr. Blumenauer, to their credit, have raised this issue. We are all
concerned about it and we are moving on it. But, this is a bad way to
go about it, and here is the reason. The gentleman's amendment would
cut funds for the implementation of new BRAC rounds by $440 million to
get $77 million. And the problem is the rate at which these funds are
outlaid. Clearly, if we took the $440 million out of the 2005 BRAC,
that would further delay implementation of the BRAC, which would lead
to problems just like this in the out years. If we use the $440
million, it gets us $77 million for these FUD sites, but it leaves $363
million on the table that cannot, will not, won't be used by the
Department.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to understand this because I think it is very
important. My understanding is the reason the offset of $440 million is
required is because they are not going to spend more than $77 million
this next year; is that correct?
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time. While the funds may not be spent this
year, they will be spent. They are needed to implement this BRAC round.
We learned from the last BRAC round that if we delay the initial
investment, it costs far more in the long run to implement these BRACs.
I remind the gentleman again that he voted against the measure that
would have delayed the implementation of the 2005 BRAC round, which is
exactly what this amendment would do. Additionally, any delay in
implementing BRAC reduces the savings and the efficiency of the BRAC
that it is designated to promote. It may also cause the same types of
environmental restoration problems at these current BRAC sites that we
are experiencing from these past BRAC rounds. For that reason I oppose
the gentleman's amendment.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment. As the map showed,
there are so many areas in this country where we have very, very
dangerous sites. And let me tell you what the Army Corps of Engineers
is doing about it. It not only is distributing coloring books, but it
is also distributing, and it has U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on here,
they also are distributing Frisbees telling kids to recognize, retreat
and report when they see these live ordnances. I don't think this is
the way that we should treat our young people, our neighbors who may
live near these sites.
In my district there was the Brooksville Gunnery Range, and it was
used during World War II for military practice. Since the Range's
closure in 1946, thousands of my constituents have moved into the area
and/or on adjacent lands that have not yet been surveyed.
Unfortunately, inspections have found rockets, mortars and grenades,
putting my constituents at substantial risk.
As a matter of fact, in one location there was a live ordnance found
underneath a child's trampoline. Let me repeat that. There was a live
ordnance found underneath a child's trampoline.
While the Army Corps of Engineers has been working to remove
unexploded ordnances from Brooksville Gunnery Range, they must do more.
We have to expand the area of exploration to make sure that we find and
detonate all of the ordnances.
Now Brooksville is just one of these sites within my district and one
of the sites in the United States. Jurisdiction over cleanup at these
sites falls under these two major accounts which were mentioned here
today, one, the formerly used defense sites account, and the BRAC 1990
account. So we are postponing and not adequately funding the cleanup,
but we are working on 1990 sites. 1946 this range was closed.
The committee certainly has been working with us, and they understand
that this is a large nationwide issue and urges the Department of
Defense to increase funding in future years.
[[Page H2920]]
How much longer do we have to wait? It has been 60 years since this
particular site was closed.
Fifty million dollars will go toward Formerly Used Defense Sites
account, and $27.5 million will go to the BRAC 1990 account.
In far too many cases, yesterday's military base is today's housing
development. The last thing anyone wants to hear is that someone's
child was seriously injured or killed while playing in his or her
backyard, or as children often do, wandering through fields.
I don't think a Frisbee is the answer. I think that being responsive
and actually making sure that we have adequate funds to clean up those
sites is the necessary way to go.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I want to just make one point, apropos
the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee.
The $5.3 billion that he is talking about, which will not be spent
rapidly, is for all of base realignment and closure activity. That is
for reconstruction, that is for building, that is for a whole range of
things. It is not just the critical cleanup of the explosives. It is
not where there is the critical danger.
So there is a whole range of things in there that I think any
objective person on this floor would say is much less of a priority to
save lives than what the gentlewoman from Florida pointed out. Our
amendment focuses on putting the money where it is going to do the
most--the clean up that is essential, that has been delayed and delayed
and delayed.
I understand the Chair's concern that we don't want to delay the 2005
BRAC. Bear in mind, the amendment that we are offering deals with the
people long before that, who have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
I would suggest there is no fiscal impact that is going to hurt over
the long haul. The financial incentives that he references will be
available if we have the economy of scale for the ones that are more
dangerous and are more delayed.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment. But before I do that,
I want to really compliment Chairman Walsh. He did everything possible,
with the bad figure he was given, to work out this account and to put
some more money into it. But I think that the problem is so severe that
we need this time to discuss it.
In essence, what Mr. Blumenauer has showed you with his map is that
there are about 10 of these sites in every congressional district in
the United States. It just averages out to that.
And what are they? Well, they are called UXOs, unexploded ordnances.
Those are very serious things. Ordnances were developed to harm people,
seriously harm people.
They are also called Former Used Defense sites. And those could just
be toxic wastes or other things. It is where the defense, back in the
early wars and on the coastal areas, particularly Pacific coast, you
had lookout areas and stuff like that. And there is a bunch of stuff in
the ground, and that has to be cleaned up.
And then you also have military munitions response, MMR sites across
this country.
Mr. Blumenauer is a true leader in being able to point out that this
is sort of a huge Superfund, a Love Canal that might be in every
congressional district. And I know it is just a matter of time before
local newspapers who are starting to look at these maps and wondering
where these things exist, and we in Congress are going to be hit right
between the eyes and saying why didn't you do something about it if you
knew it existed? And we know it has existed because it is a fact.
The geography is there. The sites are there. They have been on a list
for a long time. And they cause problems. And of the ones that they are
talking about, UXOs are the most serious problems of all. I know, in my
own district, people have lost limbs from picking up boxes that they
didn't know were explosive. Young kids, that they didn't know that
there was an explosive device in it and dropped the box and blew off
their arms and legs. So not enough attention is being paid to sort out
these messes left behind by the services.
In fact, in our hearing, I am a member of the committee, in our
hearing on April 5, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Keith Easton,
testified that it would take approximately $350 million just to clean
up the former military base, Fort Ord in California, a base in my
district, which was closed in 1991. Yet, the Army has only requested
$45 million for clean up activities covered by the 1990 BRAC account,
of which $6.6 million would be allocated for Fort Ord. That means $6.6
million out of what is needed is $350 million. We are going to have to
adjust some monies around here. And the priority in his amendment is
let's do what we know has been caused by former base closures before we
try to clean up all of the new ones, those that just closed this year.
So clearly, there is a disconnect between what our cleanup
obligations are, and what are services budget has been made. And this
cannot continue.
So I applaud Mr. Blumenauer in bringing this amendment. Nonetheless,
billions of cleanup obligations are still pending and must be
addressed. So if we don't deal with it today and don't get it adopted,
we are going to be back here next year, and a lot of the Members in
this House are going to understand that these sites are in their
district and they are going to want to support this amendment. So I say
this is either going to be done now or it can be later, but we have got
to get to it.
I applaud Mr. Walsh for the effort he has made in trying to beef up
the account, but I don't think it is enough.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $5,309,876,000, to remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Page 11, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, after discussing this amendment with the
chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee, I intend to
withdraw the amendment. So I will not seek a vote. And I thank my
colleagues for giving me a few minutes to discuss a very important
issue.
I believe that the issue of mental health services for our troops
deploying or returning from combat is one that demands the attention of
this body, if only for a few minutes today. And I know my colleague,
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, addressed this issue as well.
My amendment would increase funding for the Defense Health Program by
$10 million to establish a pilot program to provide in-person mental
health assessments to servicemen when they deploy or return from
combat. The offset is a reduction of $10 million in the 1990 BRAC
account.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about ensuring that we do a better
job for those men and women in our military in need of mental health
services. Currently, upon the return from combat, our troops are given
only a paper questionnaire with just seven questions about their mental
health, and that is
[[Page H2921]]
supposed to be enough to determine their mental health status. This is
hardly sufficient for people who, for 12 or 18 months, have been
constantly subjected to insurgent violence or the threat of insurgents
attacks, or witnesses to horrific devastation and loss of life and, in
many cases, will have to go back for a second or third tour.
According to both veterans and mental health experts, this screening
process leads to an under reporting of mental health problems. As the
Surgeon General Kevin Kiley put it recently, and I quote, ``There's
only so much we can do for large numbers of troops, and it is not like
we wouldn't want to do more.''
That is what is so important is to be able to give the Defense
Department the needed resources to do right by our troops. As General
Kiley says, do more than a seven question paper questionnaire.
With the number of Army suicides on the rise, the Army suicide rate
last year was nearly 13 per 100,000 soldiers, the highest since 1999.
{time} 1200
We are simply are not reaching all those men and women in uniform who
need our help. In fact, the GAO recently reported that only 22 percent
of the servicemembers who might have been at risk for suffering PTSD
were ever referred for further mental health evaluation. The report
also found that ``DOD cannot provide reasonable assurance that OEF and
OIF servicemembers who need referrals receive them.''
Given that, we should allow the Defense Department to test whether an
in-person screening will make the screening process more effective and
improve the likelihood of their receiving a referral to receive the
mental health services they need.
Recently, the Hartford Courant ran a series of mental health concerns
facing our troops today, and I have distributed the series to every
single office today. I strongly urge my colleagues to take the time to
read it. The stories are poignant as well as tragic. It includes
serious allegations that the Defense Department has deployed troops who
are mentally unprepared for combat and that all too often
antidepressant medication is the only form of treatment that fragile
servicemembers can get while they are on the front lines.
We must take the time to assess the emotional well-being of our
troops. Would we send a young man or woman into combat if they have
suffered severe physical wounds? We would not. By the same token, we
should not send them to fight if they are suffering severe emotional
wounds. The Defense Department has made great strides in the past 30
years in testing and understanding PTSD and other forms of combat
stress. We need to do more. I hope someday this body will get the
opportunity to provide the Pentagon with the adequate resources to
continue to improve its mental health awareness.
I thank Chairman Walsh and I thank Mr. Edwards for their willingness
to let me speak on this amendment. They are among the strongest
supporters of our military that we have in this Congress. I know they
share the concerns, the concerns of so many in this body about this
issue. I look forward to continuing my work with them on this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Basic Allowance for Housing, Army
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Army on
active duty, $3,687,905,000.
Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 19, line 3 be considered as
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 19, line 3, is as follows:
Basic Allowance for Housing, Navy
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Navy on
active duty, $4,135,061,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Marine Corps
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Marine
Corps on active duty, $1,350,921,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Air Force
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Air
Force on active duty, $2,934,327,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Army National Guard
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Army
National Guard on active duty, $469,109,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Air National Guard
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Air
National Guard on active duty, $277,533,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Army Reserve
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Army
Reserve on active duty, $347,607,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Navy Reserve
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Naval
Reserve on active duty, $208,838,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Marine Corps Reserve
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Marine
Corps Reserve on active duty, $43,082,000.
Basic Allowance for Housing, Air Force Reserve
For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Air
Force Reserve on active duty, $76,218,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Army
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Army, $1,810,774,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Navy
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Navy, $1,201,313,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Marine Corps
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Marine Corps, $473,141,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Air Force
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Air Force, $1,684,019,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Defense-Wide
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Department of Defense, $86,386,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Army National
Guard
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Army National Guard, $387,882,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Air National
Guard
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Air National Guard, $255,322,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Army Reserve
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Army Reserve, $215,890,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Navy Reserve
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Navy Reserve, $52,136,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Marine Corps
Reserve
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Marine Corps Reserve, $9,579,000.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Air Force
Reserve
For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the Air Force Reserve, $59,849,000.
The Department of Defense Environmental Restoration Accounts
Environmental Restoration, Army
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Army, $413,794,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Army,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Navy
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Navy, $304,409,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings
[[Page H2922]]
and debris of the Department of the Navy, or for similar
purposes, transfer the funds made available by this
appropriation to other appropriations made available to the
Department of the Navy, to be merged with and to be available
for the same purposes and for the same time period as the
appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That
upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Air Force, $423,871,000, to
remain available until transferred: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such
funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction
and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings
and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar
purposes, transfer the funds made available by this
appropriation to other appropriations made available to the
Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of Defense, $18,431,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of Defense,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Army, $257,790,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at
sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Army,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Defense Health Program
(including rescission of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and
health care programs of the Department of Defense, as
authorized by law, $21,065,163,000, of which $20,218,205,000
shall be for operation and maintenance, of which not to
exceed one percent shall remain available until September 30,
2008, and of which up to $10,638,784,000 may be available for
contracts entered into under the TRICARE program; of which
$402,855,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, shall be for procurement; and of which
$444,103,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2008, shall be for research, development, test
and evaluation: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, of the amount made available under this
heading for research, development, test and evaluation, not
less than $7,000,000 shall be available for HIV prevention
educational activities undertaken in connection with U.S.
military training, exercises, and humanitarian assistance
activities conducted primarily in African nations: Provided
further, That of the funds provided for ``Defense Health
Program'', operations and maintenance under title VI of
Public Law 109-148, $40,042,000 are hereby rescinded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this
point in the reading?
Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
Page 19, line 8, strike ``$21,065,163,000'' and insert
``$21,800,163,000''.
Page 19, line 9, strike ``$20,218,205,000'' and insert
``$20,953,205,000''.
At the end of title I (page 35, after line 2), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 136. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of
Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by
1.78 percent.
Mr. EDWARDS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up 5 minutes
because we had a discussion of this, but I would like to remind all
Members what this is about.
Because of what I think was a budget resolution passed on a partisan
basis earlier this week, our subcommittee's allocation was $824 million
less than President Bush said we needed to pay for VA health care,
military construction, and defense health care. As a consequence of our
rejecting on a bipartisan basis the administration's gimmick to try to
find funding for defense health care, because we rejected the idea of
having a 200 percent increase in TRICARE premiums for men and women who
served our country for 20 and 30 years, we ended up with $735 million
less for defense health care spending than President Bush, the
administration, said we need.
My amendment would put back that $735 million and would pay for it by
asking those Americans during a time of war who made over $1 million a
year to accept a $112,000 tax cut on average rather than a $114,000 tax
cut. I think that is a fair request given Americans' principle of
shared sacrifice during time of war. Let us ask those making over $1
million a year to give up less than 2 percent of their tax cuts in
order to fund defense health care during a time of war at the level the
President said was needed.
Point of Order
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment changes the application of existing law.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The amendment proposes to prescribe a rule of law regarding the
Federal income tax. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds made available in this title for
construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 39, line 8 be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 39, line 8, is as follows:
Sec. 103. Funds made available in this title for
construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
[[Page H2923]]
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where
the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise
determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public
interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this title
for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate
any activity from one base or installation to another,
without prior notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts
estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects
to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty
Organization member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Sea, unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint venture with
host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this title
for military construction in the United States territories
and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any
contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to
a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall not
be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor
exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a
foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards
for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the
lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a
Marshallese contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including
the Committees on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of
any proposed military exercise involving United States
personnel 30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended
for construction, either temporary or permanent, are
anticipated to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available in this title which are limited for obligation
during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the
last two months of the fiscal year.
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds made available to a military department or defense
agency for the construction of military projects may be
obligated for a military construction project or contract, or
for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time
before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year for which funds for such project were made available, if
the funds obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from
funds available for military construction projects; and (2)
do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus
any amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
Sec. 118. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with
an annual report by February 15, containing details of the
specific actions proposed to be taken by the Department of
Defense during the current fiscal year to encourage other
member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Japan, Korea, and United States allies bordering the Arabian
Sea to assume a greater share of the common defense burden of
such nations and the United States.
Sec. 119. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to
the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10
U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for
the same purposes and the same time period as that account.
Sec. 120. Subject to 30 days prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, such
additional amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of
Defense may be transferred to: (1) the Department of Defense
Family Housing Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated for
construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts, to be merged
with and to be available for the same purposes and for the
same period of time as amounts appropriated directly to the
Fund; or (2) the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated for
construction of military unaccompanied housing in ``Military
Construction'' accounts, to be merged with and to be
available for the same purposes and for the same period of
time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund: Provided,
That appropriations made available to the Funds shall be
available to cover the costs, as defined in section 502(5) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans or loan
guarantees issued by the Department of Defense pursuant to
the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code, pertaining to alternative means of
acquiring and improving military family housing, military
unaccompanied housing, and supporting facilities.
Sec. 121. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated for Partnership for Peace Programs in the
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
Sec. 122. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any
solicitation for a contract with the private sector for
military family housing the Secretary of the military
department concerned shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the notice
described in subsection (b).
(b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice
of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental
payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private
party under the contract involved in the event of--
(A) the closure or realignment of the installation for
which housing is provided under the contract;
(B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such
installation; or
(C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at
such installation.
(2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the
nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and
likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal
Government with respect to the guarantee.
Sec. 123. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the accounts established by sections
2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund
established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to
pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance
Program. Any amounts transferred shall be merged with and be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the fund to which transferred.
Sec. 124. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of
law, funds made available in this title for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for
the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days prior notification to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, except that an
after-the-fact notification shall be submitted if the
limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated with
environmental remediation that could not be reasonably
anticipated at the time of the budget submission: Provided
further, That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is
to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance
expenditures for each individual general or flag officer
quarters for the prior fiscal year: Provided further, That
nothing in this section precludes the Secretary of a military
department, after notifying the congressional defense
committees and waiting 21 days, from using funds derived
under section 2601, chapter 403, chapter 603, or chapter 903
of title 10, United States Code, for the maintenance or
repair of general and flag officer quarters at the military
service academy under the jurisdiction of that Secretary:
Provided further, That each Secretary of a military
department shall provide an annual report by February 15 to
the congressional defense committees on the amount of funds
that were derived under section 2601, chapter 403, chapter
603, or chapter
[[Page H2924]]
903 of title 10, United States Code, in the previous year and
were obligated for the construction, improvement, repair, or
maintenance of any military facility or infrastructure.
Sec. 125. None of the funds made available in this title
under the heading ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program'', and no funds appropriated for
any fiscal year before fiscal year 2007 for that program that
remain available for obligation, may be obligated or expended
for the conduct of studies of missile defense.
Sec. 126. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any other
official of the Department of Defense is requested by the
subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives or the
subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate to respond to a question or inquiry submitted by
the chairman or another member of that subcommittee pursuant
to a subcommittee hearing or other activity, the Secretary
(or other official) shall respond to the request, in writing,
within 21 days of the date on which the request is
transmitted to the Secretary (or other official).
Sec. 127. Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement
Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of
title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be
available until expended for the purposes specified in
subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred
pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.
Sec. 128. None of the funds made available in this title,
or in any Act making appropriations for military construction
which remain available for obligation, may be obligated or
expended to carry out a military construction, land
acquisition, or family housing project at or for a military
installation approved for closure, or at a military
installation for the purposes of supporting a function that
has been approved for realignment to another installation, in
2005 under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), unless such a project at a military installation
approved for realignment will support a continuing mission or
function at that installation or a new mission or function
that is planned for that installation, or unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the cost to the United
States of carrying out such project would be less than the
cost to the United States of cancelling such project, or if
the project is at an active component base that shall be
established as an enclave or in the case of projects having
multi-agency use, that another Government agency has
indicated it will assume ownership of the completed project.
The Secretary of Defense may not transfer funds made
available as a result of this limitation from any military
construction project, land acquisition, or family housing
project to another account or use such funds for another
purpose or project without the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This
section shall not apply to military construction projects,
land acquisition, or family housing projects for which the
project is vital to the national security or the protection
of health, safety, or environmental quality: Provided, That
the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional
defense committees within seven days of a decision to carry
out such a military construction project.
Sec. 129. During the 5-year period after appropriations
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military construction and family housing operation and
maintenance and construction have expired for obligation,
upon a determination that such appropriations will not be
necessary for the liquidation of obligations or for making
authorized adjustments to such appropriations for obligations
incurred during the period of availability of such
appropriations, unobligated balances of such appropriations
may be transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense,'' to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 130. None of the funds appropriated in this title
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) or TRICARE shall be available
for the reimbursement of any health care provider for
inpatient mental health service for care received when a
patient is referred to a provider of inpatient mental health
care or residential treatment care by a medical or health
care professional having an economic interest in the facility
to which the patient is referred: Provided, That this
limitation does not apply in the case of inpatient mental
health services provided under the program for persons with
disabilities under subsection (d) of section 1079 of title
10, United States Code, provided as partial hospital care, or
provided pursuant to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of
Defense because of medical or psychological circumstances of
the patient that are confirmed by a health professional who
is not a Federal employee after a review, pursuant to rules
prescribed by the Secretary, which takes into account the
appropriate level of care for the patient, the intensity of
services required by the patient, and the availability of
that care.
Sec. 131. (a) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry
out a program to distribute surplus dental and medical
equipment of the Department of Defense, at no cost to the
Department of Defense, to Indian Health Service facilities
and to federally-qualified health centers (within the meaning
of section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B))).
(b) In carrying out this provision, the Secretary of
Defense shall give the Indian Health Service a property
disposal priority equal to the priority given to the
Department of Defense and its twelve special screening
programs in distribution of surplus dental and medical
supplies and equipment.
Sec. 132. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates
for civilian employees hired for certain health care
occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 133. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that
not more than 35 percent of funds provided in this title for
environmental remediation may be obligated under indefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with a total contract
value of $130,000,000 or higher.
Sec. 134. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
available to the Department of Defense in this title shall be
made available to provide transportation of medical supplies
and equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa,
and funds available to the Department of Defense in this
title shall be made available to to provide transportation of
medical supplies and equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis,
to the Indian Health Service when it is in conjunction with a
civil-military project.
Sec. 135. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may exercise the
provisions of section 7403(g) of title 38, United States
Code, for occupations listed in section 7403(a)(2) of title
38, United States Code, as well as the following:
Pharmacists, Audiologists, and Dental Hygienists.
(2) The requirements of section 7403(g)(1)(A) of title 38,
United States Code, shall apply.
(3) The limitations of section 7403(g)(1)(B) of title 38,
United States Code, shall not apply.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and
61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, the Reinstated
Entitlement Program for Survivors, emergency and other
officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and
certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of title
IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 540
et seq.) and for other benefits as authorized by law (38
U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55,
and 61; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 735; 76 Stat. 1198),
$38,007,095,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $28,112,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical administration''
for necessary expenses in implementing the provisions of
chapters 51, 53, and 55 of title 38, United States Code, the
funding source for which is specifically provided as the
``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: Provided
further, That such sums as may be earned on an actual
qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to ``Medical
care collections fund'' to augment the funding of individual
medical facilities for nursing home care provided to
pensioners as authorized.
Readjustment Benefits
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61),
$3,262,006,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That expenses for rehabilitation program services and
assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under
section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than
under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5), and (11) of that section,
shall be charged to this account.
Veterans Insurance and Indemnities
(including transfer of funds)
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by title 38, United States Code, chapter 19; 70
Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 487, $49,850,000, to remain available
until expended.
Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the
[[Page H2925]]
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2007, within the resources available, not
to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for direct loans are
authorized for specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $153,185,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $67,000, as authorized by
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$3,369,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $305,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, $615,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``General operating
expenses'': Provided, That no new loans in excess of
$30,000,000 may be made in fiscal year 2007.
Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless Veterans Program
Account
For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
transitional housing loan program authorized by subchapter VI
of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, not to exceed
$750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this Act for
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical administration''
may be expended.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Veterans Health Administration
medical services
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United
States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not
under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including
medical supplies and equipment and salaries and expenses of
health-care employees hired under title 38, United States
Code, and aid to State homes as authorized by section 1741 of
title 38, United States Code; $25,412,000,000, plus
reimbursements, of which not less than $2,800,000,000 shall
be expended for specialty mental health care: Provided, That
of the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$1,100,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2008:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a
priority for treatment for veterans who are service-connected
disabled, lower income, or have special needs: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding
for the provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in
enrollment priority groups 1 through 6: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of
prescription drugs from Veterans Health Administration
facilities to enrolled veterans with privately written
prescriptions based on requirements established by the
Secretary: Provided further, That the implementation of the
program described in the previous proviso shall incur no
additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Farr:
Page 39, line 22, strike ``$25,412,000,000'' and insert
``$26,875,000,000''.
Page 41, line 1, strike ``$3,277,000,000'' and insert
``$3,390,000,000''.
Page 42, line 2, strike ``$412,000,000'' and insert
``$460,000,000''.
Page 42, line 14, strike ``$1,480,764,000'' and insert
``$1,553,764,000''.
Page 44, line 21, strike ``$69,499,000'' and insert
``$77,499,000''.
Page 45, line 13, strike ``$283,670,000'' and insert
``$399,000,000''.
At the end of title II (page 56, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 223. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of
Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by
4.4 percent.
Mr. FARR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $1.82 billion for
veterans, particularly in the health care field. It is in 10 separate
areas: mental health and prosthesis, patient workload backlog, research
for prosthesis, nursing home beds for long-term care, priority 8
veterans health care for those veterans who earn as little as $27,000 a
year, improving the VA casework backlog that currently takes more than
6 months, money for VA hospital construction, medical administration,
the VA IG's office, and unproven efficiencies.
Now, why should you be supporting this amendment? Well, Mr. Chairman,
next week we will all be going home for Memorial Day recess. And on
Memorial Day, we will all, as Members of Congress, get up and tell our
veterans all the things we are doing for them. You ought to tell them
about this amendment because this amendment does what veterans have
asked us to do.
The figures that I have proposed here are the independent budget
recommendations for mental health, prosthesis, medical and prosthetic
research accounts, and staffing levels to improve timely care. The
independent budget was brought to the committee, and I want to applaud
the chairman for allowing four veterans organizations to bring this,
including AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. They provided our committee with
a budget of what they thought needed to be done. And their budget
estimates, according to the committee, were more on mark than the
administration's figures last year.
So when you go home to the vets next week, you have a chance to tell
them you supported the Farr amendment to add $300 million for mental
health and $300 million for prosthetics. You can tell them that you
have voted to add $119 million for additional staffing for increased
patient workload. You can tell them that you voted for $48 million to
pay for inflation in the medical and prosthesis research account.
This amendment is also because the adequate funding for vets has not
been made by this bill. So we are helping this bill by adding also for
the veterans nursing home beds. The current law requires that we
provide 13,391 beds. We only have enough money for 11,100 beds. That is
almost 3,000 beds below the level authorized in 1998. So we add $471
million for nursing home care to bring nursing home beds back into
compliance with the law.
This amendment would also allow 214,000 priority 8 veterans. Who are
priority 8 veterans? Those are veterans who make as little as $27,000 a
year. You could claim poverty for the earned income tax credit at that
salary, and all we are saying is we are going to make them eligible for
the VA health care.
Every Member in this body should support this amendment because every
Member has veterans who have been shut out of the VA's health system.
This amendment also pays for the backlog. It adds $73 million to
provide increased funding for general operations expenses to help
reduce the claims in processing. Every Member has district offices that
are working on veterans' cases, 74,000 vets who are waiting more than 6
months to have their claims processed and much longer in some cases. As
of last week, that number increased by over 21,000 to 95,000 vets who
are waiting just for an answer.
This amendment also restores money for three high-priority projects,
hospital construction. Three hospital construction projects in Denver,
Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; and Columbia, Missouri, were cut in the
base bill to provide allowances for other accounts. Congressman
Beauprez of Colorado sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee
earlier this month supporting the Colorado project.
Where does this money come from? We do this by an offset. Mr.
Chairman, since the Republican leadership enacted the tax cuts in 2001,
we have learned from all the reports and all the
[[Page H2926]]
papers that the rich have gotten richer. Our progressive tax system is
becoming less progressive. Time and again the majority has prioritized
the needs of people making more than $1 million a year ahead of the key
investments such as health care for our veterans. As a result, our
veterans will continue to wait too long for care. Many will not get the
mental health assistance they need. Prosthetic research and services
will be underfunded, and so-called ``wealthy'' lower priority veterans,
those making as little as $27,000 a year, will continue to be denied
access.
This is going to be ruled out of order, and I hope the Members will
insist that we get this funding.
Point of Order
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point against the amendment because
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
This amendment changes the application of existing law.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The amendment proposes to prescribe a rule of law regarding the
Federal income tax. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, recently a concern about VA health care policy
regarding certain anesthesia providers was brought to my attention. The
VA is currently reviewing regulations to allow anesthesiologist
assistants, also known as AAs, to provide care at VA medical
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage the VA to continue to move
forward to officially recognize AAs as anesthesia providers at VA
medical facilities. AAs are a small but important contingent of mid-
level anesthesia providers, who will be a welcome addition to the
anesthesia care team at VA hospitals. In fact, the VA approved AAs to
serve at VA facilities in February of 2004. It approved them in
February of 2004. But because of bureaucrat delays, AAs are not
recognized in the Veterans Health Administration's official provider
handbook, not allowing them to practice.
{time} 1215
Mr. Chairman, more than 2 years has passed since the decision was
made to include AAs as VA anesthesia providers, yet the program is
still on hold. If new specific qualification standards for AAs are
needed, then the VA should say so and finalize the regulatory process.
In light of potential provider shortages at veterans medical
facilities, veterans deserve to have every qualified caregiver as a
resource. Anything else is a disservice to our veterans.
I know the chairman of the subcommittee is aware of this situation,
and I look forward to working with him to have to help get the VA off
the dime.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
medical administration
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities; and administrative and legal expenses of the
Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the
Department as authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United
States Code, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.); $3,277,000,000, plus reimbursements, of
which $250,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2008.
medical facilities
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and
other necessary facilities for the Veterans Health
Administration; for administrative expenses in support of
planning, design, project management, real property
acquisition and disposition, construction and renovation of
any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department; for oversight, engineering and architectural
activities not charged to project costs; for repairing,
altering, improving or providing facilities in the several
hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the Department,
not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire
of temporary employees and purchase of materials; for leases
of facilities; and for laundry and food services,
$3,594,000,000, plus reimbursements, of which $250,000,000
shall be available until September 30, 2008.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by
chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, to remain
available until September 30, 2008, $412,000,000, plus
reimbursements.
Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 44, line 22, be considered
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 44, line 22, is as follows:
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail,
$1,480,764,000: Provided, That expenses for services and
assistance authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and
(11) of section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, that
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines are necessary to
enable entitled veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible,
to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable
employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily
living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further,
That the Veterans Benefits Administration shall be funded at
not less than $1,167,859,000: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$75,000,000 shall be available for obligation until September
30, 2008: Provided further, That from the funds made
available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits
Administration may purchase (one-for-one replacement basis
only) up to two passenger motor vehicles for use in
operations of that Administration in Manila, Philippines.
Information Technology Systems
For necessary expenses for information technology systems
and telecommunications support, including developmental
information systems and operational information systems; for
the capital asset acquisition of information technology
systems, including management and related contractual costs
of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated
with operations authorized by chapter 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, $1,302,330,000, plus reimbursements, to remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That none of
these funds may be obligated until the Department of Veterans
Affairs submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress, and such Committees approve, a plan for
expenditure that: (1) meets the capital planning and
investment control review requirements established by the
Office of Management and Budget; (2) complies with the
Department of Veterans Affairs enterprise architecture; (3)
conforms with an established enterprise life cycle
methodology; and (4) complies with the acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition management
practices of the Federal Government: Provided further, That
within 30 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a reprogramming
base letter which provides, by project, the costs included in
this appropriation.
national cemetery administration
For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; and
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $160,733,000, of which not
to exceed $8,037,000 shall be available until September 30,
2008.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $69,499,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Construction, Major Projects
For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of
the facilities including parking projects under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in
[[Page H2927]]
sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110,
and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, construction
management services, maintenance or guarantee period services
costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the
project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and
storm drainage system construction costs, and site
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more
than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title
38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were
made available in a previous major project appropriation,
$283,670,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$2,000,000 shall be to make reimbursements as provided in
section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C.
612) for claims paid for contract disputes: Provided, That
except for advance planning activities, including needs
assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments,
and other capital asset management related activities, such
as portfolio development and management activities, and
investment strategy studies funded through the advance
planning fund and the planning and design activities funded
through the design fund, including needs assessments which
may or may not lead to capital investments, none of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be used for any project
which has not been approved by the Congress in the budgetary
process: Provided further, That funds provided in this
appropriation for fiscal year 2007, for each approved project
shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a construction
documents contract by September 30, 2007; and (2) by the
awarding of a construction contract by September 30, 2008:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall promptly report in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress any approved major
construction project in which obligations are not incurred
within the time limitations established above: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this or any other Act may
be used to reduce the mission, services or infrastructure,
including land, of the 18 facilities on the Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) list requiring
further study as specified by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs without prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin:
Page 45, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $32,500,000)''.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the VA made
a priority request for $32.5 million for urgent and necessary upgrades
for the spinal cord injury unit at the Zablocki VA Medical Center in
Milwaukee. However, the subcommittee mark made a point of zeroing out
this project. My amendment would restore the funding for this requested
priority.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I am new to this body, so I was
very curious as to why they would do this. Clearly the Zablocki spinal
cord injury unit is not a ``bridge to nowhere.'' It is one of only 23
spinal cord injury units in the country, serving more than 500 veterans
as in-patients and over 10,000 patients on an outpatient basis each
year.
Nationally, there are over 44,000 veterans suffering from spinal cord
injuries that are now paraplegic and quadriplegic. At such a critical
time when we are at war and the number of injured soldiers continues to
increase, I had to ask myself, Mr. Chairman, what are they doing and
why are we doing this?
So what I did as a new Member is I went to something called the
committee record, I believe, and what they said here is that they did
this because this was of ``relatively low priority.''
Well, I was really confused then, Mr. Chairman, because I then
checked with the budget documentation submitted by the Department of
Veterans Affairs and discovered that they had listed this as their
number one priority for fiscal year 2007. Further, they went on to
describe the spinal cord injury unit at Zablocki as having by far
received the highest score under their project scoring session.
Mr. Chairman, I don't stand under this E. Pluribus Unum boring
Members on and on often. I am here because I truly am trying to
understand how other projects with lower priority scores were, indeed,
funded.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record this
corroborating evidence that this indeed is a highest priority of the
fiscal year 2007 projects.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $283,670,000
for Construction, Major Projects for fiscal year 2007. This
is a decrease of $690,930,000 below the fiscal year 2006
enacted level and a decrease of $115,330,000 below the budget
request. When adjusted for supplemental funding, the
recommendation is $323,430,000 below the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The Committee recommendation does not include funding for
refurbishment of operating rooms at the Columbia, Missouri
VAMC, and refurbishment of the Spinal Cord Injury Center at
the Milwaukee, Wisconsin VAMC, both of which are relatively
low priority projects. The estimate submitted in the budget
for the Capital Region Data Center project includes a
contingency reserve of over 25 percent, well in excess of
needs for such a project. The funding for this project is
therefore reduced by $5,000,000, leaving 12.5 percent for a
contingency reserve. The Committee recommendation includes no
funding for the replacement hospital in Denver, Colorado. The
Committee notes that less than two years ago, when original
planning funds were appropriated for the Denver facility, the
estimated total cost of the project was $328,000,000. The
current estimate for the project is in the range of
$621,000,000, almost double the previous estimate. This is
not the only instance of large cost growth for construction
projects of the Department, but this is a project at a stage
where work can be halted before significant and irreversible
financial damage is done. The Committee is concerned with the
rapid escalation in the cost of building new facilities and
cautions the Department that few, if any, projects will be
approved in the future if such costs are not brought under
control.
The Committee recommendation also includes a general
provision which places restrictions on the use of funds
previously appropriated for a new facility in Biloxi,
Mississippi. It is the Committee's direction that no funds
can be expended on a new facility unless it is a joint-use
facility shared with Kessler Air Force Base.
The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Location and description 2007 request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration
[VHA]:
American Lake, WA Seismic $38,220 $38,220
Correction, NHCU & Dietetics.
Columbia, MO, OR Replacement.. 25,830 0
Denver, CO Replacement Medical 52,000 0
Center Facility..............
Long Beach, CA Seismic 97,545 97,545
Correction, Bldg. 7 & 126....
Milwaukee, WI Spinal Cord 32,500 0
Injury (SCI) Center..........
St. Louis (JB), MO Medical 7,000 7,000
Facil Improv & Cem Exp.......
Advance planning fund: Various 39,255 39,255
locations....................
Asbestos abatement: Various 5,000 5,000
locations....................
Claims Analyses: Various 2,000 2,000
locations....................
Judgment Fund: Various 2,000 2,000
locations....................
Hazardous Waste: Various 2,000 2,000
locations....................
Facility Security Fund: 4,000 4,000
Various locations............
-------------------------------------
Total VHA construction, 307,350 197,020
major projects...........
National Cemetery Administration
(NCA):
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Phase 2 13,000 13,000
Gravesite Expansion..........
Gerald B. H. Solomon-Saratoga, 7,600 7,600
NY Phase 2 Gravesite
Expansion....................
Great Lakes, MI Phase 1B 16,900 16,900
Development..................
Design Fund: Various locations 2,300 2,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2928]]
TABLE 1-3 SUMMARY OF FY 2006 AND 2007 CARES CAPITAL PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006:
10.......................... Cleveland, OH...... Cleveland-Brecksville FY05-2 $87,300
Consolidation, Ph 2/2--
Construction.
4........................... Pittsburgh, PA..... Consolidation of FY05-3 82,500
Campuses, Ph 2--
Construction.
22.......................... Las Vegas, NV...... New Medical Center FY05-6 199,000
Facility, Ph 2/3--
Construciton.
8........................... Gainesville, FL.... Correct Patient Privacy FY05-7 76,400
Deficiencies, Ph 2/2--
Construction.
20.......................... Anchorage, AK...... Outpatient Clinic & FY05-7 63,510
Regional Office, Ph 2/
2--Construction.
16.......................... Biloxi \1\, MS..... Hospital Restoration/ FY06-1 310,000
Consolidation.
16.......................... Fayetteville, AR... Clinical Addition, Ph- FY06-5 5,800
1--Design.
.......................... Various............ Line Items............. ............... 55,790
.......................... New Orleans \2\, LA Restoration/Replacement N/A 75,000
of Medical Center
Facility.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2006.............. ................... ....................... ............... $955,300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007:
19.......................... Denver, CO......... Replacement Medical FY05-10 52,000
Center Facility.
22.......................... Long Beach, CA..... Seismic Corrections-- FY05-16 97,545
Bldgs 7 & 126.
12.......................... Milwaukee, WI...... SCI Center............. FY07-1 32,500
15.......................... St. Louis (JB), MO. Medical Facility FY07-1 7,000
Improvements and
Cemetery Expansion.
20.......................... American Lake, WA.. Seismic Corrections-- FY07-8 38,220
NHCU & Dietetics.
15.......................... Columbia, MO....... Operating Room Suite FY07-21 25,830
Replacement.
.......................... Various............ Line Items............. ............... 54,255
===============================================================================
Total 2007.............. ................... ....................... ............... $307,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This project received $17.5M in FY2006 appropriations for design and an additional $292.5M in FY 2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.
\2\ This project was added as a result of public law 109-148 the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation.
FY 2007 Top-Twenty Major Medical Facility Projects.--In
accordance with section 8107 of United States Code 38, below
are the top-twenty medical facility projects that were
considered for the FY 2007 budget. These projects were
selected based on the CARES capital criteria.
TABLE 4-9 FY 2007 VHA TOP-TWENTY MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Title--
VISN Location Brief Description Priority store Estimated cost Annual cost Category
(000) (000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projects listed below were funded in phases in prior years and are therefore considered as top priority projects until funding is complete. Priority
scores are from the FY 2005 cycle project scoring session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 4 Pittsburgh, PA..... Consolidation of .4532 $189,205 $5,805 General
campus.
2............................... 22 Las Vegas, NV...... New Medical Center .3981 $406,000 $142,000 General
Facility.
3............................... 19 Denver, CO......... Replacement .3424 $621,000 $255,700 General
Medical Center
Facility.
4............................... 8 Orlando, FL........ New Medical Center .3314 $347,700 $138,030 General
Facility.
5............................... 8 San Juan, PR....... Seismic .2888 $145,200 $324,000 Seismic
Corrections--Bldg
1.
6............................... 22 Los Angel, CA...... Seismic .2536 $79,900 $461,000 Seismic
Corrections--Bldg
s. 500 & 501.
7............................... 8 Lee County, FL..... Outpatient Clinic. .2429 $65,100 $15,800 General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project listed below was funded in a phase in a prior year and is therefore considered as a top priority projects until funding is completed.
Priority score is from the FY 2006 cycle project scoring session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................... 16 Fayetteville, AR... Clinical Addition. .2962 $56,163 $119,470 General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projects listed below are additional prjects considered for the FY 2007 planning cycle. The priority scores are from the FY 2007 project scoring
session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9............................... 12 Milwaukee, WI...... Spinal Cord Injury .4412 $32,500 $10,964 General
Center.
10.............................. 8 Bay Pines, FL...... Inpatient & .4189 $90,400 $17,310 General
Outpatient
Renovation &
Construction.
11.............................. 17 Dallas, TX......... Clinical Expansion .4072 $137,500 $56,071 General
& Renovation.
12.............................. 4 Butler, PA......... Outpatient Clinic .4011 $44,200 $54,744 General
& Demolition.
13.............................. 21 East Bay, CA....... New Outpatient .3993 $44,000 $10,547 General
Clinic 2.
14.............................. 22 Long Beach, CA..... Seismic .3479 $23,500 $2,000 Seismic
Corrections--Bldg
s. 128 & 133.
15.............................. 15 St. Louis (JB), MO. Medical Facility .3414 $69,053 $3,741 General
Improvements and
Cemetery
Expansion.
16.............................. 20 American Lake, WA.. Seismic .3376 $38,220 $8,142 Seismic
Corrections--NHCU
and Dietetics.
17.............................. 20 Settale, WA........ Mental Health & .3231 $96,400 $5,459 General
Research Bldg..
18.............................. 22 Loma Linda, CA..... Outpatient Clinic. .3113 $113,400 $27,349 General
19.............................. 3 Northport, NY...... Renovation of .2808 $27,300 $10,344 General
Residential &
Ambulatory Care
Areas.
20.............................. 5 Washington, DC..... Outpatient .2769 $131,400 $312,094 General
Expansion &
Renovation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This project was withdrawn from consideration due the current project underway at Long Beach.
\2\ This project is considered a top priority by VHA regardless of its priority score.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know what benchmarks are used with these
scoring decisions, but truly it could not be based on the priorities of
those valiant veterans that so readily serve our country and depend
upon us for the treatments that this spinal cord injury unit provides,
folks that are faced with irreversible catastrophic disabilities. This
is a hard reality for these veterans and their families, and the very
least we can do for them is to provide adequate facilities for them.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that before I became a Member of this
body, and indeed before I became a candidate for Congress, I had the
opportunity to visit the Zablocki Spinal Cord Unit, and I can tell you
that despite the dedication of the workers there, they are working
under very, very hard conditions, outdated technology, limited space,
it will not compensate for the deteriorating conditions at that
facility.
Those spinal cord injury patients, Mr. Chairman, are on the tenth
floor, the tenth floor, and they are lacking any adequate safety
evacuation criteria. Certainly they are lacking in any ability to
maximize their mobility, functionality and independence.
The Department says this is the highest priority. Veterans have said
this is the highest priority. I am at a loss as to why the subcommittee
believes it is such a low priority.
Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I have
listened to countless hours of speeches on this floor about veterans
and our love for them and our concern for them. You know, Mr. Chairman,
it is time for us to do what we say.
Point of Order
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18, 2006.
The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's
allocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be
exceeded and it is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I do, briefly.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized.
[[Page H2929]]
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I understand that I will have
to concede to the point of order, but I can tell you that I did not
perceive that I had to provide an offset for this funding because it
was deemed as the highest, the highest, priority.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
amendment is not in order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 56, line 8, be considered as read, printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 56, line 8, is as follows:
Construction, Minor Projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities including parking projects under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which
may lead to capital investments, architectural and
engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period
services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided
under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite
utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and
site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in
sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110,
8122, and 8162 of title 38, United States Code, where the
estimated cost of a project is equal to or less than the
amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United
States Code, $210,000,000, to remain available until
expended, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such
section, for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical facilities
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department which
are necessary because of loss or damage caused by any natural
disaster or catastrophe; and (2) temporary measures necessary
to prevent or to minimize further loss by such causes.
Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities
For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by sections 8131-8137 of title 38,
United States Code, $105,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not less than $20,000,000 shall be
available only to correct life and patient safety
deficiencies and minor modifications at existing facilities.
Grants for Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries
For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by section
2408 of title 38, United States Code, $32,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2007 for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred as
necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations:
Provided, That before a transfer may take place, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued, or
absent a response, a period of 30 days has elapsed.
Sec. 202. Appropriations available in this title for
salaries and expenses shall be available for services
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land
or both; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized
by sections 5901-5902 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 203. No appropriations in this title (except the
appropriations for ``Construction, major projects'', and
``Construction, minor projects'') shall be available for the
purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any
new hospital or home.
Sec. 204. No appropriations in this title shall be
available for hospitalization or examination of any persons
(except beneficiaries entitled under the laws bestowing such
benefits to veterans, and persons receiving such treatment
under sections 7901-7904 of title 5, United States Code or
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless
reimbursement of cost is made to the ``Medical services''
account at such rates as may be fixed by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 205. Appropriations available in this title for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be
recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts
within the last quarter of fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 206. Appropriations available in this title shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections
3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
Sec. 207. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2007, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance
Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating
expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus
earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year
2007 that are available for dividends in that program after
claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves
have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of
administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of
surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement
shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost
of administration for fiscal year 2007 which is properly
allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to
the provision of any total disability income insurance
included in such insurance program.
Sec. 208. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds
to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by that account
during a prior fiscal year for providing enhanced-use lease
services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which
the proceeds are received.
Sec. 209. Funds available in this title or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management
and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint
Adjudication for all services provided at rates which will
recover actual costs but not exceed $31,246,000 for the
Office of Resolution Management and $3,059,000 for the Office
of Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication:
Provided, That payments may be made in advance for services
to be furnished based on estimated costs: Provided further,
That amounts received shall be credited to ``General
operating expenses'' for use by the office that provided the
service.
Sec. 210. No appropriations in this title shall be
available to enter into any new lease of real property if the
estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 unless the
Secretary submits a report which the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress approve within 30
days following the date on which the report is received.
Sec. 211. No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs
shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or
medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected
disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title,
unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current,
accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes
of section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the Secretary
may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the
United States, the reasonable charges for such care or
services from any person who does not make such disclosure as
required: Provided further, That any amounts so recovered for
care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be
obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which
amounts are received.
Sec. 212. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, at
the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, proceeds
or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing activities
(including disposal) may be deposited into the
``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including
site acquisition and disposition), alterations and
improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction
or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such
sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for
in ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects''.
Sec. 213. Amounts made available under ``Medical services''
are available--
(1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and
equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other
expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries
receiving care in the Department.
Sec. 214. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical Care
Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical
services'', to remain available until expended for the
purposes of this account.
Sec. 215. Amounts made available for fiscal year 2007 under
the ``Medical services'', ``Medical administration'', and
``Medical facilities'' accounts may be transferred among the
accounts to the extent necessary to implement the
restructuring of the Veterans Health Administration accounts:
Provided, That before a transfer may take place, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued.
Sec. 216. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall allow veterans eligible
under existing Department of Veterans Affairs medical care
[[Page H2930]]
requirements and who reside in Alaska to obtain medical care
services from medical facilities supported by the Indian
Health Service or tribal organizations. The Secretary shall:
(1) limit the application of this provision to rural Alaskan
veterans in areas where an existing Department of Veterans
Affairs facility or Veterans Affairs-contracted service is
unavailable; (2) require participating veterans and
facilities to comply with all appropriate rules and
regulations, as established by the Secretary; (3) require
this provision to be consistent with Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services activities; and (4) result
in no additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs
or the Indian Health Service.
Sec. 217. Such sums as may be deposited to the Department
of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section
8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to
the ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction,
minor projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended
for the purposes of these accounts.
Sec. 218. None of the funds available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in this Act or any other Act, may be used
to replace the current system by which the Veterans
Integrated Service Networks select and contract for diabetes
monitoring supplies and equipment.
Sec. 219. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors of
the Veterans Integrated Service Networks from conducting
outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their
respective Networks.
Sec. 220. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
quarterly report on the financial status of the Veterans
Health Administration.
Sec. 221. Amounts made available for the ``Information
technology systems'' account may be transferred between
projects: Provided, That no project may be increased or
decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting
a request to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress to make the transfer and an approval is issued,
or absent a response, a period of 30 days has elapsed.
Sec. 222. The authority provided by section 2011 of title
38, United States Code, shall continue in effect through
September 30, 2007.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lynch:
At the end of title II (page 56, after line 8), insert the
following:
Sec. 223. It is the sense of Congress that the Under
Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs
should--
(1) increase research collaboration and cooperation with
the National Institutes of Health in order to facilitate and
accelerate research for the screening, diagnosing, and
managing of the medical issues associated with hepatitis C;
and
(2) do more to--
(A) improve screening and testing for hepatitis C among all
veterans;
(B) provide tests to other veterans in the health care
system of the Department of Veterans Affairs who have risk
factors for hepatitis C; and
(C) participate in a national outreach effort to inform all
veterans about the disease.
Mr. LYNCH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully reserve a point of order
against the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank Chairman Walsh
and I want to thank Mr. Edwards of Texas for their great work on behalf
of veterans. I know that their attempts here have been to provide as
much support as possible for men and women in uniform.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, acknowledges that the Department of
Veterans Affairs is the largest single provider of medical care to
people with hepatitis C and liver disease in the United States, and I
have introduced this amendment because I believe that the VA can and
should be in the lead on research areas associated with hepatitis C and
liver disease, and, importantly, the VA should be at the cutting edge
of research and work and collaboration with the NIH to ensure that
strides that both agencies have made in this area can be shared, and so
that our veterans have access to the best technologies and treatments
available.
Mr. Chairman, right now, because of the great work being done by Dr.
Joseph Vacanti of Harvard Medical School and Bioengineering Networks
and MIT and Draper Labs and others, we are at a critical point in
developing amazing and revolutionary technologies and procedures,
including constructing an artificial liver assist device by which new
microfabrication techniques will allow us to grow liver replacement
tissues from our own cells, minimizing the risk of organ rejection and
completely eliminating the need to wait for compatible organ donors.
Right now in America, we have 90,000 people waiting for organ
transplants. We have 18,000 folks waiting for liver transplants. For
veterans with liver disease, Dr. Vacanti's work means the possibility
of living a full life with hepatitis C without worrying about getting
on a list for liver transplant. We now have an opportunity to
revolutionize the way in which we treat liver disease, and this
research needs to be funded.
Mr. Chairman, I realize the great work that has been done by Chairman
Walsh of New York and Mr. Edwards of Texas, and I realize there are
limits to what we can do on any one bill. So I am going to pledge my
support for this bill, I am going to agree to withdraw my amendment,
but I just ask the chairman and the ranking member to continue to work
with me on this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$7,500 for official reception and representation expenses;
and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign
countries, when required by law of such countries,
$37,088,000, to remain available until expended.
foreign currency fluctuations account
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, $4,900,000, to remain
available until expended, for purposes authorized by section
2109 of title 36, United States Code.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
sections 7251-7298 of title 38, United States Code,
$19,790,000, of which $1,260,000 shall be available for the
purpose of providing financial assistance as described, and
in accordance with the process and reporting procedures set
forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-229.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $26,550,000, to remain
available until expended. In addition, such sums as may be
necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement,
to be derived from the Lease of Department of Defense Real
Property for Defense Agencies account.
Armed Forces Retirement Home
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Washington, District of Columbia and the Armed Forces
Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds
available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
$54,846,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the amendment at
this point in the reading?
Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 58, line 13 after ``$54,846,000'', insert (increased
by $1) (reduced by $1)
Page 58, line 20, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 25 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 59, line 4, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 9 and insert ``2011.''.
[[Page H2931]]
Page 59, line 13, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 18 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 59, line 22, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through page 60, line 2, and insert ``2011.''.
Page 60, line 6, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 11 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 60, line 15, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 20 and insert ``2011.''.
At the end of title IV (page 60, after line 20), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 401. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of
Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by
1.23 percent.
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier in the debate, 2 days
ago, the Republican majority passed a budget resolution which imposed a
stringent ceiling on total appropriations for the year. The effect of
that was to squeeze more than $1 billion of badly needed money out of
this bill.
What the committee has tried to do in response is that the
administration in this bill asked for about 307 military construction
projects, items like barracks and the like, and the committee
essentially took 20 of them and designated those as ``emergency
spending'' and that freed up $507 million so that the committee could
insert a number of projects which represented their highest priorities.
That meant that the bill was effectively, if you are going to look at
it in terms of budget accounting, $507 million above the amount allowed
by the budget ceiling.
That didn't even take into account the fact that the committee is
proceeding on the assumption that a good number of additional fees
which the White House wants to impose on veterans might, in fact, go
into effect. I don't believe they will. We don't deal with that issue
in this amendment, but we do deal with the first issue.
What we are simply suggesting is that we recognize that these
projects requested by the White House are necessary, but we believe
that they ought to be paid for. So what we suggested in committee and
what I am asking on the floor is that we simply limit the size of the
tax cut which is scheduled to take place for people who make over $1
million, we are suggesting that we shrink that tax cut from $114,000 on
average for a person who makes over $1 million, we are suggesting we
shrink that by about $1,400.
{time} 1230
That is hardly going to lay a glove on the most wealthy people in
this country, but it would enable this bill to proceed with honest
accounting, meeting high-priority needs of the military at various
bases throughout the country and the world.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is very simple, if you think that we ought to
proceed with the military construction priorities laid out by the
administration, and if you think that we ought to pay for those, then
you would support this amendment.
If you do not, then you would oppose it. I would suggest this is a
fiscally responsible way to meet critical military needs, and I would
hope that the House would see fit to approve the amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment changes the application of existing law. I ask for a
ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I was here when the Budget Act was passed.
And the purpose of that Budget Act was to reconcile spending with taxes
to try to reduce the deficit.
So the purpose of the Budget Act is to try to see to it that
appropriations, direct spending, and revenues all mesh in such a way as
to reduce, to the greatest possible extent, the deficit.
That means that if this House takes an action on the tax side that
provides large tax cuts, and if that action then imposes on the
Appropriations Committee the requirement for deep cuts, that means that
the two are, in fact, integrally connected.
It is hard for me to understand how a supposedly conservative party
can take the position that we should proceed under the Budget Act to
act in a way that pretends that what we do on the revenue side is
irrelevant to what we do on the spending side.
This amendment, in my view, is within the spirit of the original
intention of the Budget Act. Unfortunately, I must concede that under
the way this House is being run these days, and under the rule under
which this bill was brought to the floor, I must concede the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Additional Appropriations
Military Construction, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Army'', $379,300,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011: Provided, That the amount under this heading is
designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2
of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``provided'' on page 58,
line 20 through page 58 line 25.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended
to lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is made against the entire
paragraph.
The gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) may continue.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentlemen has asserted
this point of order and put the House in this position. The budget
resolution which the body adopted this week included a $50 billion
bridge fund for the war.
In this bill, we use the $507 million from that fund to pay for
urgent war-related military construction projects. This leaves the
remaining $49.3 billion for the Defense Subcommittee to allocate to
other war-related expenditures. Every single one of these projects
directly supports the war on terror. And every single one of them was
included in the Defense Authorization Act that the House passed nearly
unanimously last week.
These projects support specialized urban warfare training,
mobilization of critical assets in the gulf region, and the easing of
troop rotations abroad.
Mr. Chairman, what arises here is the Rules Committee did not protect
that designation of emergency funding, and I regret that. But I greatly
regret that the gentleman from Texas has raised this point of order.
Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not understand that we are at war?
Does he not understand that we have people in harm's way across the
entire southern tier of Asia, that are being fired upon as we speak;
that these funds are essential to fight the global war on terror, to
bring democracy to these scattered points around the world, that these
are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are in dire need of this
support, of these expenditures?
There is a fiscal point to be made here, a principle to be expressed
here. I understand that. But if an emergency situation is not described
by a Nation at war, I do not know what determines what an emergency is.
These funds are essential. The battles that our men and women are
fighting in Fallujah, in Bayji and Tikrit and Tal Afar and across
Afghanistan are supported by the training that they receive here in the
United States, the urban warfare training. Their familiarity with the
weapons that they use,
[[Page H2932]]
the weapons systems that they use, the familiarity with each other,
that is essential to unit cohesion.
These funds, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, are essential to our war
effort. I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his point of order,
support the body of the bill, let us go forward with these essential
funds that ensure the quality of life and the health and welfare of our
fighting men and women across the globe.
The CHAIRMAN. Arguments should be confined to the question of order.
The underlying substantive issues may be debated by pro forma
amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) on the
point of order
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear about what this point
of order would do. So I would like to raise this question of the Chair
and perhaps other Members who would comment on this.
As I understand it, and I do think Members of this House on both
sides of the aisle need to know what this point of order will do before
the decision is made, as I understand it, this point of order will cut
$379 million out of Army military construction projects during a time
of war.
I want to be clear and ask, Mr. Chairman, if I understand it, this
will cut over $100 million out of barracks and training facilities at
Fort Drum, New York; it will cut a brigade complex at Fort Lewis,
Washington. All of these are Army projects.
Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear whether this point of order is going
to cut over $45 million out of two projects at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
Is it going to cut a shooting range at Camp Atterbury in Indiana? Is it
going to cut the block-and-brace facility in the vehicle maintenance
shop at Fort Campbell, Kentucky in the Blue Grass Depot in Kentucky?
Mr. Chairman, my inquiry regarding this point of order is to have all
Members fully understand while we have Army soldiers in harm's way in
Iraq and Afghanistan today, this point of order, if sustained by the
Chair, is going to cut over $379 million in Army projects, training,
housing, other facilities that help support those troops that are
risking their lives today, while we are debating technical points of
order on the floor of the House.
Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that the projects I listed, as well as
additional Army military construction projects, would be cut by this
point of order being made by the gentleman from Texas?
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order will excise the relevant paragraph,
if sustained.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if this point of order is upheld, does that
mean that the House would be placing a higher value on the ideological
accounting contained in the budget resolution than they would be on
meeting the critical military needs of the country?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not,
the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that the paragraph includes special budgetary
designations pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the budget. The
paragraph therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the paragraph is stricken
from the bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I am rising to speak to this point of order and a
series of points of order that may be coming to us, and in an effort to
do that, I would like to have an exchange with the chairman of the
committee, if I might, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Chairman, first let me compliment you for the very fine job that
you have done on this bill and compliment Members on both sides of the
aisle who have worked with us on this very, very important item.
The point of order before us involves some $375 million of funding
that affects our military expenditures and the availability of
resources, especially in our effort on the war on terror in the Middle
East.
There will be additional points of order, apparently raised that will
increase that amount significantly if I am correct. Is that correct?
Mr. WALSH. If I understand, there will be other points of order that
would further affect the appropriation, generally appropriations for
this war on terror.
Mr. LEWIS of California. And so really what we would appear to have
before us are Members unilaterally identifying paragraphs that they are
not particularly pleased with that involve moneys, maybe at a level,
say, of $375 million, that specifically affect our military effort in
the Middle East.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the impact of
these.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to you, you have
done a fabulous job with this bill. It is a very difficult bill. People
oftentimes do not understand the difficulties of putting together a
bill like this. To exercise themselves in a way that undermines our
efforts on the war on terror is not just an affront to the work you are
about; I believe it is an affront to the work that we are all about, on
a bipartisan effort are attempting to make sure that we have some
strength in this effort on the war on terror.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support on
this, and for the allocation we received. This is a tremendous blow to
our effort to pass this bill that provides for the military quality of
life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines who are in harm's way.
Clearly, this builds the bases and the training facilities that they
need to fight this incredibly difficult and dangerous war.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do want the gentleman to
know that I have great respect for the work that you and your staff
have been about, but also the work that Mr. Edwards and others on the
other side of the aisle have been about regarding this very important
responsibility that we have here, and I appreciate very much your work.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we not personalize this
issue. I do not like the fact that these gentlemen are evidently going
to be knocking out funding for these important military projects. But I
do think it is important to recognize that under the budget resolution
which was imposed by the House Republican majority, and under the rule
that was voted for by virtually every Republican today, they have that
right. That is a parliamentary fact.
So I disagree with the judgment being made by the gentleman. But in
all fairness, I think that the responsibility for this debacle lies
squarely at the feet of the Speaker and the majority leader and the
majority party leadership, because they broke arms for 3 weeks to
impose a budget resolution on this House which required the allocation
to the subcommittee which wound up being $824 million below the amount
proposed by the President.
{time} 1245
Because the majority party leadership decided that it was more
important to provide $40 billion in tax cuts to people who make $1
million a year, because the majority party leadership decided that it
was more important to provide over $60 billion in tax cuts to people in
the top 1 percent of our population who make more than $400,000 a year,
because the majority party leadership decided that those priorities
were preferable to meeting our education needs, our health care needs,
our military construction needs, and our science needs, then the
Appropriations Committee is stuck with the dirty job of carrying out
those mandates. And under the rule that was imposed by the Rules
Committee, which is appointed on the majority side by the Speaker of
this House, every last one of them, because that rule was voted on by
that leadership ordered and dominated committee, that is the reason
that these emotions are in order. And to avoid that, that is why I
tried to offer the previous amendment which said: Look it, this is a
phony accounting gimmick. Let us be honest about it and pay for it by
scaling back those tax cuts for the most well off in this society by
just a smidgeon.
[[Page H2933]]
So I think, if we are going to start passing out responsibility, this
is not the responsibility of Mr. Lewis, it is not the responsibility of
the gentlemen who are going to be offering the points of order,
although I think their judgment is defective, but it is, in fact, the
responsibility of the majority party leadership of this House. And it
illustrates that Mr. DeLay was absolutely right when he said a few
months ago: ``This is what you get when you elect a Republican
president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of
Representatives,'' because it means there are no checks and balances in
the system. It means that we have no way on stopping the majority party
from putting tax cuts for the very wealthy ahead of the needs of our
military, ahead of the needs of our kids, ahead of the needs of our
workers and our sick in this society. This day illustrates how screwed
up the priorities are on that side of the aisle.
Mr. EDWARDS. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I had worked with Chairman Walsh on our subcommittee
and our Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis to pass this
bill today.
I am outraged at what has happened. A lot more important than that,
every service man and woman and every veteran in America and every
American that loves them and respects them ought to be just as
outraged. And it is not just what has just been done by a handful of
Republican House Members. I think the American people need to
understand what has happened this week. Forty eight hours ago, this
House on a totally partisan basis passed a budget resolution that, in
my personal opinion, put a higher priority on tax breaks for people
making over $1 million a year than it put on adequately funding
national defense programs and supporting our military troops. We
pleaded with our colleagues to vote against that budget resolution, but
the vote was partisan and it passed.
Let me tell you what that resolution did. It gave Lee Raymond, who
just retired as CEO of ExxonMobil, who, by the way got a $398 million
retirement benefit from ExxonMobil, that budget resolution gave him a
$2 million dividend tax cut. We said when that budget resolution passed
giving Lee Raymond tax cuts is going to hurt education, health care,
job training, and, yes, our national defense programs and our service
men and women and our veterans. But others said, no, that is not going
to happen. So let me tell you what has happened as a result of that
budget resolution.
Our subcommittee, Mr. Walsh's and mine, and other subcommittee
funding military quality of life, military construction, VA programs
and defense health care, had to accept an $824 million cut below what
President Bush said was needed to adequately fund these key national
defense programs during a time of war. $824 million cut.
What happened? First, we had to accept that $316 million cut in
military construction projects that were requested by the
administration to implement the base closing process. That means
barracks not built, training ranges not built, military facilities not
built.
Well, then what was the second result in our subcommittee based on
the budget resolution that Mr. Raymond is still smiling about, but our
military people ought to be crying about at this moment? We had to fund
military defense programs by $735 million below what President Bush
said we needed.
What does that mean? That is not just a budget number. That means we
potentially put at risk health care for our troops fighting in Iraq
today while we are debating budget points of order here, it puts at
risk military health care for our retirees, men and women who have
already served in Iraq, already served in Afghanistan, already served
in Korea, Vietnam, and World War II. It puts that health care system at
risk. So that is a $735 million cut below what the administration said
we needed.
Now, to add outrage to outrage, this technical point of order caused
by the budget gimmicks that were a direct result of the budget
resolution passed 2 days ago will cut $507 million out of vital
military construction projects. That may not mean anything to some
Members on this floor, but it means a lot to the troops at Fort Drum,
New York, who have sacrificed immensely on behalf of the American
people in our war on terrorism. It will mean a lot to the people at
Camp Pendleton, the Marine camp, Camp Pendleton, when their bachelor
enlisted quarters are cut and the light armored reconnaissance
battalion facility will be cut.
It will mean a lot, even while Mr. Raymond is smiling, to harm the
interests of our troops, our Army troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky,
Fort Devens, Massachusetts, at Sunny Point, North Carolina, and Indian
Springs, Nevada. And, in Korea. This even cuts $2 million in vital
construction projects for servicemen and women stationed in Korea
today.
So what does that all mean? Because the budget resolution pushed
through by the House leadership, not by the Appropriations Committee or
this subcommittee, the House resolution, the budget resolution passed 2
days ago is forcing us to cut $1.5 billion out of vital defense
programs even while our troops are risking their lives in Iraq and
Afghanistan today. Training facilities, housing facilities, quality of
life facilities. It is wrong, and this should not be done. Our military
men and women deserve better than this.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I am still trying to recover, Mr. Chairman, from the
remarks just made by the distinguished gentleman from Texas, raising
objections to the good-faith efforts of the Members of this majority to
live within the budget that we just adopted 2 days ago. Let me say, by
way of compliment, that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
and the chairman of this subcommittee are not only my good friends, but
my friends, men that I admire and respect, who are using the tools in
the box they have been given to meet the needs that they believe
represents the Nation's priorities. And I respect that. But, along with
my colleague, Mr. Hensarling, I respectfully disagree.
I rise, though, particularly animated at this moment, Mr. Chairman,
because I am reading the minority views of the gentleman who just
spoke, minority views listed in this legislation as additional views of
Representative Chet Edwards, as well as other colleagues, including the
distinguished ranking member of this committee. And I will quote it for
the record. Speaking to the point of order issue that has been raised
and will continue to be raised, the gentleman who just spoke wrote
this: ``The second Democratic amendment,'' speaking of their bill,
``would have eliminated the budget gimmick that designated $507 million
for 20 routine military construction projects as an emergency so this
funding would not count against the bill's allocation.''
Mr. Edwards continues: ``None of these projects were unforeseen. The
administration budget requested 310 military construction projects,
including these 20 projects. They are all conventional military
construction projects, things like hangars, barracks, and unit
headquarters. These are projects selected through long-term planning
exercises.''
He went on to say, ``Democrats recognize these projects as valid and
continue to support them. However, the minority has a more fiscally
disciplined and balanced approach to addressing these needs.'' And
there I close the quote.
In the minority views, precisely that to which we are objecting was
objected to, described as a budget gimmick that had no place in this
legislation so conceived. And so I just say, I agree with what Mr.
Edwards wrote.
It is time that we leveled with the American people. It is time that
we stood for the principle that we mean what we say. And when we adopt
a budget, we made the hard choices to live with within the budget. And
those of us in the Congress who are committed to doing just that rise
today and take this tough stand among friends to say, let's level with
the American people, and let us not use what Mr. Edwards rightly wrote
to be a budget gimmick to find our way around the budget discipline
that we just embraced.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H2934]]
I appreciate the opportunity to tell you that back in Texas, we have
a saying, bad day at Black Rock. This is one of the blackest days that
we could possibly imagine in Texas and anywhere else. The gentleman
that just spoke talked about good faith, talked about we have to live
within our budget, the budget that we set, talked about the Nation's
priorities, talked about hard choices, and finally talked about
leveling with the American people.
Well, good faith, Mr. Chairman, is about coming here and doing what
is right, making sure that at a time of war we take care of our men and
women in uniform and the facilities that they need, the equipment that
they depend on, and everything that depends so much on this war on
terror.
Live within our budget. I voted against that budget a couple of days
ago because I didn't think it was realistic. I knew there were going to
be some cutbacks someplace, and now we find out it is cutbacks in our
military's budget.
Nation's priorities? Well, I would submit we set the Nation's
priorities. The Nation's priorities have been set way too long by the
Republican leadership in this House, in the Senate, and in the White
House.
Hard choices. Well, our hard choices, people have to live with. Our
military people have to live with.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, leveling with the American people means
telling the truth about tax cuts versus what is best for our military.
With that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to my good
friend from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I respect my colleague, Mr. Pence, from Indiana. He is a straight
shooter. I will have to say in this particular case, in all due
respect, you said you are still trying to recover. I hope you will
forgive me in saying, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pence, that today I am more
worried about our military troops whose lives are at risk all over the
world to defend our country, I am more worried about them recovering
from this half a billion dollar cut in vital defense programs than I am
about any Member of this House, the gentleman or me or anyone else,
recovering from this debate.
{time} 1300
The gentleman quoted me, and I am glad he did. I think this is a
budget gimmick. I think these military construction projects should
have been funded in the normal course of the budget process, and that
is exactly what my colleague Mr. Obey tried to do, and I voted for the
Obey amendment.
But my friend and his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle
chose to vote against the Obey amendment, and so then where I am left
is to say that I would rather accept a budget gimmick forced by a
Republican budget resolution that I adamantly opposed 2 days ago, than
to ask men and women at Fort Drum, New York, an installation whose
troops have made tremendous sacrifices in the war on terrorism, I would
rather not ask them to make an additional sacrifice, even if that
requires us to pass a budget gimmick.
So is this a budget gimmick? Yes, it is; but do we desperately need
these $507 million, including $379 million going to Army facilities to
support our troops in the war on terrorism? Absolutely, we do.
I would repeat what I said earlier: having represented 40,000 troops
who have served in Iraq, having co-chaired the bipartisan House Army
Caucus, having worked on a bipartisan effort in good faith with
Chairman Walsh and the Appropriations Committee to pass this bill
today, I think every serviceman and -woman in America ought to be
outraged that the result of, in my opinion, a dishonest budget
resolution that promised tax cuts to the retired chairman of
ExxonMobil, without suggesting the pain that would be caused, I think
every serviceman and -woman in America ought to be outraged by that
because they were told it was a no-pain process, you have a tax cut,
that will increase revenues and nobody has to suffer. Mr. Raymond can
get his $2 million tax dividend and nobody has to suffer.
Now we are leveling with the American people. Forty-eight hours later
we find out it is not American people that are suffering. It is our
troops in Korea and here at home and Iraq and Afghanistan who will
suffer because of a budget resolution that did not shoot straight with
the American people.
This is a sad day for this country, and it is a particularly sad day
for all those men and women who are serving in uniform.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Hensarling) point
of order. If you look at the description of the bill here, you have a
couple of pages. The first page has to do with what is being termed
``emergency spending.'' Let me simply note that these are items that
the President has requested.
Now, I have often and all of us have been critical of the White House
at times for designating emergency spending when it really is not an
emergency. They did not designate one of these items. There are 20
spending items here, mostly facilities and barracks. Not one of them
was listed by the White House as emergency. Yet they have been listed
here as an emergency and I would submit simply to make room for other
projects.
If you look at some other projects that are being funded that are not
emergency, tell me if you can see a difference. Number one, there is an
item that is an emergency, $18.1 million for bachelor-enlisted quarters
at Camp Pendleton. All right. That is one that is an emergency.
Here is one that is not an emergency, $6.7 million for a special
weapons assessment facility in Crane, Illinois. How can you designate
one as an emergency and not another?
Here is another example: $3.5 million for a block and brace facility
at Blue Grass Depot, Kentucky. That is an emergency apparently.
Second, $8.7 million for replacing a troop facility training facility
in Savannah, Georgia, that is not an emergency. Tell me where the
difference is.
Let me go on: $102 million for a brigade complex in Fort Lewis,
Washington. That is an emergency.
There is another $18 million for a maintenance hangar in Fort Hood,
Texas. That is not an emergency.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I will be quick. The gentleman refers to
this as emergency funding. It is not. That is incorrect. The funds are
designated pursuant to section 402 of the budget resolution which is
for ``contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism,''
not emergency spending.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me just go on. That is $508 million we set aside as a
down payment on the supplemental, the war supplement coming up. We are
simply taking from that, and that will be money that will not be spent
in the supplemental later on or should be designated for the
supplemental later on, but we have designated it saying it is emergency
when there is really no difference between the categories here.
I would submit that if you really want to fund, as we are adding here
$16.5 million for a rotary wing hangar in Qatar, then perhaps you ought
to cut out $2 million for a child care center which is funded here in
the bill that is not being challenged here in Redstone Arsenal,
Alabama, or you could take out $9.8 million for an educational center
complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, if you truly need to spend money, as
we say we do, for Predator various facilities at Indian Springs,
Nevada.
Now let me just give one more example: $9.7 million for an indoor
wash rack in Washington. Perhaps you could take money from that and
spend it, if we really do need it, on $3.1 million for shoot houses in
Korea.
What I am saying is there ought to be integrity in the budget
process. We did pass a budget. The ink is not even dry and here we are
using a means to evade it, to actually get some head room up here so we
can spend money on other priorities and earmarks.
I do not think it is lost on anyone that the earmark total in the
bill is nearly $500 million, almost the same total here that was added
as head room, so that we can spend these other dollars.
So I hope that the point of order on all of these is sustained. Let
us bring some integrity back to the budget process.
[[Page H2935]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Let us assume there is an infantry company first sergeant sitting
here in our midst today and our friends on the other side would be
trying to explain to him about the particulars of emergency spending,
of points of order and parliamentary procedure. But the infantry
company first sergeant would say, but what about my being able to train
the troops better? What about being able to train them in emergency
urban warfare, or in sharpshooting better or having better barracks
conditions so that they will stay in the Army and not consider getting
out? How would one explain to that infantry company first sergeant the
complexities of what we are facing on this floor and the needs of those
wonderful soldiers?
Mr. Chairman, I speak for those soldiers. We need them. We need them
to be highly trained, well taken care of, and to try to explain things
away on points of order and whether something fits within the
``emergency spending'' category would be foreign to him because all he
knows, he wants to train his troops so they can fight in Afghanistan,
Iraq and the war against terror.
That is what is important to this country. That is what is important
to the soldiers. I am proud of them. I would like to say all of us in
this room speak for them, but unfortunately, we are faced with a
parliamentary situation that I could not explain to that first
sergeant.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Most of our
friends on the other side of the aisle did, but after the Congress
voted to send our troops to war, the troops did not ask, is this an
emergency or is it regular order of business? They just went. They did
their duty. Some of them have done it two and three and four times in
Iraq.
I do not know why they should be stuck in the middle of a family
squabble within the Republican Party in the Congress, a squabble
between people who put tax cuts for the most well-off people first
versus the people who put budget accounting nicety first versus people
who think that there are some economic and social needs faced by the
families of those soldiers.
What the committee tried to do is to cut it down the middle, hedge a
little bit here, a little bit there. We do not like that on this side
of the aisle. So we tried to substitute honest accounting, and the
majority party insisted on knocking that amendment out on a point of
order.
So at this point, we have to choose between a faulty accounting
system or meeting the needs of the families of people who are in Iraq
defending the national interests of this country; and while I have
great misgivings about the advisability of having gone to war in the
first place, I will be doggoned if I am going to stand here and allow
somebody else's squabble about whether a budget item is an emergency or
not get in the way of providing the school needs, the barracks needs
and the other needs of the families in the military, who are not asking
questions of their government; they are just doing their duty.
So I congratulate the gentleman for his comments, and I think that
this day, I was going to say it is a sad day in the history of the
Congress, but it is not because this finally illustrates what we have
been trying to demonstrate for 3 years, that what you do on the tax
side of the budget, what you give to Mr. Raymond and his friends, is
directly related to what you have left on the table that you can give
our military families, our school kids and people in this country who
need a little help on the health care front. It is about time that
people on the majority side of the aisle recognized that connection.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, coming from a district like mine, where I represent
four military bases, and then looking at what is transpiring this
afternoon really worries me. All we have to do is go visit the medical
facilities at Bethesda and Walter Reed to be able to understand that
these troops need our help now, and we talk about giving them more body
armor.
The only emergency here is the completely inadequate allocation that
my good friend Chairman Walsh received. This is nothing more than a
budget gimmick that adds $500 million to the deficit, the deficit
carried by all Americans, young and old, middle-aged, while at the same
time millionaires are continuing to enjoy reduced taxes. This is not
fair.
Just 2 days ago, we voted to give a tax break in the amount of $70
billion, but we cannot fund it. In fact, we are cutting.
I have military bases. We repair helicopters, and many times they
have asked for help. We were forced to leave the air base in
Uzbekistan. We have to build up our capabilities. At Bagram Air Base in
Afghanistan; that is an emergency.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ORTIZ. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but I think I have
said enough. I just would hope that this House would reconsider what
they have done this week and use this incident to recognize that that
budget resolution is simply insufficient to meet the needs of our
military, the needs of our school children and a number of other
seriously competing needs.
I would hope, and in fact I fully expect, that the Senate will not
pass the budget resolution that has caused this problem.
The irony is that the Republican majority in this House had to pass a
let-us-pretend resolution yesterday, which said we are going to move
ahead with appropriation bills on the assumption that the full Congress
had passed the budget resolution, which it has not done, because
Republican moderates in the Senate recognize that the budget resolution
that is being enforced on the majority side in this House is too
extreme for their taste in the Senate.
{time} 1315
Senators such as Senator Specter have already made that quite clear.
So it is ironic that a budget that hasn't even passed the Congress is
being used to enforce these kinds of trade-offs. I don't think the
American people are going to be very pleased.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to
try to clarify this debate and bring a little clarity here. It is true
that we are really arguing over roughly $.5 billion and points are
flying back and forth about what that means and whether or not this is
a technical point.
But there has also been some focus here on the issue of whether or
not our war effort is going to be harmed and whether or not our
soldiers are going to be harmed. I want to be clear that there is no
effort, in any way, to harm the efforts of our military, or to, in any
way, inhibit our ability to fight the war on terror in the point of
order that was raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Indeed, there has never once been brought to this House by the
President of the United States a single request for a war supplemental
that this House has not funded. We have funded it, we are currently
working on one that will be funded, and there will be another one
funded very, very soon, as soon as we get a few more months down the
line. There is no issue here about not funding the war on terror. And
there is no issue here, ladies and gentlemen, about not funding the
quality of life of our soldiers.
So what is the issue? What are we talking about? What we are talking
about is sleight of hand. What we are talking about is, well, let us
take the really defensible funds and call them a part of the war on
terror and let us leave the money that we put in the bill, by the way,
there is $.5 billion in this bill not requested by the Pentagon, $.5
billion that the Pentagon said it didn't need, $.5 billion that the
Pentagon itself didn't say was necessary either for its ongoing
operations, for quality of life for military personnel, or for the war
on terror.
Interesting number, $.5 billion. Now, there is an additional $.5
billion listed here as, well, it is not emergency, but we are going to
take it out of this fund to fund the war on terror. Now, that is
[[Page H2936]]
kind of interesting. We take the stuff that we wanted, we take the
stuff that was not requested by the Pentagon, $.5 billion, and we put
them over here in the bill. But then we say, well, we need another $.5
billion and we will call that critical for the war on terror.
This is not about whether or not we fund the war on terror, it is not
about the military quality of life, it is about how we hide spending in
this budget process and how we deal with it. And it just so happens
that the President himself said none of these were emergencies. He
doesn't even agree that these were essential for the war on terror at
this point. But if we call them essential for the war on terror, and if
we take them out of the fund that we have set up to deal with the war
on terror, that enables us down the road to impose that additional $.5
billion burden on the American people.
That is what this discussion is about. It is not about military
quality of life. It is not about fighting the war on terror. It is
about being able to increase the overall spending and, quite frankly,
being able to increase that overall spending for things the Pentagon
did not even request.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman.
I am sorry the gentleman wouldn't yield to me, but if he had, I would
have asked them this question: He said ``we'' are engaging in sleight
of hand. I just wanted to ask him who that ``we'' was. Because this
report was put together by his own party. It was brought to the House
floor by his own party. We on this side of the aisle tried to correct
that faulty accounting and we were not allowed to do that by the
majority party either.
So I just want to make certain that people understand that in this
case the ``we'' is ``thee.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy as well to
yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the
ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Shadegg, my colleague from
Arizona, just said a few seconds ago that these projects were not
requested by the administration. If I heard him correctly, that is a
patently false statement.
These projects, these $379 million worth of army projects, I believe,
were either all requested by the administration and the Pentagon or the
vast, vast majority were requested by the administration and the
Pentagon as being important projects that needed to be funded this year
as part of our Nation's defense effort included in the war against
terrorism.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my
time, I would just say that this is a frustration for many of us. There
is no doubt that there are some of us here that did not support the
actions initially as our troops were, if you will, directed to go into
Iraq, but at the same time, we recognize the responsibility that this
Congress and this Nation has.
What frustrates many of us is that my good friends on the other side
of the aisle are attempting to make a point. That is all I have heard
in their debate, to make a point about the budget and about the
appropriations, rather than acknowledging the fact that this is a
request by their President of the United States; that it, in fact,
strips soldiers who are either on the front lines or distributed around
the Nation from the actual needs, job training, barriers, concrete
fixtures that they need, physical facilities that they need to carry on
the Nation's business of defense.
Why we would utilize this particular section to make a point and
strip our soldiers of the necessities of their business one week before
Memorial Day baffles me, as does the question of if there is a need to
fix this, why could this not have been an internal fix, either with the
House and the subcommittee or the President of the United States of
America. Because what my friends are doing is, frankly, making
scapegoats out of innocent military personnel who are in need of this
kind of equipment.
Any of us who have traveled to facilities anywhere in the Nation or
around the world know that we have, in some instances, facilities that
are in dire need of repair or in dire need of replacement. Striking
this point of order, this challenge, goes right to the heart of this
equipment.
And I think it is important for the American people to understand.
This is stripping away bricks and mortar that soldiers, husbands,
wives, sons and daughters of the American people are in need of. And I
would simply suggest that while we certainly agree on the war on
terror, whether we agree or disagree on any war going on at this point,
we cannot disagree on the resources necessary for these soldiers. So I
would ask my colleagues to remind themselves of why we are here today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Navy
and Marine Corps'', $26,037,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2011: Provided, That the amount under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2
of Rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided'' on page 59,
line 13, through page 59, line 18.
This language carries a designation of special budgetary treatment
for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for
a ruling of the Chair.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be extended to
lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is made against the entire
paragraph. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand this point
of order. Having just cut out $379 million for army military facilities
needed by our troops, it is my understanding this point of order would
cut $26 million out of Marine Corps facilities at Camp Pendleton in
California.
So having gutted army military construction projects, we are now
going to hurt those serving in the Marines at Camp Pendleton who are an
important part of our war on terrorism. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, in
understanding that this point of order, if sustained, would cut marine
projects at Camp Pendleton, California?
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order would excise the entire paragraph,
if sustained.
Mr. EDWARDS. So in lay terms, I think that answer was yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule on the point of order.
For the reasons previously stated, the point of order is sustained
and the paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air
Force'', $49,923,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011: Provided, That the amount under this heading is
designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2
of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided,'' on page 59
line 13 through page 59, line 18.
This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment
for contingency operations and constitutes legislation on an
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI, and I ask for a
ruling of the Chair.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended
to lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is made against the entire
paragraph. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like Members to be clear, and I
would like to be clear about what this point of order does. Having now
cut vital, according to the administration, vital Army and Marine Corps
military installations out of the budget, this point of order, as I
understand it, would cut approximately $50 million
[[Page H2937]]
out of Air Force facilities that the Bush administration and the
Pentagon said we needed for the Predator program, which the public
might not understand is a vital unmanned aerial vehicle used in our war
on terrorism.
Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that the $50 million cut would affect the
Predator Air Force program?
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order would excise the entire paragraph,
if sustained.
Mr. EDWARDS. I believe the answer is yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard? If not, the
Chair will rule.
For the reasons previously stated, the point of order is sustained
and the paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Defense-Wide'', $44,500,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2011: Provided, That the amount under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of Order under clause 2
of Rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided'' on page 59,
line 22, through page 60, line 2.
This language carries a designation for special budgetary treatment
for contingency operations. This language constitutes legislation on an
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI, and I ask for
a ruling of the Chair.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended
to lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is made against the entire
paragraph. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, again, so Members can follow this, my
question is: Does this point of order, if sustained, cut our U.S.
military operations in Qatar, operations under the Special Operations
Command that are directly related to our war on terrorism and the war
in Iraq?
Mr. Chairman, is that what this point of order will accomplish?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair continues to state that the point of order
would excise the entire paragraph, if sustained .
Mr. EDWARDS. So the answer is yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members that wish to be heard? If not,
the Chair will rule.
For the reasons previously stated, the point of order is sustained
and the paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am somewhat amused by the fact that the last two times Mr. Edwards
has tried to fully explain to the House what the impact of the point of
order was that those who are responsible for the points of order tried
to urge the Chair to cut off Mr. Edwards so that he could not, in fact,
explain it. Let me simply say if I were offering these points of order,
I would want to have as little discussion about them as possible also.
I would not want to have them fully aired either.
Let me just make the point. I find it interesting that we have
Members of this House objecting on bookkeeping fine points to what the
committee has been trying to do to provide these facilities and
services to our military, and they stand in high dudgeon about the fact
that the budget resolution is being exceeded.
{time} 1330
Yet I do not recall them objecting when the President has submitted
to the Congress almost $400 billion in expenditures for Iraq, none of
which has been submitted in the regular appropriations order. All of
those requests have come in the form of supplemental appropriations,
off budget, if you will.
So I find it interesting that we can fight an entire war, spend $400
billion in an off budget, hide-the-cost-from-the-public fashion, and
yet when it comes to meeting these small construction needs, and as the
gentleman points out, this is not in the United States, this is in the
Middle East itself. My understanding is that one of the items affects
the special ops unit, and yet the gentlemen feel that their ideological
commitment to their precious budget resolution, which they cannot even
sell to their compatriots in the United States Senate, ought to be the
be all and end all above every other economic or social or moral
consideration. I find that, indeed, very interesting and very
revealing.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Chair
ruled earlier that once a point of order has been raised, it is not in
order to discuss the merits of the underlying issue. It is only in
order to discuss whether or not the point of order is appropriate. Is
that not what the Chair ruled?
The CHAIRMAN. Arguments should be confined to the question of order.
Mr. SHADEGG. And so if it is the question of the order, that means
not the substance underneath, but rather the question of the procedural
issue of whether or not the point of order should be sustained?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state arguments should be confined to
the question of the order. The underlying substantive issues may be
debated by pro forma amendment.
Mr. SHADEGG. By separate amendment not in that debate, is that
correct?
The CHAIRMAN. Substantive issues may be addressed by pro forma
amendment.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, does that mean by moving to strike the
last word following the ruling of the Chair?
The CHAIRMAN. A pro forma amendment may be offered following the
Chair's ruling on the point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Doesn't this whole thing illustrate that there are some
people here who are much more concerned about the technical niceties of
the procedures of this House than they are on the human implications of
what it is we do here?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. EDWARDS. If I move at this point to strike the last word, am I
allowed 5 minutes to discuss the specific impact of the cuts in our
military operations and Qatar and the Middle East which have just been
put into effect by the Chair's ruling?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may debate substantive issues on a pro
forma amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am somewhat bothered by my colleagues' effort not only to gut vital
military construction projects at this important time in our country's
history, but would even go the extra step to try to cut off the right
of Members of this House to tell our military men and women who are
fighting that war what has just been done to them.
So now that the Chair has given me that opportunity, despite Members'
efforts to cut it off, let me explain exactly what has just happened
based on this point of order.
The Special Operations Command and Qatar in the Middle East, again, a
vital part of our war in Iraq, will lose $28 million requested by
President Bush and the Pentagon for a special operations aircraft
operations and maintenance hanger, a hanger needed to basically protect
vital Special Operations Command components.
It will also cut $16.5 million out of another Special Operations
Command facility and Qatar that was going to provide a hanger for
Special Operations rotary wing equipment and facilities and operations.
So $54 million has just been cut by this action in the House out of
Special Operations facilities that the administration says are needed
to carry out our Nation's defense and our war in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I try not to take things personally in this process,
and I respect the rights of every other Member of the House, but I
think the service men and women in Qatar and the servicemen and women
at Fort Drum, New York, and our Marines at Camp Pendleton in
California, and men and women who served our country in uniform in wars
past are going to be deeply offended by what has happened
[[Page H2938]]
today. And I would like to reemphasize what has happened today was not
just the action of two or three Members who are putting procedural
budget points above the interests of our Nation's military, it was done
also by the House leadership, which 2 days, ago forced through a budget
resolution that promised no pain, promised $70 billion in tax cuts,
many of those going to people making over a million dollars a year.
Today we are feeling the pain. It is pain that will hurt those who
have already sacrificed the most for our country, those men and women
serving in the war on terrorism. It is a shameful process.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army
National Guard'', $5,530,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2011: Provided, That the amount under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2
of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``Provided,'' on page
60, line 6, through page 60, line 11. This languages carries a
designation for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations.
This language constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the
Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended
to lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is made against the entire
paragraph.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not,
the Chair will rule.
For the reasons previously stated, the point of order is sustained,
and the paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Members of this House, I think Members of
our Armed Forces, I think our Nation's veterans and the American people
have a right to know that what this House just did, having already cut
over $300 million out of Army programs, having cut Marine Corps
programs and Air Force programs, having cut programs requested by the
administration for Special Operations Command facilities and Qatar in
the Middle East, the House has just now cut the Army National Guard,
and not just the Guard, the training facilities for the Army National
Guard, the very Guard that our military leaders say is a vital part of
the total Army effort to defend our Nation and fight the war on
terrorism.
In this particular case $2 million was just cut out of Camp Roberts
in California, an Army National Guard facility. Based on this action,
they will not have the infantry squad battle course funded. In addition
to that, in Indiana, Camp Atterbury, the Army National Guard will no
longer have funded the Live Fire Shoot House. So now, having already
cut quality-of-life facilities and barracks and housing for our
military and other vital facilities, and training ranges out of our
active duty military, now we are gutting Army National Guard training
facilities to help prepare our Guards men and women to be able to carry
out their military duty and come back home safely to their families.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army
Reserve'', $1,713,000, to remain available until September
30, 2011: Provided, That the amount under this heading is
designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under clause 2
of rule XXI against the proviso beginning with ``provided'' on page 60,
line 15, through page 60, line 20. This language carries a designation
for special budgetary treatment for contingency operations. This
language constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended
to lie against the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is extended against the entire
paragraph.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not,
the Chair will rule.
For the reasons previously stated, the point of order is sustained
and paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, again I think the Members and the American people have
a right to know that what this House just did was to cut $1.7 million
out of the Urban Assault Course Facility at Fort Devens, Massachusetts,
for the Army Reserve. So now we can add it up, we have cut the Army,
the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Army National Guard, and
that was not enough, now we have to cut the Army Reserve Urban Assault
Course, the very kind of training needed when we send our Army
reservists over to Iraq to police the streets of Baghdad.
Mr. Chairman, with every minute of this process, I think I better
understand why the American people at this point have such lowest
esteem for the United States Congress. In one week, we have given the
retired CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Lee Raymond, a $2 million dividend tax
cut. And now we have said we cannot afford $507 million in vital
military installations. I don't think that reflects the American
people's values. Our military men and women deserve better than this.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am disappointed with the recommendations that have just been made.
We have just heard the President over the week talk about the need for
60,000 National Guard troops. Well, basically what we are doing now, it
is going to impact the State of California and the family members in
that area.
How can we comply then with the President of the United States saying
that we need an additional 6,000 troops on the border when we are
cutting back additional guards. Mr. President and the Nation should
know what we are doing here today and the impact it is going to have on
the National Guard and the State of California and the Federal
Government to meet the needs of what the President has recommended. I
am disappointed in what has been submitted right now.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about what this debate is about.
That is not what it is about. This is not about whether or not this
House is going to support our brave men and women in uniform as they
fight this war on terror. Every time the Commander in Chief has come to
us and asked us to pass a supplemental appropriation to put guns on the
front lines, ammunition on the front lines, gasoline on the front
lines, equipment on the front lines, we have done it. We have done it.
That is not the question.
But as was brought up earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, if you
look at this bill, we see that roughly half a billion dollars of
projects are coming from what might be viewed as a contingency fund to
fight the war on terror. It is not literally called an emergency fund,
but functionally that is what it is.
Although I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from
New York when he opines about the purpose of that fund, as a member of
the Budget Committee and one who has spoken with the chairman of the
Budget Committee and the gentleman who wrote the budget and the
gentleman who put that into the budget, this is not the purpose for
which it was put there. That is not it.
Mr. Chairman, again, there are at least half a billion dollars of
Member projects in this legislation. Now had those projects not been
there, we would not have been here today. Half a billion dollars of
spending that the Commander in Chief did not request, the Pentagon did
not request, and I certainly hear my friends from the other side of the
aisle be very vocal about wanting to take away tax relief because we
have to support the brave
[[Page H2939]]
men and women on the front. I wonder if they would be as interested in
reducing spending on their particular earmarks in order to achieve that
particular purpose.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether or not we are going
to support our troops, the question is how are we going to do it and is
our budget a farce. Is our budget meaningless, or does it actually
stand for something?
Those on the other side of the aisle will never lose an opportunity
to raise taxes, but maybe there is another option here. Maybe we ought
to look at other spending. We know there will be a number of
appropriation bills to come to this floor. I do not know what will be
in all of them. I certainly know looking in my rear view mirror what
some of the spending has been in the past.
In appropriation bills for 2006, we added $273,000 for garden mosaics
in New York. Maybe that is money we could have spend today on this
military construction. We added $179,000 for hydroponic tomato
production. Maybe that money could have been spent on military
construction. There was a million dollars for the Water-Free Urinal
Conservation Initiative; maybe that money could have been spent. Again,
we are debating where this money is going to come from.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I would just like to ask the gentleman, those projects
that he just mentioned, are those projects in this bill?
{time} 1345
Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this represents
appropriations that took place in last year's appropriations bills, and
I am using them as an example of pools of money that have been
available.
Again, there are earmarks in this bill that did not have to be there.
They did not have to be there, Mr. Chairman. So what we have is a
budget sleight of hand. The ink is not even dry on the budget, and we
are already attempting to violate it. And that is simply not right.
Clearly, the greatest threat, the greatest threat to our country is
the war on terror. But we also have another threat, and that is out-of-
control Federal spending. If we are going to buy the guns, we had
better get a little lean on the butter, and we had better quit wrapping
the butter in the American flag in this sleight of hand. It is wrong,
Mr. Chairman. It is wrong to do it. We will support our troops, but to
sit here and pay for all of these earmarks and all the pork projects
wrapped in the American flag is the wrong thing to do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as I was sitting here, it struck me that the gentleman
from Texas resembles a poor imitation of Vice President Cheney because,
like Vice President Cheney, he is shooting at the wrong target. The
first rule of thumb is that if you are going to shoot somebody or
something, you make sure you are shooting the right person.
What the gentleman just said to us is almost unbelievable. I mean, it
sounded to me like I was in a sophomore high school class rather than
in the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be the greatest
deliberative body in the world. We are told that because he was peaked
about a hydroponic tomato project in a bill last year that somehow he
was determined to take it out on the military by yanking out military
construction projects that were asked for not by me, not by Mr. Walsh
or anyone else, but by the President of the United States.
I do not have any projects in this bill. I have a district that has
very little to do with military except with respect to the Guard, and
almost all of them are stuck in Iraq. So I can speak objectively with
respect to projects. But it does seem quaint to me that if the
gentleman did not like something that happened in another bill in
another year in the deep, dark, distant past that instead he is going
to shoot the future by yanking out money that the President of the
United States thought it was important enough to ask for. I think that
says something about the judgment of the persons making these motions
today.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to stipulate, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any projects in this
bill. I also want to stipulate that the gentlemen that have been out
here on the floor for the last 2 hours, talking about the fact that
they support our troops, they support the idea that we should be
funding our troops and funding the war, almost all of them voted
against the rule that would have funded all of the money for the last
supplemental for the war.
You all voted against the rule. So please do not come out here and
lecture us on the idea that you are for supporting the troops when you
voted against the rule. Every project that you had stricken today was
authorized by the last Armed Services bill that was on the floor about
10 days ago. When I last checked the vote on that, only three people
voted against that bill. None of you. So please do not come out here
and lecture us.
You picked the wrong bill to have your earmark fight. Please do not
tell us you support the troops. Please do not tell us you support the
war. When you came out here and X'd out all of these important projects
that help our troops, help us win the war, help the administration
fight the war on terror.
Pick another bill, not this one, and then try to lecture all of us on
the idea that you support all of this. You voted for it in the
authorization bill; however, you did vote against it in the rule in the
last supplemental, which would have funded the supplemental. So you
cannot have it both ways. I know you would love to, but you cannot.
And I just want the record to show what happened here.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to thank my colleagues for their indulgence for just a moment.
On Wednesday we passed a budget. We did it, I think, in the right
way. Members had ample time for debate. We had a 15-minute vote and the
budget was passed. And I am proud of my colleagues on our side for
coming together to make that happen.
Once that decision was made, we have got to allocate those funds, and
we have got to make decisions. And we are beginning that process,
yesterday with the Interior approps bill, today with the military
quality of life.
I come here today because there is a process fight under way. Not a
fight over policy. Not a fight over the quality of the spending that
was in here. It was over how it was done. And the leadership could have
intervened and could have protected this and irritated one group of
Members in favor of another. We did not do that. But I rise to say that
all of us in this House want to do everything we can for our troops. As
my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, would say, we can all pose for the
holy pictures. But the points of order that have been raised on this go
to a question of how this $50 billion that was set aside for the use of
fighting the war on terror and Iraq is set aside to do that. Last year
when we had the military quality of life bill, none of those funds were
included in this. We worked with the appropriators today, and I have a
better understanding of why it is in there. But we obviously have some
Members that disagree about the fact that that money was used in this
fashion.
But the reason I rise is to ask all of my colleagues to be patient.
It is easy around here to get into a fight over issues of process that
sound like some big policy fight when, in fact, it is not about the
policy. It is not about the fact that we are not supporting our troops.
There is a disagreement over about how this was done today. And I am
going to pledge to work with the appropriators and all of my colleagues
to make sure that we all have a clearer understanding of how this money
is to be spent and the process by which it is spent.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 62, line 19, be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
[[Page H2940]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 62, line 19, is as follows:
Sec. 502. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2007 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 504. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
Sec. 505. All departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 506. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any
other appropriations Act.
Sec. 507. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and
notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate.
Sec. 508. The amounts appropriated in Division B, title I,
chapter 7 of Public Law 109-148 under the headings ``Military
Construction, Defense-Wide'' and ``Construction, Major
Projects'' may be used only for construction, or modification
of joint-use and/or co-located facilities.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of
the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of
American businesses.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, the elected Representatives of this great
institution, the House of Representatives, should be very concerned
about the direction of our current and future economy.
Over the last generation, past Congresses and this Congress have
created and expanded barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America.
And those congressionally constructed barriers are affecting us today.
Our trade deficit this year will be somewhere in the area of $700
billion. China will graduate more English-speaking electrical engineers
this year than we do if current trends hold true. India will graduate
more software engineers than all the universities and colleges in the
United States of America added together. Chile is currently pursuing
more trade agreements than the United States. And Ireland has taken
their economy in the European Union from third-rate status to the
hottest and most vibrant economy in the entire European Union.
There is no doubt that we have the number one economy in the world
today, but we are jeopardizing that status by the barriers created by
this Congress. Those barriers include health care policy, the fastest
growing cost in the American economy. It is nearly 15 percent of our
total gross domestic product today. Those higher costs mean some jobs
will not be created. Those higher costs mean some jobs will be driven
overseas.
Our tax policy punishes success and makes it more appealing to move
workers overseas to countries like Ireland. Our regulatory burdens are
huge roadblocks to new jobs.
Yesterday, this Congress rejected a commonsense proposal for reform
with EPA regulations that would have reduced the costs and still
retained 99 percent of the reporting data of the Toxic Properties
Inventory Report. Small manufacturing firms of 20 employees or less
right now spend more than $22,000 a year on regulatory compliance. If
we could just put some commonsense reform and cut those jobs in half,
we could increase jobs at those small firms by up to 50 percent by just
reforming regulations. This Congress chose not to do that last night.
Our litigation expenses raise the cost through court costs, lawyer
fees, and liability insurance costs. Lawsuits drive jobs overseas.
Other barriers include engineering policy, energy policy, education
policy, trade policy, and unfocused research and development
investments.
A regulatory problem that directly affects this bill is related to a
company called Agriboard. Agriboard is a panel made of wheat chaff. It
is stronger than most manmade materials. It is fire resistant, blast
resistant, even tested by the military, energy efficient, mold
resistant, termite and insect resistant, environmentally safe, and
sound resistant.
Agriboard Industries makes panels for construction for residential,
commercial, or military buildings. But they are falling victim to the
regulatory bureaucratic red tape fiasco at the Department of Defense.
These panels have been used in Sri Lanka for the tsunami victims and
have passed or exceeded DOD structural blast tests. They are stronger,
environmentally sound, cheaper, and more durable than most construction
material. Yet they have had a hard time getting through the onerous
procurement system to be considered by the Department of Defense for
base construction. Agriboard products deserve consideration; yet our
system is preventing them from that consideration.
Base commanders have limited flexibility on how those projects are
constructed based on the value of the project. Instead, the process is
handed from top down and is cumbersome and ineffective. A company has
to get new materials approved by the Pentagon prior to being used in
any significant projects. I am told that process for approval is
laborious and complex. This makes our government inefficient. It also
prevents American companies, such as Agriboard, from competing and
expanding their businesses which would mean more high-paying jobs for
America.
Mr. Chairman, it is time Congress removed economic barriers,
streamlined the procurement process, because in doing so, we will
reduce costs and create more opportunity in America to create and keep
American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I realize our rules would recognize that this is an
authorization on the appropriations bill and therefore not in order.
But I believe it is always in order to fight for American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, respectfully I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1400
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement Paragraph 4.F of ``Public Affairs Guidance
On Casualty and Mortuary Affairs in Military Operations,'' (R
311900Z) March 2003.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to express
my appreciation to Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards for their
hard work on this hard task on behalf of the Nation's soldiers.
My task today is one of the saddest aspects of being part of the
United States military, and that is when our soldiers fall, when they
lose their lives in the service of this country on the battlefields
around the world.
I remind my colleagues of a very stoic but very brave situation that
occurred when President Reagan left the
[[Page H2941]]
White House in Washington, D.C. and went to Dover Air Force Base to
welcome home the fallen soldiers who had died in Lebanon. All the
Nation was able to mourn and all the Nation poured their heart out on
behalf of those families and those fallen soldiers. I was then quite
shocked to realize that there is now an advisory that directs this
government not to honor our soldiers when they come, having fallen in
battle, back to the soil of the United States of America.
Might I share with you the language. ``There will be no arrival
ceremonies for or media coverage of deceased military personnel
returning to or departing from Ramstein AB or Dover Air Force Base, to
include interim stops.'' What a shocking statement to make to the
Nation, that when our soldiers fall in battle or when they lose their
lives as members of the United States military, there is a blanket
order, an executive order, an order of this administration, not to pay
honor and tribute to them.
Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking of disrespecting family members who
desire no such formal ceremonies. What I am suggesting is it should be
an option and that there should be no blanket barrier that would, in
fact, stop the honoring of these soldiers.
I remind you of the words of Abe Lincoln, who said ``Family has made
the costly sacrifice on the alter of freedom.'' We owe them the respect
of this honor, and a grateful Nation should be permitted to show its
gratitude. But with this blanket order that suggests that there can be
no public ceremony, I believe we denigrate, we deny the opportunity for
honor.
My colleagues will say that there are individual ceremonies and
funerals and memorials. And they may be right. But I ask you as
Americans and colleagues, how many times have we been able to mourn as
a nation the soldiers who are in the war on terror, fighting in places
around the world? In these recent years, we have seen none. We have not
honored any publicly.
Yes, one week from now will be Memorial Day, but yet we are denied
the right to be able to show our gratitude. My amendment is to comfort
the widow and the orphans. My amendment is on behalf of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that in reading this language, I
struggled with the reason and the premise. I know that my good friend,
Chairman Walsh, is going to suggest that there is a point of order and
it is not germane. What I would say to him is that because of its
importance, I ask you to waive the point of order, because our families
and our Nation is crying out to be able to honor these fallen soldiers.
Why can't we join together as patriots, respecting and recognizing
the young lives that have been sacrificed, by the Reservists, the
National Guard and all the service branches on behalf of this Nation?
Why would you have this kind of prohibition with no basis, no premise,
particularly when we saw flag-draped coffins being utilized after the
tragedy of 9/11? Why would you not allow us as Americans to embrace the
widows and orphans and be able to say to them, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the point of order be waived and I ask that
my colleagues support this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to oppose this nor do I intend to raise
a point of order, but I want to make it absolutely 100 percent clear
that this amendment will have absolutely no impact on this policy. The
funds that the gentlelady proposes to limit are not in this bill. The
paragraph 4(f) that she cites is not in this bill. This amendment has
no impact whatsoever on this bill. For that reason, I have no objection
to the gentlelady's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will only take 1 minute. I just want to respond to
something the distinguished majority leader said. He indicated that
what had occurred on the House floor today was a process fight.
That is not what it was at all. It was a priorities fight. We saw
this unraveling today because the majority party insisted on sticking
by a budget resolution which puts super-sized tax cuts for the most
comfortable in this society ahead of every other consideration.
We may not see arguments quite as dramatic and as chaotic as we did
today on this bill, but as appropriation bills move through this House,
we will see similar conflicting priorities, because the budget which
has caused the problem is a budget which does not put the needs of
military families first, it does not put the needs of education first,
it does not put the need to invest in critical programs that strengthen
the economy of the country in the future first. Instead, it continues
to insist that we provide over $40 billion in tax cuts to persons who
make over $1 million a year. That is a priorities fight. It is not a
technical process fight. I think we need to keep that in mind.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I don't know
whether this will be the last word, but I hope it is, because enough
has been said.
Mr. Chairman, I have made every effort throughout the process of
constructing this bill to reach across the aisle and to do this in a
bipartisan way, not only because I believe that is the way we should
operate here, but because on a bill of this importance that involves
our national security and the health and well-being of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines, we need to be bipartisan, and I am afraid
because of the tenor of this debate that the vote, in the end, will not
be. I don't know. I can't predict the outcome.
I do have to say, I very much regret the process fight that we had on
our side of the aisle. I strongly disagree with my colleagues who chose
this bill to make their fight over earmark reform. Every earmark in
this bill is authorized. That is the process that we follow.
I also deeply regret that Members on the other side of the aisle
chose to make this their political fight, to make their political
points about tax cuts and revenues and to make it a partisan bill. This
is not a partisan bill. It should not be a partisan bill.
So I feel badly that the tenor of the debate was not about the
strength of our military and the importance of their mission, but it
was about process and politics. In my mind, on this bill, there is no
place for either. Our commitment is to our troops, to their lives, to
their families and to our veterans, and I hope that both sides, now
that the debate is over, will close ranks, stand shoulder to shoulder
and send our troops a very, very clear signal that we support them, we
support their mission, and that we support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge a unanimous vote on this very important
subcommittee appropriations bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Out of
respect for the chairman, I will yield to him, because I think he
should have the last word. I won't take all 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this bill for several reasons:
One, because the chairman of this subcommittee worked on a professional
and thoroughly bipartisan basis to take what I think was an inadequate
budget allocation due to the budget resolution and do the very best
with it that he could and we could, and we did that. I think we did a
good job of it.
Secondly, despite the fact that I am offended that a half a billion
dollars of vital Pentagon requested military construction projects were
just taken out of this bill, I think our troops deserve the other
projects that are still left in this bill, especially as so many of
them are facing wartime. That is why I am going to vote for this bill,
and I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with me if they share my
views.
I do want to say that to the American people perhaps this has been
confusing and seemed like a process, I want to summarize what has
happened today.
Because of an inadequate budget resolution which many of us opposed 2
days ago, this House has cut $507 million out of military construction
projects the Bush administration said were needed to be funded.
The second thing that has happened today is that because of the
budget resolution, and, in my opinion, its over-emphasis on tax cuts
and its under-emphasis on putting the defense needs of
[[Page H2942]]
our country above those tax cuts, we have a bill that will cut $735
million out of what the administration requested for defense health
care programs for active duty military men and women, including those
in combat, and for our retirees.
The one place where I would respectfully disagree with my chairman,
Mr. Walsh, is that for many of us, this debate wasn't about politics.
For many of us, we pleaded genuinely for this House not to vote for a
budget resolution that we felt would result in what has just happened
today. We predicted it would happen, that we would end up underfunding
key vital priorities for our country. We pleaded at the Appropriations
Committee in good faith to not adopt a 302(b) appropriation allocation
that for our subcommittee for this bill cut $824 million out of the
President's request.
I think to talk about the price being paid because of the budget
resolution passed earlier this week, it isn't about politics, it is
about an honest difference of where our country should go and where we
should place our priorities.
Having said that, where I have agreed with the chairman at every step
of the way is in his effort to put together a budget for a subcommittee
that didn't have enough money in a way that funded the highest possible
priorities given those budget constraints. That was a good process, and
that was a bipartisan process, and had the technical amendments and
debate not been brought up by several colleagues on the chairman's side
of the aisle, we wouldn't have had this fight today. We were going to
vote for this on a bipartisan basis.
{time} 1415
Having said that, I still hope we support this bill. But I think it
is time for us to level with the American people. We cannot have our
cake and eat it too. And if we are going to vote for budget
resolutions, we cannot run from the impact those budget resolutions
have on our military men and women, on education, health care, job
training, and other programs as well.
Finally, I want to salute the staff, on both the Republican and
Democratic side of this subcommittee, an outstanding professional
staff, that did an excellent job of taking a tough budget allocation,
doing the best with it that I think anybody could have done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time to the chairman out of my
respect for him so that he can have the last word.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the acknowledgement that he gave
to our staff who have worked very, very hard, both sides of the aisle,
to make the best bill that we could. I assure my colleague and the
Members of the House that as we go forward we will find the resources
that we need to make sure that our troops have all of the resources at
their hand to be successful in their mission.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the pending
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 151,
noes 247, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 175]
AYES--151
Ackerman
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Stearns
Sweeney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--247
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--34
Andrews
Baker
Beauprez
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Boucher
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Doyle
English (PA)
Evans
Fattah
Gohmert
Hulshof
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
McDermott
Musgrave
Nussle
Oxley
Pelosi
Reynolds
Salazar
Sanders
Smith (WA)
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Thomas
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1437
Messrs. SMITH of Texas, BARTLETT of Maryland, WYNN, Ms. HART and Miss
McMORRIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
[[Page H2943]]
Mr. WEXLER, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. HARRIS, and Ms. CORRINE BROWN
of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction,
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Act, 2007''.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the bill
do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Walden of Oregon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5385) 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, 2007, and for other purposes, had directed him to report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the bill do
pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 821, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395,
nays 0, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 176]
YEAS--395
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--37
Andrews
Baker
Beauprez
Bishop (GA)
Boehlert
Bonner
Boucher
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Doyle
English (PA)
Evans
Fattah
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Granger
Hulshof
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
McDermott
Musgrave
Nussle
Oxley
Pelosi
Reynolds
Salazar
Sanders
Smith (WA)
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Thomas
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1454
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________