[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.

                          ____________________