[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 97 (Friday, June 15, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6519-H6566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today
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. 2642.
{time} 1155
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. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Lynch
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill
is considered read the first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we now have before us the fiscal year 2008 Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill which will ensure
the largest increase in VA health care spending in the 77-year history
of the Veterans Affairs. There is $6 billion over the 2007 level of
funding, and $3.8 billion over the President's request for 2008.
Mr. Chairman, this bill sends a clear message to America's servicemen
and -women, their families and our veterans that a grateful Nation
deeply respects their service and sacrifice.
The national commander of the Disabled American Veterans, Bradley
Barton, went to the heart of what this bill is all about when he
described it as ``keeping faith with America's veterans.''
The bill means our servicemen and -women will have more effective
training facilities which will save lives and help them carry out their
military missions. It means our military families, who sacrifice so
much for our Nation, will have better housing, health care and day-care
facilities.
This bill means we will honor our veterans in a meaningful way by
providing them the health care and benefits we promised them when they
put on our Nation's uniform.
It means we will have more qualified doctors and nurses to improve
medical services to our veterans and to reduce waiting times for
doctors' appointments. For veterans with traumatic brain injury, PTSD,
mental health care issues and lost limbs, it means renewed hope to
rebuild their lives.
For homeless veterans, it means the dignity of not having to live on
the streets, and it means hope for the future. For veterans in rural
areas and those who serve in the Guard and Reserves, this bill means
needed care will be closer to home. For the 400,000 veterans, including
combat wounded vets, who are having to wait far too long to have their
benefits cases reviewed, it means over 11,000 new VA case workers to
reduce the unacceptable delays in receiving earned benefits.
Mr. Chairman, before I mention some of the details of this bill, I
want to express some much-deserved thanks. I want to begin with
Chairman Dave Obey, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for his unwavering
commitment and
[[Page H6520]]
strong leadership in seeing that America's veterans will receive a
much-deserved historic increase in VA health care funding.
{time} 1200
Our subcommittee's work simply would not have been possible had it
not been for Chairman Obey's personal and strong leadership.
Second, Speaker Pelosi made it clear from day one this year that
keeping our promises to veterans would be the highest of priorities in
this Congress. By working with Chairman Obey, along with Budget
Committee chairman John Spratt and VA chairman, Mr. Filner, the Speaker
made good on her word and millions of veterans will be the
beneficiaries.
I want to extend a very personal, special salute and expression of
thanks and gratitude to our subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Wicker
of Mississippi. He, a veteran, has had valuable input into this bill
and has been a vital part of making this historic day for our veterans
a reality. His leadership has been instrumental in crafting this
legislation.
His ideas and strong support for our veterans our troops and their
families have made this a much better bill, and at every step he and I
have worked hard to continue a long, bipartisan tradition of working in
behalf of our troops and our veterans, a tradition for which we have
great respect.
Last, but certainly not least, is the professional, dedicated staff I
want to thank, a staff that has worked together on a bipartisan basis
to do what is right for our veterans and troops. I believe they deserve
our thanks by name: Carol Murphy, Tim Peterson, Walter Hearne, Donna
Shabaz, Mary Arnold, Liz Dawson, Dena Baron, Jamie Swafford, as well as
John Conger from my staff and Susan Sweat from Mr. Wicker's office.
They're a first-class team, and it's a privilege to work with them.
Let me mention a few specifics about the bill. Overall, the bill
totals $64.7 billion in discretionary spending. As I said, but it bears
reemphasizing, it provides the largest increase in VA health care
funding in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, $6
billion more than fiscal year 2007.
For the first time in the 21-year history of the veterans independent
budget, which is developed by AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans,
the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and
supported by 52 other veterans and military organizations, this bill
meets and actually even exceeds that independent budget request.
The Veterans Health Administration, which includes medical services,
medical administration, medical facilities and medical research is
funded at $37.1 billion, $2.5 billion more than the President's request
and $294 million above the veterans independent budget.
Compared to the administration's request, this bill provides a number
of increases: $604 million more for new initiatives in the area of
mental health, including PTSD and for traumatic brain injury; $71
million more for veterans substance abuse programs; $23 million more to
provide shelter for an additional 2,300 homeless veterans; $12.5
million more to expand outpatient rehabilitation services for the
blind; $508 million more for medical facilities maintenance. That might
not sound important to some. Its goal is to see that we never have a
Walter Reed Annex 18 tragedy, like occurred in the Department of
Defense health care system, happen in the VA health care system.
We also provide a minimum of $15 million for joint programs with DOD
to improve access to care, to ensure a more seamless transition for
veterans going from the Department of Defense into the Veterans
Administration system.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee heard from many sources about the need
for more VA medical research, particularly in the areas of greatest
impact for our Afghan and Iraq War veterans, research such as traumatic
brain injury and mental health. That is why we significantly increased
the VA research budget for the first time in the last 10 years.
The subcommittee also heard from many who talked about the need to
increase funding for extended care facilities for elderly and severely
disabled veterans. So we took action on a bipartisan basis, more than
doubled the programs to allow four new facilities to be built, as well
as to address all currently identified life/safety needs at those
facilities.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, along with this historic level of
increased funding, we intend to increase the subcommittee's bipartisan
oversight of these taxpayer funded programs. Oversight is absolutely
essential to ensure that the VA spends the money wisely and for the
highest priority needs of our vets.
That's why this bill includes funding for the Office of Inspector
General to hire 50 additional people. And it includes $5 million to
establish a toll-free telephone number and Web-page-based link that
makes it easier for veterans to provide feedback on the quality of
their health care. We want veterans receiving health care to be part of
the system of checks and balances to improve the already first-class
medical care veterans across America are receiving.
On the military construction side of this bill, the bill also
strongly supports our active duty, Guard and Reserve servicemen and
women and their families. The bill provides $21.4 billion in military
construction, family housing, and the Base Realignment and Closing
program funding. This is $207 million above the President's request and
$5.1 billion above fiscal year 2007.
This total funding level is unprecedented, largely due to three
factors: BRAC, the proposal to increase the size of the Army and the
Marine Corps, and the rebasing of troops from Germany and South Korea
back to the United States.
We fully fund the President's request for BRAC at $8.2 billion. We've
also increased the subcommittee's oversight of the MILCON funding with
new reprogramming and notification requirements, especially in the area
of BRAC funding. We want to work together on a bipartisan basis to see
that our military construction dollars go to the highest priority
needs.
The bottom line in this bill is it honors the promises made to our
troops, our veterans and their families with the health care and
benefits they earned when they put on our Nation's uniform.
[[Page H6521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.016
[[Page H6522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.017
[[Page H6523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.018
[[Page H6524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.019
[[Page H6525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JN07.020
[[Page H6526]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the debate by thanking Chairman
Edwards for all the hard work he's put into preparing this legislation.
I congratulate him on his first bill as chairman of Military
Construction-VA, and I appreciate his kind words made just a few
moments ago. Mr. Edwards has continued the excellent bipartisan
relationship that this subcommittee has enjoyed for years. The chairman
held many, many hearings this spring, perhaps more hearings on the VA
accounts than any previous subcommittee with jurisdiction over this
issue.
Mr. Edwards has previously thanked our staff for their diligent work
to prepare this bill and has mentioned them by name. I will thank them
once again by name. They include Liz Dawson, Dena Baron, Jamie Swafford
and Susan Sweat on the minority staff, and Carol Murphy, Walter Hearne,
Tim Peterson, Donna Shabaz, Mary Arnold and John Conger on the majority
staff. They have worked very hard on this measure, but their work is
just beginning.
As most of us know by now, there's much left to do in conference on
this bill. For the first time in the history of the subcommittee, for
the first time since 1958, the military construction portion contains
no specific recommendation for projects. While I remain disappointed
that no projects were included in this appropriation, I am pleased that
last night we reached an agreement that will restore the transparency
and openness begun by the Republican majority in the last Congress with
regard to earmarks in the remaining appropriations bills.
I want to make sure my colleagues understand that there is very
little to the military construction portion of this bill. Unlike some
appropriations bills, such as the Homeland bill we passed earlier today
which include funding for specific agencies, offices and programs in
addition to projects, the MILCON appropriation consists almost entirely
of projects.
Pursuant to yesterday's agreement, specific detailed funding amounts
for the following programs will have to wait until conference: Base
Realignment and Closure needs; initiatives to restation 70,000 troops
and their families from Europe and Korea to the United States; projects
necessary for increasing the active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine
Corps by 27,000; relocating Marines from Okinawa to Japan;
consolidating U.S. forces south of Seoul, South Korea; establishing
enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti; new runways, control
towers, National Guard readiness centers, and projects in the Middle
East or Afghanistan where we have soldiers in harm's way. All of these
specific details will have to wait until conference, Mr. Chairman.
In addition, we know that quality-of-life issues are a priority for
our military; yet, no specific initiatives such as modernization of
unaccompanied housing, construction of new medical facilities or much-
needed child development centers, which we continuously heard in our
hearings was the primary quality-of-life issue for our soldiers and
their families, none of these are included in this bill.
Specific projects and earmarks will no doubt be included in the
Senate version of this bill, and I hope Chairman Edwards and Chairman
Obey will work with Mr. Lewis and me to make sure that House Members'
initiatives will receive equal consideration at the conference level
and are not disadvantaged by our airdropping of these projects into the
conference. I would point out that the bill is different from other
appropriations bills in that military construction projects have an
added layer of examination, having already undergone scrutiny by the
Department of Defense.
It is my hope that our colleagues will not offer amendments today
that may decrease the military construction accounts. Though this bill
today does not detail how these accounts will be used, the accounts
will provide for many important military projects that our troops need.
Now, with regard to the VA portions of the bill, the VA is receiving
the largest increase in the Department's history, an increase of $6.7
billion over the last fiscal year level. All of us in this body are
deeply grateful for the sacrifices and service our veterans have
provided this Nation, and this generous increase is appreciated by
Members on both sides of the aisle. We do have concerns about the VA's
ability to absorb so large a funding increase in one fiscal year. We
are determined to work with VA officials in this effort as part of our
oversight responsibilities.
The bulk of the increase is going to boost medical services, medical
facilities and construction for the VA. The bill increases the VA's
discretionary funding by more than 18 percent over the fiscal year 2007
level. It is important to remember that the increase in this bill is in
addition to the $1.8 billion this Congress just provided to the VA in
the supplemental. When considered together, the supplemental funding
and the funding in this bill amount to a 23 percent increase for the
Department of Veterans Affairs' discretionary accounts.
Chairman Edwards has indicated that we will be conducting oversight
hearings later in the year, and I'm glad to know that. Hearings will be
needed to ensure that the funding we have provided actually gets to the
veterans and does not languish in an administrative account. Mr.
Chairman, we all want to make sure our veterans receive the care they
deserve, but we will have to be diligent in our oversight in order to
get this funding where it is intended, to our veterans.
The President has indicated he will sign this bill even though it
exceeds his budget request by some $4 billion. However, he has stated
that offsets for these increases should be found in other
appropriations bills. I agree with him, and I call upon my colleagues
across the aisle to work with us and find these savings elsewhere.
I think it is important to point out that, though we have some
concerns on our side of the aisle about the feasibility for this large
1-year increase, it has been in large part Republicans that have a
track record of meeting veterans' needs. During the period of
Republican majority from 1995 to 2007, VA funding increased by 96
percent from $38.2 billion to $74.5 billion. I would point out that in
the final decade of the last Democratic majority, veterans funding
increased by less than half as much, about 42 percent, Mr. Chairman.
Similarly, Republicans led the way to increase spending per veteran
by over $1,800 when we held the majority, while the Democrats managed
to increase per-veteran spending by $411 during a similar period of
their majority. It was also a Republican Congress that passed the
Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, which expanded
eligibility for millions more veterans to access VA health care.
I point out these things to make sure my colleagues understand the
historical record on veterans' issues. And in truth, Mr. Chairman,
funding for our veterans has always been a bipartisan issue.
I support the bill on the floor today. It continues in the bipartisan
tradition. It's not a perfect bill in my opinion, but our subcommittee
has a good work product, and I'm proud of the combined efforts of
Republicans and Democrats to continue the longstanding tradition of
support and commitment for the men and women who have served our great
country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
absolutely the vital leader to see that we have this historic increase
for veterans health care in this budget today.
{time} 1215
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we have been mired in a god-awful war
in Iraq for almost 5 years. What bothers me most about it, except for
the deaths that occur on a daily basis, what bothers me most about it
is that there is virtually no sense of shared sacrifice in this country
in dealing with that war.
The only people who are being asked to sacrifice are military
families, and they are being asked to sacrifice again and again and
again. They are being sent back to Iraq and to Afghanistan again,
again, and again. Not much sacrifice is being asked of anybody else.
We hear politicians prattle about the need to stand behind the
troops. You betcha, we certainly should.
[[Page H6527]]
But we need to stand behind the troops not just when the bands are
playing. We need to stand by those troops when they come home, and they
are injured, and they are sick, or they may have lost their job, or
they may have lost their spouse; and that's what this bill tries to do.
I think we need to put in context how we got here. It has been a
struggle to see to it that we have adequate funding in veterans medical
care programs.
Two years ago, on this side of the aisle, we were given information
from people within the Veterans Administration that their veterans
health care budget was going to fall $2 billion short. We tried to put
that money in the budget. We were then in the minority. We were blocked
by the majority then, except for one fellow. The Republican chairman of
the Veterans' Committee sided with us, he agreed with us that we needed
that $2 billion in additional money.
What happened to him? Not only did the then-majority party leadership
fire him as chairman, they took him completely off the committee
because he told the truth. We finally got that money, but we had to get
a double hernia to finally pry that money out of the administration.
Then we had, as you know, the budget process collapse last year, and
no domestic appropriation bills were passed by the then-majority party.
In fact, this very bill, the Military Construction bill, was held up in
the Senate by two Members of the Republican Party who put a hold on it
because they didn't like certain earmarks that were on the bill.
So the bill never passed. When we took the majority, the very first
thing we did was to make veterans health care a number one priority,
and we added over $4 billion to that account, made it the number one
priority. Then we added additional funding of over $3 billion in the
Iraqi supplemental, and now we have added this money today to make this
the largest increase for veterans health care in the history of the
country.
When we did that, the White House announced it was going to veto the
bill. Now, finally, they have had a St. Paul conversion on the road to
Damascus. I welcome the White House on board the bandwagon.
But as Golda Meir said to Anwar Sadat when he finally came to
Jerusalem a long time ago: ``What took you so long?'' I am glad the
President has finally changed his view.
But the President continues to say, ``Well, now, I may not veto the
bill, but you have got to have offsets. You have to find compensating
savings.''
Why do we single veterans out for that requirement? There were no
offsets that the President required when he decided that this year we
were going to spend $57 billion to provide tax cuts to people who make
over $1 million a year and pay for it all with borrowed money. No
offsets around then. Do you see them? I don't see any offsets in sight
for that.
So what do we get? Finally, we get grudging acceptance from the White
House that after they stuck us in this miserable war, and after they
sit there with no clue about how to get out, at least they are now
grudgingly going to recognize that we need the funds in this bill to
deal with veterans medical care.
This bill ought to pass unanimously. It is far past the time that we
put our votes where our mouths are in terms of long-term funding for
veterans health care. I am proud of the fact that I provided the
allocation to the subcommittee so that they could do that.
We are taking funding from $49.7 billion last year to $64 billion
this year. Now, green eyeshade people may say, ``Oh, that's too much.''
You know what? In my view, nothing is too much for people who have
risked everything on behalf of this country. Finally, over the last 2
years, we have been able to get funding up to begin to meet our
obligations in this area.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas for helping to lead
the way, and I want to express my appreciation to people on both sides
of the aisle who stood up for veterans when it was tough, including Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, the former Republican chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, who paid a high price for his dedication to the
needs of veterans, who paid a high price for putting truth ahead of the
partisan wishes of the Bush administration.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Indiana, the
former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer, for as
much time as he may consume.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here, and I enjoyed the
comments of the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, and the
comments of Mr. Wicker, and then I was disturbed by the comments of Mr.
Obey.
Mr. Chairman, what I would say is he didn't go back far enough. I
came here in 1992, and I heard the horror stories of what was occurring
in the Appropriations Committee of how individuals would cut veterans
programs to fund WIC and other programs. I was deeply disturbed by
that.
Then I would watch as the Clinton years would flatten VA spending. I
guess the gentleman forgot about that too.
I want to associate myself with Mr. Edwards' comments and Mr.
Wicker's comments because this is a bipartisan issue, and I am deeply
disturbed about Mr. Obey's comments to try to rewrite history here.
Some of the language, inflammatory language, that he used is deeply
disturbing to me.
Now, if the gentleman wants to talk about his issues and how he feels
about the war, that's one thing; but don't allow those emotions to
bleed into how we care for America's veterans. That bothers me.
We talk about how we got here. I recall the movie ``Born on the 4th
of July.'' What did they depict in the movie ``Born on the 4th of
July''? They depicted a VA system which bothered many people here in
Congress. It was then Ken Keyser who worked for the Clinton
administration who then thought that the best way we could improve our
VA system is to move more people into the system. They set forth the
priorities, but then they opened the system to the nondisabled systems.
When we opened that, we didn't really prepare the system for the
number of veterans that came into the system. When I looked back here
over the last 6 years, my gosh, we have almost doubled the veterans
budget.
We also, as we are coping with dealing with the influx of veterans
based on eligibility reform, I almost feel like, on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis, we are mechanics looking at
different subsets of systems within the VA that need a tremendous
amount of work.
It's easy for us to always talk about the health side, but there is
such a strong disability backlog too. If it were just money, if we
could just throw money on it, and that's what would solve it, Mr.
Edwards, if that's what you could put in the budget, it would be
solved. The reality is that's not what's going to solve it. What's
going to solve it will be management practices and accountability. If
we don't have that, it's not going to be solved.
The chairman of the committee is now on the floor. When he held a
roundtable discussion, he learned that they were giving exams to those
who are the case workers out there. When you get only 23 and 27 percent
pass rate by the individuals who are actually working on these
disability claims, I would say we've got a problem and we have to work
cooperatively on those problems.
I want to thank the new majority. I want thank the new majority
because you are different from the old majority.
The old majority, when I came here a freshman, and I was in the
minority, because that old majority did things a little differently,
and those weren't good budgets on behalf of veterans. But when you came
now in the new majority, Mr. Edwards, I congratulate you, because you
have done what you said you were going to do. I want to personally
thank you for that.
But I just want you to know this, Mr. Edwards, there is much work for
all of us, because it's not going to be just money alone.
When Mr. Obey brought up the issue about the funding shortfall, what
I did is I went in and I began to examine the finance modeling and
found the errors in the inputs in the stale data in the model, and
that's how we made the corrections. So even though we put in the $1.5
billion, we only spent a third of that, and the other went for
carryover.
So there's going to be a lot of management issues, and there's going
to be
[[Page H6528]]
a lot of oversight that we going to have to continue to do. But as a
baseline, let me congratulate you, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Wicker, on a
very good bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Let me just take 30 seconds of that and say I thank Mr. Buyer, former
chairman of the VA Committee, for emphasizing our work for veterans
isn't done when this bill passes. There is a lot of oversight that
needs to be done, and we will be working on that on a bipartisan basis.
But let me say I am proud of the new congressional leadership in
providing $6 billion increase over 2007 for VA health care, because you
can't repair VA hospitals without funding. You can't hire 1,100 new
case workers to reduce the intolerable delay of combat-wounded veterans
to get their benefits without money.
Money is a necessary, perhaps not sufficient, solution but absolutely
necessary to provide the veterans health care and benefits that they
have earned by sacrificing for our country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke has expressed a
certain degree of unhappiness with the remarks that I made previously
on the floor. I treasure his unhappiness.
The fact is that when Harry Truman was President, he was out giving a
speech one day, and someone in the crowd hollered, ``Give 'em hell,
Harry!'' And Truman responded, ``I don't give them hell. I just tell
the truth and they think it's hell.''
The fact is, I am very comfortable with the fact that the previous
speaker did not like my comments, because I think maybe that means they
hit home. The fact is the previous speaker was the person who was
selected by the then Republican Party leadership to replace Mr. Smith
after Mr. Smith was, in essence, fired from his job by the majority
because he told the truth about the VA health care needs.
So I will be happy to endure the unhappiness of the gentleman with my
comments anytime if we can use that unhappiness to get more money for
people who sacrificed everything for this country.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Florida
(Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me, and I want to say that I am very, very proud to be
working with Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wicker as a member of
this very important subcommittee.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is going to have much more
responsibility as the months go by, probably more than they realize.
One of the reasons is that military medicine has gotten so much better.
Medicines are better, medical techniques are better, the ability to
evacuate a wounded soldier from the battlefield is much better, and we
have intensive care units on our aircraft today so better medical care
can be provided to the wounded soldier, marine, and the wounded heroes.
{time} 1230
Because of that many of our heroes are living today who would have
died in previous wars and previous battles. But also because of that
some of them are hurt worse than normal, and the Veterans'
Administration is going to eventually have the responsibility once
these heroes leave their military medical facilities at Walter Reed or
at Bethesda or some of the other military hospitals.
One of the things that this bill does, and it does a lot of good
stuff, and I'm strongly in support of this bill, it increases funding
for the Inspector General for the Department of Veterans Affairs. And I
know that oftentimes we think that the Inspector General just looks at
dollars and figures and decides if the money is being spent or
accounted for.
The Inspector General from the Department of Veterans Affairs does a
really great job, not only in doing that, checking the dollars, but
also in checking for fraud. And it is amazing how much fraud the IG has
uncovered in the last couple of years, costing upwards of hundred of
millions of dollars to the taxpayer, and taking it away from the
veteran who needs it and the hospitals and the medical professionals
who need this money to care for the veterans.
But also, another part of their responsibility is the care that the
veteran receives in the VA hospitals. They look at this very closely,
and if and when the medical care in the hospital is not appropriate and
not proper, they report this to the proper authorities.
The investment that Chairman Edwards has made in the Inspector
General's Office in this bill will pay us back many, many times over in
what they recover than we have invested. So this is a good bill.
If you wanted me to pick out something that I didn't like about it,
I'm sure that I could. But the part that relates to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me just first say that there's no
Member of Congress who's spent more time visiting our wounded troops in
the hospitals or at our veterans hospitals than Mr. Young and his wife,
Beverly; and he and his wife are an inspiration to all Members of
Congress as we try to work together in support of our troops and our
veterans. And I thank you, sir, for your heartfelt and deep commitment
to our troops and our veterans and their health.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Filner is not only the Chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House, he has been a tremendous
champion this year in fighting to see that we received $11.9 billion
increase in funding for veterans since January.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for doing so much for
veterans in this bill. And I want to add my thanks to Congressman Young
from Florida. He and his wife, Beverly, have been an incredible
inspiration. So we want to say on the record from our side of the aisle
how much we appreciate you and your wife's efforts on behalf of our
veterans. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, what this bill does and what our previous bills that we
have passed here, the continuing resolution that we've had for this
year, the supplemental for the war, added more than 30 percent to the
health care budget from last year for the health care of our veterans.
That's an unprecedented increase, and it comes at a time when we have
unprecedented needs. So your work, Mr. Chairman, has been incredible
for all of the veterans and their families in this Nation.
No matter where we stand on the war, and there's a lot of
divisiveness in this House about the war, we are united in saying,
through this bill, that when every young man and woman comes back from
Iraq or Afghanistan, they are going to get all the love, the care, the
attention, the dignity, the honor that a Nation can bestow; and we are
committed to that.
And we are committed, not only to those veterans who are just coming
back, but to those who are with us from World War II, from Korea, from
Vietnam, from the first Persian Gulf war. We're going to take care of
them all.
We do not think that the problem with the Veterans' Administration is
that there are too many veterans. We think we have to get the resources
into the VA, and then have the accountability that it's spent wisely.
We have an administration that says, support the troops, support the
troops, support the troops; but when they come home, as we have seen in
Walter Reed and other places, too many times they're on their own. They
slip through the cracks.
Virtually everyone who comes back from this war has evidence of
either brain injury or PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and we
simply don't have the resources to treat them. There are waiting lists.
There are people told to call back, go home.
We had a young Marine in Minnesota who went to his hospital because
he thought he had PTSD because he was thinking of suicide. What
happened? He was told he was 28th on the waiting list, to go home. And
he went home and committed suicide. That is a crime and we are not
going to commit those crimes on our returning heroes. We are going to
look at not only the brain injuries, not only the PTSD, but to make
sure the backlog of pension disability claims is taken down to zero,
where it's now at 600,000.
We've got a lot of work to do. We've got a lot of work to handle all
these heroes from World War II to the present,
[[Page H6529]]
and with your budget, Mr. Chairman, we're going to be able to do this.
We thank you. And we're going to work to get the accountability and the
work done that lets these heroes know that their Nation is worthy of
their sacrifice.
Mr. WICKER. Before I yield to my friend from Indiana, I too want to
join my colleagues in commending my friend from Florida, Bill Young,
and his wife, Beverly, for constantly, consistently visiting our
veterans, our wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda and at
veterans facilities, and for day in and day out and week in and week
out and year in and year out, being as supportive of our Nation's
veterans as any couple probably in the entire United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) an
additional minute.
Mr. BUYER. Picking up off the comment that Mr. Edwards had made in
his opening statement about management, I think you're right on point.
Good management of the resources and accountability is what's
essential.
So when the chairman just spoke in the well and said, well, we don't
have the money, that's not entirely correct because the GAO came back
in 2005 and 2006 and said, we gave them sufficient resources allocated
toward mental health, but they didn't even spend around $60 million
that you had already given them in those cycles.
Mr. Edwards, you worked on those budgets. So it's not just giving
them the money; that was my point made earlier.
So when Mr. Filner made the comment, they don't have the money; we
had given them the money, then they didn't utilize it. And so I agree
with Mr. Filner when he gets his angst about how it is that you don't
spend money we gave you, yet you've got waiting lines.
It goes back then to the management question about the resources in
which we get them, and that's where I'd like to work with you and work
with the chairman of the committee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me just take 1 minute, if I could, to
respond.
Again, I would reemphasize, we must work closely together in Congress
to see that the VA spends the money we appropriate for them and for our
veterans, that they spend it wisely, effectively and efficiently. And
we will work very hard on that.
But I don't want it to go unsaid that the VA needs and our veterans
deserve the additional funding, the $6 billion more for VA health care
spending, $6.7 billion more than last year for all veterans programs.
The VA and our veterans need and deserve that money. The increased
funding in this budget, that I'm proud to say the new Congress has made
its top priority, is something that is needed, not only to provide
better benefits, reduce waiting times for benefit consideration, reduce
waiting time for doctors appointments, improve mental health care
services and PTSD services for our veterans, this money is needed to
improve the, frankly, unsafe conditions at some VA hospitals. And
construction projects are needed there, so the money is needed. We'll
work together on the management and oversight.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Mrs.
Boyda). Mrs. Boyda has been a leading and tireless voice in this
Congress, supporting full BRAC funding in this bill, as well as the
veterans funding in this bill.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to share a couple
of freshman stories here. I am one of the new kids. And when I
campaigned, I actually campaigned for 3 years. And you can image what I
heard about veterans issues. It was about access mainly.
Our veterans hospitals in Kansas are good, but they only had a
certain amount of money, and getting access, waiting times, waiting
lines was just a tremendous problem.
So when I got here, I went to Chairman Filner's office with a little
bit of a chip on my shoulder, and I said, listen, I need to know what
we're going to do for veterans, what's going to happen. And listen, I
want to know the truth. Don't tell me something. Don't let me go home
to Kansas and then come back and not be truthful.
He said, Mrs. Boyda, we are going to take care of our veterans.
And then when we did our first continuing resolution and put $3.5
billion immediately into that pipeline, I heard something that I just
absolutely couldn't believe, and that was someone who said, that's just
a down payment. So I actually began to have faith that people in
Congress do what they promise to do.
Let me tell you another quick story, too, and that was when I spoke
with Chairman Edwards and he was telling me about what was going on,
because I have been a tireless advocate for this. He said, Nancy, we're
going to get this done, and we are going to do an historic funding for
this, and we're going to get that done by June.
And then the next thing we're going to do is spend the next 6 months
on oversight because we have to make sure that those funds are used in
a way that makes a difference to our veterans, and we have to make sure
that every cent of that that we have appropriated we can do the best we
can to make sure that those funds are used appropriately.
So I am thrilled to be here with the new Democratic majority that is
keeping its word to veterans, and saying that we're not only funding,
but I believe that we will go and do the oversight that's needed to
make sure those funds are used for the best benefit of our veterans.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. And I will yield
to Speaker Pelosi for the remainder of the time that I don't use of
this 2 minutes.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read into that record what
a number of America's most respected veterans and military
organizations have said about this bill.
The American Legion called it ``an impressive commitment to this
Nation's servicemembers, veterans and their families.''
The Independent Budget, made up of numerous veterans organizations
across the country, said, ``This is a much-needed investment in health
care and the benefits delivery system for our Nation's sick and
disabled veterans.''
The Military Officers Association of America referred to the funding
in this bill as ``an extraordinary level of funding.''
AMVETS, ``The level of funding will ensure that returning veterans
from Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to receive priority health care
and other VA services.''
The Disabled American Veterans called it ``keeping faith with
America's veterans.''
Mr. Chairman, several years ago, then Minority Leader Pelosi made a
commitment to America's veterans, she said, if she became Speaker, that
supporting those who have sacrificed for our country in uniform would
be the highest priority of hers and of this Congress. Speaker Pelosi
has kept that commitment. And the beneficiaries of that promise kept
will be millions of veterans who will receive better health care, who
will receive better job training, better homeless care for those
200,000 veterans that tonight, in America, will go to bed without a
roof over their heads.
We would not be here today, about to pass the largest increase in VA
health care spending in the 77-year history of the Veterans
Administration, had it not been for Speaker Pelosi's personal
commitment at the Budget Committee level, at the 302(b) allocation
level for our subcommittee and specifically pushing this legislation. I
salute her, along with the veterans organizations of America, for her
leadership on behalf of our veterans, our servicemen and -women, and
their families.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Speaker Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words
and for his more than extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's
veterans while they are in the service, in terms of the quality of
their life which is addressed in this legislation, and when they become
veterans, and how he has had the well-being of America's veterans as a
priority for so long in his political year.
Mr. Chairman, today is probably one of the top three happiest days of
my official life, because today is a day where, under the leadership of
Mr. Edwards, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Obey, Mr.
[[Page H6530]]
Skelton, Mr. Murtha, this Congress of the United States is able to keep
its promises to America's veterans. It's a day of respect for them.
In the military, soldiers say, we will not leave any soldier on the
battlefield. We say, when they come home, we will not leave any veteran
behind. That is why, under the leadership of Mr. Edwards in his
capacity as a leader on this issue, and I will add Mr. Filner's name to
those I'm commending, but a person of the focus and values of Mr.
Edwards kept this issue front and center.
For the past 4\1/2\, 5 years, we have met on a regular basis with the
veterans organizations and representatives of veterans from across the
country. We asked them what their priorities were, because their needs
were so great; and frankly, their concerns were so neglected for the
last few years that we said, we cannot try to do everything. What are
your priorities? This was when we were in the minority.
Their first priority, the first couple of years there was the
concurrent receipt issue, this veterans disability tax, which we made
some progress on. And the next term, which was the last term, we were
still in the minority. We still took a piece of what their agenda was,
and that was survivors' benefits. All of these were important to the
veterans, but there were many more concerns that we had.
So it wasn't until the Democrats assumed the majority that we could
keep the promise of America to America's veterans. That's why it was so
thrilling to be with the representatives of the veterans groups, some
of them I will name, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
AMVETS, that's the American Veterans, then the Iraq and Afghan Veterans
of America, to be with them and other representatives of veterans a
couple of days ago when we stood in front of the Capitol and announced
that today, with this vote, under Chairman Chet Edwards' leadership, we
would be giving the largest increase in the history of our country and
in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration.
Why is that necessary? Because there is a backlog of several hundred
thousand cases at the VA. That's an injustice. That's an immorality.
And there were needed more case workers to address a 2-year backlog, if
you had an issue, you went there and you had to wait 2 years if you
were a veteran.
Well, the veterans were there when they were needed. They heeded the
call. They came to our defense, and now we're saying, wait 2 years for
us to consider your case. Just not right. Just not right.
So in preparation for a possible Democratic majority where we could
work in a bipartisan way, the veterans put together a budget, again
emphasizing their priorities.
{time} 1245
And when they did, we took that budget. Congress worked its will on
it through the appropriations process to bring us to the floor today.
Every one of us in the committee, it was a bipartisan unanimous vote,
56-0, in the Appropriations Committee.
I hope we will have a similar vote today because, as Mr. Edwards
said, starting with the budget process under Mr. Spratt to the larger
Appropriations Committee under Chairman Obey and now to this moment on
the floor under Chairman Edwards' leadership, we were able to give the
biggest possible bipartisan vote to this increase. And it is paid for.
When Democrats took control of the House, we instituted pay-as-you-
go, no new deficit spending, no increase to the deficit. So that is why
this is especially, especially, important because this says that even
within the constraints, those budgetary constraints, veterans aren't
the priority. In our budget the two leading priorities were America's
children and America's veterans. In the appropriations process, we are
able to honor that blueprint set forth in the budget again without
adding to the deficit, without increasing the deficit. That makes it
harder, but that signaled in a very important way that when we talk
about our priorities and we say that veterans are in the forefront of
them, they are in the lead in terms of the values that we have, a
reflection of America's values that, even though there are difficult
budgetary constraints, veterans come first.
This is an issue in urban America. It is a big issue in rural
America. In rural America, 75 percent of the people know somebody
closely who is serving or has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
everybody in our country knows many people who have served in the
military. Four of my brothers served in the military.
We all have a dedication to our veterans. It is more than, though,
just talking about it. We had to act upon those words, act upon those
values. And I thank Chairman Chet Edwards for giving us that
opportunity today to reward our heroes with something that we are
giving to them. It is something that they deserve, have been deprived
of, but that has come to an end.
So I hope we have a unanimous vote on this to show the bipartisan
support for veterans that I know exists in our Congress. I am just
very, very proud that we were able to deliver on the promise once we
took the majority of the House.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much times remains.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
Mr. WICKER. Clearly we are nearing the end of this general debate,
and I would at this point yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would note, as I listened
to the Speaker speak in the well, is that when the Republicans
presented their budget proposal as an alternative, we spent $8 billion
more than the majority in the 10-year scope, actually in the 5-year
budget plan, $8 billion more. And we did it without increasing taxes.
So what everybody needs to understand here is, yes, we are increasing
money here to veterans, but these are also the very same veterans which
are about to be taxed.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just in closing, the Speaker of the House just said what a happy day
this is for her. It is a happy day for me and for Members on this side
of the aisle also, Mr. Chairman.
Why on a bipartisan issue do we have to sound so partisan sometimes
in supporting the bill?
The Speaker mentioned that veterans funding had been so neglected for
the past few years. I will again point out to Members of the House, Mr.
Chairman, that during the period of Republican majority, in working
with our friends across the aisle and funding VA, we increased funding
by 96 percent during that period, from $38.2 billion annually to $74.5
billion. And during the final decades of the Democratic majority, the
increase was only half that much.
The Speaker mentioned the concurrent receipt issue. Of course it was
during the speakership of Speaker Hastert that the House of
Representatives enacted concurrent receipt legislation. And as a matter
of fact, the previous speaker, Mr. Buyer, was the author and prime
mover behind that legislation, and he deserves credit.
The point is this is a bipartisan issue. There is bipartisan support.
I expect after discussion of a few amendments, Mr. Chairman, that we
will have a near unanimous vote in favor of this bill. I will certainly
be voting for it, as will the leadership of the Appropriations
Committee.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642, the
Fiscal Year 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act. This bill includes many provisions critical to
improving the quality of life for our fighting men and women as well as
providing long-awaited and substantial increases in funding for
veterans services. We continue our important commitment to veterans and
servicemembers in this bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Edwards and
Ranking Member Wicker for the work that they and their staff members
have done to include within this bill provisions important to the
people of Guam; to servicemembers who serve on Guam, and veterans
living on Guam. The work of committee leadership ensures that this
Congress will make a meaningful positive impact on our Armed Forces.
The appropriations bill continues Congress's strong support of the
military build-up on Guam. The strategic importance of Guam cannot be
understated. Guam allows the United States Armed Forces to maintain a
strong presence in the Pacific region. The bill goes a
[[Page H6531]]
long way to improving critical infrastructure on Guam that is necessary
for the build-up to be successful.
To that end, the bill fully funds $345 million in military
construction projects. The bill provides for full funding of several
key infrastructure projects for the Navy from improving electrical
system security to repairing and upgrading a wastewater treatment
plant. The bill also fully funds the critical Kilo Wharf upgrade
project. The $101 million project is strategically critical to United
States Naval forces as it is the only dedicated ammunition wharf in the
Western Pacific Region.
Important quality of life issues for servicemembers on Guam are also
included. The bill fully funds $45 million for upgrades to the Naval
Base Fitness Center. Funds for this project meet Chief of Naval Forces
Admiral Mike Mullen's commitment to improving the quality of life for
all Naval forces. It also fully funds $57 million in upgrades to
degraded housing on Naval Base Guam. The need for adequate housing
facilities is more prescient, as more and more Naval vessels use the
base as maintenance and supply center.
I also applaud the Committee's efforts in including report language
that directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to report on its plans
for activation of 29 previously funded Community-Based Outpatient
Clinics. Guam is one of the 29 clinics that is awaiting activation. I
am deeply concerned that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not
providing the veterans on Guam with the quality care that they deserve
for their sacrifices to our great nation. The report language answers
the concerns that I have expressed to the Department on multiple
occasions. I look forward to hearing the Department's plan for
activation of the clinic on Guam.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am so proud of what we are doing on
behalf of our veterans today and so I rise in strong support of the
Military Construction & Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill.
In addition to the increase in funding--the largest increase in the
entire 77-year history of the Veterans Administration--there are many
provisions here that will help the over 6,000 veterans of the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Just last week as I was traveling back to Washington, one veteran
complained that he was getting no response on his disability claim. I
have many other open cases in my office. This bill will reduce the
backlog and make good on the promise to take care of any injury related
to their military service.
There is a major increase in health care funding, and I will work to
ensure that some of it is sued to make health care more accessible to
Virgin Islands veterans. I also hope we can address the increased
reimbursement for travel to and from care. Our veterans have to travel
over water and by airplane to get VA provided care. The costs to them
and the family member who may have to accompany them is a great burden
they should not have to bear.
This bill has many other important provisions, but I only want to
highlight one other which is of great concern to me as a physician, and
that is the funding for programs to address Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder and the other mental health needs of returning men and women
of our Armed forces. This is a vital need.
We in the Virgin Islands were able to help our first responders after
9/11 and we want to do more to help our soldiers transition safely and
fully from the din and stress of war back to peacetime. This bill will
help us do that.
I want to commend our Speaker for her determination to lead this
House and to keep our promise to the men and women who have kept theirs
to us--our veterans. I also applaud Chairman Chet Edwards on
shepherding this landmark bill to final passage, and Chairmen David
Obey and John Spratt for setting the stage to make this victory for all
Americans possible.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, the annual spending bill for
military construction and veterans' programs.
Today, the House is considering a bill that would appropriate $109.2
billion, with $64.7 billion in discretionary spending for military
construction and veterans' programs, which is $4 billion more than the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request. The bill would provide
$43.2 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is
$6.7 billion above 2007 and $3.8 billion over the President's request
for veterans' medical care, claims processing personnel, and facility
improvements. This includes $28.9 billion in funding to improve access
to medical services for all veterans, which is $1.7 billion above the
President's request. This legislation also defeats the President's ill-
advised proposals to nearly double co-pays for prescription drugs for
veterans and to increase TRICARE premiums by over $1,000 a year for
military retirees.
The military health care system is understaffed and drowning in a
backlog of cases and unable to provide our veterans with the benefits
and resources they sacrificed a great deal to earn. In an effort to
reduce the 400,000 claim backlog, the bill also includes $1.6 billion
in funding to enable the VA to hire over 1100 more claims processors.
This legislation is the largest single increase in the 77-year history
of the VA and for the first time in 21 years that the House has
exceeded the request of the veterans' Independent Budget.
There are over 251,000 veterans living in Connecticut and I am
pleased the 110th Congress has made funding our Nation's military
health care system a top priority. Since the previous Congress
adjourned without passing a budget, the new Congress passed a
Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5) that provided $3.4
billion over the fiscal year 2006 funding level to fund the VA in
fiscal year 2007. In addition, the Supplemental Appropriations Act
(P.L. 110-28) added $1.8 billion directly targeted at the needs of
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the cost of war
is to care for our servicemen and women when they return home and
Congress has an obligation to ensure they receive appropriate care.
I applaud the leadership of Mr. Edwards, chairman of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, and Mr. Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee,
and the members of the committee for their efforts and continued
commitment to our Nation's veterans. Today's legislation takes us one
step further in providing our veterans with the best health care and
resources our country can provide and I encourage my colleagues to join
me in voting for it and the President in signing it into law.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill--engineered
by my colleague from Texas Mr. Edwards--which funds vital military
accounts and provides the largest increase in veterans funding in the
history of the VA.
While the central concern for South Texas is a veterans hospital--I
understand we must authorize that funding before we can appropriate it.
I have talked about this issue with appropriators and authorizers alike
. . . and those conversations will continue until we find a resolution
to help these veterans get the in patient care they deserve.
The Congress is committed to working in a bipartisan way to ensure
that our budget honors the service of our veterans and builds a future
worthy of their sacrifice. With passage of this bill, the 110th
Congress will have voted for historic increases in veterans' health
care and benefits programs, totaling nearly $12 billion--including the
joint resolution and the supplemental--to meet the needs of returning
veterans from Iraq and Afghanistanm . . . and make up for the Bush
Administration's past shortcomings in its treatment of veterans.
This bill will provide veterans with the health care and benefits we
promised them, resulting in the hiring of more qualified doctors and
nurses to improve medical services to our veterans and to reduce
waiting times for doctor appointments, and provide more to help
veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI), post traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), mental health care issues, and lost limbs so
that they can rebuild their lives.
For the first time, the budget for VA medical care exceeds the budget
of the veterans' service organizations by $294 million. This will
ensure quality health care for 5.8 million patients, including about
263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, which the VA will treat in FY
2008. This significantly reduces the 400,000 claims backlog for
veterans waiting for disability and other benefits by adding more than
1,100 new claims processors.
The bill also provides much needed maintenance of VA health care
facilities (funding level is $500 million above the President's
request) to prevent another Walter Reed-type scandal from occurring. A
recent VA report outlined 1,000 specific problems at VA health
facilities around the country, with a backlog of $5 billion in
maintenance.
The enormous number of troops returning home with mental health
disorders, including PTSD and traumatic brain injury, resulted in the
bill including five polytrauma centers and three Centers of Excellence
for Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). These
centers will be fully operational this year to care for those returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan, including those with TBI. A February GAG
report noted about one-third of veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan are facing mental health challenges, and up to 300,000
troops are expected to return from Iraq suffering from TBI.
The bill also protects taxpayers and veterans by including solid
steps to ensure accountability and stop wasteful spending by increasing
funding for the Inspector General for VA to improve services for
veterans and their families and to prevent and deter potential waste,
fraud and inefficiencies.
To strengthen our military, this bill provides better barracks,
housing and training facilities when troops return from combat with an
unprecedented $21.4 billion investment in military construction, family
housing, and BRAC--
[[Page H6532]]
with $207 million more than the President's request.
To address end strength, the bill provides funding recommended by my
subcommittee to begin the process of adding 65,000 Army, 27,000 Marine,
and 9,000 National Guard and Reserve troops.
For BRAC, the bill fully funds the 2005 base realignment and closure
process at $8.2 billion, and supports the relocation of 70,000 troops
from bases in Korea and Europe.
All this represents the start we need to pay for a healthy and vital
military force to protect our nation today, tomorrow and for the coming
decades.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2642, the
Fiscal Year 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act.
I am honored to stand here today as a freshman member of this
Democratic Congress as we approve ``the largest'' funding increase in
the 77-year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
It is my hope that providing $6.7 billion above last year's funding
will only be the beginning of our commitment to the promises made to
our service men and women.
All of us were outraged by the reports of what happened at Walter
Reed. Part of the problem is for years the VA has been shortchanged on
funding, due to understating its budgeting needs instead of proactively
planning for the needs of our veterans.
This underfunding has resulted in budget shortfalls, understaffing of
vets centers, a huge claims backlog, and inexcusable delays at VA
facilities.
This bill represents a change in priorities.
It funds an additional 1,100 claims' processors to address the
600,000 backlog.
It provides $4.4 billion above 2007 levels for the Veterans Health
Administration. This will help the VA treat the more than 5.8 million
patients they expect in 2008.
Additionally, the bill increases funding for the VA's repair and
maintenance accounts to prevent a VA medical facility from falling into
unacceptable levels of disrepair.
I commend my colleagues on the VA Military Construction
Appropriations Subcommittee for bringing to the floor a bill that
exceeds the recommendations of the veterans' service organizations of
the Independent Budget.
We've seen a change in priorities and I am going to continue to
support this momentum until all veterans who want access to healthcare
in the VA system, have it. I urge all my colleagues to pass this bill
that funds critical benefits for our veterans.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I am proud today to stand with this
Congress as it affirms its commitment to the brave men and women who
are part of our active and retired military services. Their collective
sacrifice and service has been phenomenal, and we must do all we can to
ensure that they receive the medical care that they have earned as a
result of the sacrifices they have made in service to America. The bill
before us provides an historic, substantial boost to the Veterans'
Administration, allocating $43.2 billion--$3.8 billion more than the
President's request and $6.7 more than the FY 07 allocation--to
properly fulfill America's obligation to our servicemen and women and
their families.
As a representative of the State with the second highest population
of military retirees and veterans--nearly 2 million people--I know many
Florida families stand to benefit greatly. The extra funding for the VA
to double its benefits personnel in order to reduce the backlog of more
than 400,000 benefit claims will do much to improve health care and
efficiency for benefits that are due to many Florida families. The top
two busiest VA Health Care centers, Bay Pines in St. Petersburg and
Haley VA in Tampa, serve residents in my district. I have walked the
halls of both facilities, and encountered active and retired military
personnel looking for the best care possible for them and their
families. This bill provides resources adequate to the enormously
important task of supporting our veterans and their families as they
transition back into civilian life. It also expands access to vital
services in the areas of greatest concern for veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan: traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder,
treatment for burns, and amputation. Haley VA has the distinction of
being one of a handful of poly-trauma centers, with special designation
to handle traumatic brain injuries, and with its partner, the
University Of South Florida College Of Public Health, has been on the
forefront of discovering the best roads to effective treatment for
those suffering with TBI.
Also, this bill represents the recognition that we must confront, not
shy away from, the serious issues in veterans care brought to light by
the Walter Reed scandal. $4.1 billion dollars, $508 million above and
beyond the President's request, is set aside for the ongoing
maintenance and renovation of existing facilities to make certain they
remain capable of delivering our veterans the treatment they deserve
and need. It also heavily invests in information technology to better
track health records, so that no American is allowed to fall through
the cracks.
I urge this Congress to back up the talk about supporting our troops
with concrete actions. We have an unwavering obligation as a country to
do right by our servicemen and women, whether it be in the solemn
purpose with which we must always send them off to war, or in providing
the necessary care for them and their families upon their return. Their
sacrifice must be respected not just with our words, but with our
actions.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Bill for FY 08. My amendment would devote $2 million
dollars from the Department Administration General Operations Expenses
Account, of the nearly $1.6 billion appropriated in this bill, to the
Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. The intent of my amendment is
that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans would establish a
commission to evaluate and make recommendations for improvements to the
VA system so that it can better meet health care needs of women
veterans.
In 1978, I purchased a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado
to enroll at the Air Force Academy. I was in the third class that
accepted women into our service academies. I am the only woman veteran
serving in the Congress. Women face different obstacles than men when
trying to receive care from the VA. To start with, many women who have
served in the military don't call themselves ``veterans'' and many
women don't think of the VA as ``their'' system.
A larger number of women are serving in military and in the future we
will see a higher number of women veterans. One in seven Americans
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman.
My goal in proposing this amendment is to bring together a group of
people who can truly devote the time and effort to study the needs and
examine the challenges our women veterans face. They then can report to
Congress their finding and recommendations so that we, as a body, can
evaluate these findings and implement improvements and initiatives to
ensure women receive the care they have earned.
I introduced legislation similar to my amendment, H.R. 2394, the
Bipartisan Commission on Wounded Women Veterans. This amendment would
fund the commission envisioned in H.R. 2394.
I am grateful to all who serve their nation and we as a Congress have
a responsibility to ensure they receive the best possible care. In this
war on terrorism, the greatest burdens have fallen on the shoulders of
a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take
great risks on our behalf. Events over the last few years have made a
new generation of Americans realize just how precious our freedoms
really are. We owe our freedom fighters--past, present, and future--a
debt of gratitude for their selflessness and sacrifice. I will continue
to fight to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they were
promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our
Nation owes them.
Thank you for the time and I ask for a yes vote on my amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this
important measure which reflects--in dollars and cents--just a small
measure of our appreciation for all that men and women in uniform do in
defense of our Nation.
We have an obligation to provide the housing and other facilities in
which our military members and their families live and work. This
measure includes the funds required to fully fund the President's
budget request for military construction projects. The bill provides
$8.2 billion dollars to implement the 2005 BRAC recommendations and
$2.9 billion to replace, rehabilitate, and build housing for troops and
their families.
As the representative of Fort Bliss, Texas I have seen the fruits of
military construction spending, and I can assure my colleagues that
these funds are being wisely used by the Army and the other military
services to greatly improve the quality of life for our military
members and their families. From a motorpool that allows a young
technician to repair vehicles out of the heat and rain to a childcare
center where the children of deployed service members can learn and
grow, these facilities are more than bricks and mortar. They are an
integral part of every soldier's daily life.
This bill provides an unprecedented level of funding for veterans
health care which will allow us to begin to address the needs of
current veterans who have for years been woefully under-served by the
Veterans Administration, VA system. H.R. 2642 will also provide needed
funding for men and women returning from combat in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
This measure continues our efforts to improve benefits for our
Nation's veterans and provides $43.2 billion for veterans programs--
[[Page H6533]]
$6.7 billion more than was allocated last year and $3.8 billion more
than the White House requested for VA programs. This additional funding
will meet shortfalls in the Veterans Health Administration budget and
provide needed funds to better address Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,
mental health and substance abuse, homeless veterans, and prosthetic
research.
These programs and other initiatives funded in the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act are critical to
our troops and their families and to our veterans who sacrificed so
much in defense of our Nation and our American values. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, as has been widely reported, the Department
of Veterans Affairs continues to face challenges in improving service
delivery to veterans and reducing the existing backlog of benefit
claims.
While the VA made progress in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 reducing the
size and age of its pending claims inventory, it has regrettably fallen
behind in recent years. The VA's inventory of pending claims and their
average time pending has increased significantly in the last 3 years
and the Department is currently facing over 630,000 open benefit
claims.
The VA reduced the average age of its pending claims from 182 days at
the end of fiscal year 2001 to 111 days at the end of fiscal year 2003.
However, by the end of fiscal year 2006, average days pending had
increased to 127 days and is currently reported to be 177 days.
It should be noted that continued increases in the number and
complexity of claims being filed have played a contributing role in the
current backlog. In its fiscal year 2008 budget justification, the VA
identified an increase in claims processing staff as essential to
reducing the pending claims inventory and improving timeliness.
However, the VA states that the budget request only provides resources
to reduce the processing time to 145 days. Furthermore, even as
increased funding is appropriated and staffing levels increase, the VA
acknowledges that it still must take other actions to improve
productivity.
Representatives from the VA have stated that there is a newly
implemented strategy to manage the pending inventory and improve
response time by getting more out of current resources, increasing
staffing, and improving information technology. Given the current
claims crisis, I believe that we need to know more about this strategy.
My amendment will require the VA to provide a report to Congress on
the status of the number of pending disability benefit claims and the
actions taken to reduce processing time for veterans' disability
claims. As the House considers FY 2008 funding for the VA, I believe
the Congress, the American people, and more importantly, our Nation's
veterans are entitled to know how current and future resources will be
implemented to address these concerns. This is the least we can do.
I understand that this amendment will be subject to a point of order
and I will therefore not offer it. However, the current claims backlog
is an issue of importance for our Nation's veterans. It is my hope that
this Congress will address this issue in the near future.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of funding for our soldiers, veterans, and military families. Military
service is part of the proud history of the Second Congressional
District of Kentucky. The provisions included in this bill will
significantly benefit many of those I am honored to represent.
The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of
2008 contains the largest ever increase in Veterans Health funding:
including $29 billion for new and modified medical services.
If passed, these funds will initiate the opening of two new Community
Based Outpatient Clinics in my District, as designated by Secretary
Nicholson. These facilities, and dozens of others across the country,
will help to ensure that veterans have the highest quality local care
possible.
The Second Congressional District is also home to Fort Knox. As a
result of the 2005 BRAC proceedings, Fort Knox is transforming over the
next few years from an institutional training installation to a multi-
functional installation that will include an active force infantry
brigade and the site for the Human Resources Command for the Army.
This bill includes $8.2 billion to support necessary infrastructure
preparations at Fort Knox and other BRAC-affected installations working
to accommodate new military operations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support timely funding for our
nation's veterans and military installations by voting to approve this
bill.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the fiscal year 2008 military construction and veterans affairs
appropriations bill which includes $27.8 million dollars to construct a
veterans' cemetery in my District.
The funding was part of the President's budget and will allow us to
honor our commitment to provide nearly 400,000 veterans living within
75 miles of Sarasota, Florida with a final resting place that honors
their military service.
The VA has purchased 245 acres of land in Sarasota County and
construction is planned for May 2008. The first burials are anticipated
in October of 2008.
With more than 1,800 veterans dying every day in this country, the
timely completion of this project is a primary concern for area
veterans and is one of my highest priorities.
This funding will help ensure that our goals are met and the veterans
who proudly served this Nation and eligible family members can be
placed to rest close to home and with the honor and dignity they
deserve.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642, the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2008. This measure shows what a high priority our Nation
places on providing for our servicemembers, their families and our
veterans.
The new Democratic leadership in Congress has faced many challenges
in recent months regarding the treatment of servicemembers and
veterans. Earlier this year, we learned about horrific conditions at
the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including overused outpatient
housing in disrepair, patients confused about where to go after serious
operations, and the tangled bureaucracy confronting servicemembers and
their families. It was clear that administrative policies needed to be
revised, not only at Walter Reed, but across the system at locations
both here and abroad.
It was also clear that increasing the funding level for military
health care was a priority. As a result, Congress passed a supplemental
spending bill that contained an additional $1.8 billion for veterans'
health care, and today we will pass a bill that is $6.7 billion above
fiscal year 2007 funds and $3.8 billion over President Bush's request.
The total amount in this bill is even more than what is requested in
the Independent Budget, a needs estimate published by four veterans'
service groups. If passed, H.R. 2642 will mark the largest annual
increase to VA health care funding in over 75 years.
Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that servicemembers wounded in Iraq and
Afghanistan have the services they require and as well anticipate the
increasing number of returning veterans who have earned their promised
benefits. To that end, H.R. 2642 provides $43.2 billion for veterans
medical care to alleviate the backlogged claims processing system and
fund improvements for VA facilities. I am also pleased that this
measure allots $600 million for new initiatives for improving mental
health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) centers, $1.9 billion
to improve the electronic health records system, and $130 million to
assist homeless veterans.
After a recent visit to the Providence VA Medical Center, I was
impressed with the treatment of veterans, as well as the ongoing
innovative research at the facility. I am also optimistic that upcoming
construction projects will improve the facility, especially knowing
that the VA will play a larger role in the coming years as more
servicemembers return from ongoing conflicts. Today's bill provides
$4.1 billion for ongoing maintenance and renovations of existing
facilities, which will help Providence attain its goals. I am also
pleased that $15 million is allocated for the Health Care Sharing
Incentive Fund, which allows the Department of Defense and VA to
increase research, improve access to care, and ensure a seamless
transition for our veterans.
H.R. 2642 also includes $21.4 billion for military construction. This
amount is $5.1 billion above the amount for fiscal year 2007, and will
fully fund Base Realignment and Closure. This funding will also help
improve training and quality of life facilities for active duty troops
and members of the National Guard and Reserves, all of whom are playing
critical roles in ongoing conflicts and need our support now more than
ever. Finally, this measure includes $2.8 billion to help increase the
size of the Army, Marine Corps, the National Guard and Reserves over
the next five years.
Mr. Chairman, we must maintain strong support for our men and women
in uniform and all those who have bravely served our nation, and H.R.
2642 will do just that. May we all keep those currently serving abroad
in our thoughts and wish them a safe return home.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
No amendment to the bill may be offered except those specified in the
previous order of the House of today, which is at the desk.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2642
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in
[[Page H6534]]
Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Construction, Army
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, $4,070,959,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2012: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $481,468,000 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.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
(including rescission 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,
$2,125,138,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $110,167,000
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, $5,862,000
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, $927,428,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2012: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $51,587,000 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, $5,319,000 are hereby rescinded.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will not use all 5 minutes.
And I think, as my colleagues have noticed, my comments have been
very bipartisan today. I am proud that the bill that we put together
was supported on a unanimous bipartisan basis in the committee. I am
also proud as a Democrat that the new Democratic leadership, led by
Speaker Pelosi, has made funding for veterans health care and benefits
a top priority in this Congress.
I would just point out, in response to some of the comments made,
that the first comments made referencing Republicans or Democrats were
made by the minority in today's debate when the comment was made that
Republicans have primarily supported veterans. And in comparisons of
past increases between Republican and Democratic Congresses, I am not
going to get into all that.
I would like to point out for the record that under the previous
leadership of the Congress, the concurrent receipt problem wasn't even
brought to the floor of the House until, led by Democrats, we almost
had 218 signatures on a discharge position to override the previous
Speaker of the House, who had not let the concurrent receipt bill get
to the floor of the House.
But having said that fact, I am here to say we are proud to work with
Mr. Wicker and work with our colleagues to see that we do have a
historic increase in veterans health care spending in this bill,
unprecedented in the history of the VA and in the history of our
Nation. I am glad to see that the administration has reversed its
threat to veto this bill because they were concerned it might spend too
much on veterans and our military families. I am glad they recognize
the error of their ways, and I commend them for pulling off of that
veto threat.
So I just would reiterate what I again today have been saying, and
that is I am proud to have worked on a bipartisan basis with my
colleague Mr. Wicker and members of our subcommittee and others in this
House to see that we got this historic bill on the floor.
{time} 1300
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer and rescission 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, $1,806,928,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2012: 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 $154,728,000 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 110-5, $7,592,000 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,
$439,291,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.
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,
$95,517,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.
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, $154,684,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2012.
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, $69,150,000, to remain available until September 30,
2012.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
(including rescission of funds)
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, $39,628,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2012: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, Air Force
Reserve'' under Public Law 109-114, $3,069,000 are hereby
rescinded.
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, $201,400,000, to remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayes
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H6535]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes:
Page 7, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 10, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HAYES. I want to thank Chairman Edwards and the ranking member,
my friend, Mr. Wicker, for allowing me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I bring an amendment to the floor today because I feel
the Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, implementation process needs
more funding than is being provided.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution did not
adequately meet the needs of BRAC implementation. Though we came back
and put a $3.1 billion allocation for BRAC in the supplemental and we
funded the President's fiscal year 2008 request in the bill, I do not
believe we are doing all we should do in terms of funding this
priority.
I realize the President's budget and supplemental request were based
on the best estimates at the time, but there is no doubt that these
figures were low. The Department of Defense currently estimates it will
take $30.8 billion from 2006 to 2011 to complete the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure round.
As the chairman and the ranking member pointed out in this bill, the
current BRAC estimate is $8 billion higher than that given by DOD only
a year ago. I share the concern of the committee that even with this
large increase, the projected funding estimate does not fully take into
account construction and inflation costs and is lower than what will be
actually required.
My home district, Fort Bragg, the epicenter of the universe, is
facing these miscalculations today. As part of the BRAC 2005 plan for
Fort Bragg, it was named the Joint Mobilization Center; however, no
funding to house servicemembers going through the process of
mobilization was involved.
The garrison is currently housing these mainly National Guard and
Reserve members in the 82nd Airborne barracks, while the 82nd is
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. When the 82nd returns, Fort Bragg
will be forced to house those going through the Joint Mobilization
Center in World War II-era barracks which are completely inadequate.
As part of the BRAC 2005 recommendations, Pope Air Force Base will be
realigned to become part of Fort Bragg. This means that Bragg will take
over the airfield at Pope, but there is no money currently programmed
for the new control tower or the fire and rescue station that will be
necessary to support carrying out this realignment. Fort Bragg and Pope
are but one example of this trend. No doubt these kinds of BRAC-
related, unplanned expenses for military construction needs are
prevalent at installations across the country.
The BRAC process was designed to increase the efficiency and increase
the effectiveness of combat capability of our forces. Underfunding,
even slightly, will affect our Nation's combat capability first. In the
midst of this global war on terror, we need to be very careful not to
underfund our combat capability, either indirectly or inadvertently.
Although I greatly respect and appreciate the chairman and ranking
member's funding of the Base Realignment and Closure program, I
strongly believe that this crucial national security area needs more
focus. We need to search for ways to implement it.
To this end, my amendment reprograms $30 million from NATO Security
Investment to the Department of Defense. As you know, the NSIP is
designed to be our contribution to construction of support facilities
at NATO bases. While this is important, NATO is forward deployed, and
it does not always provide us with a swift return on our investments in
terms of combat capability.
In the past, NATO fought primarily from fixed bases in forward areas,
but now it will operate from deployed locations. Infrastructure
provided in NSIP, while important in previous NATO strategy, is
somewhat less now. Conversely, BRAC and global rebasing moves direct
American forces from Europe to home stations here in the U.S. Security
requirements in Europe are decreasing while security requirements in
the U.S., as well as readiness requirements at home stations, are going
up as new units are reformed here at home.
The money could be better spent in the BRAC program with a focus on
improving our quick reaction and Special Operations Forces. It will
increase our Nation's combat power, fighting the continued war against
terrorists, and it will improve the combat power of NATO.
I urge you to vote in favor of my amendment and join me in support of
Base Realignment and Closure implementation.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me just say that I have great respect for Mr.
Hayes's support of the military. He and I have worked together over the
years in support of our veterans and our troops; his record is clear on
that. I sympathize with his interest and support his interest in seeing
that we fully fund BRAC. I have been one of those, along with Mrs.
Boyda and others on your side of the aisle, that have worked hard to
try to fully fund BRAC.
The opposition I have to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is not in the
good-faith effort to increase funding for BRAC, even though we fully
fund it by $8.2 billion. My opposition to this amendment comes from the
fact that the gentleman would cut by 15 percent President Bush's
request for the NATO Security Investment program. Now, maybe a lot of
Americans aren't familiar with that program, but that program has
provided infrastructure investment in Iraq to support U.S. forces in
our fight in Iraq. The NATO Investment program has provided funding for
our troops in Afghanistan. We are working with NATO forces to defend
our national security interests in Afghanistan.
The cut of $30 million proposed by the gentleman, I think, would
unintentionally do great harm to the interests of our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan and throughout the world where we are working with NATO
forces.
Let me give you some specifics of how this money is used. In the
past, we have used $9 million for the restoration of water distribution
system at the Royal Air Forces base in Lakenheath in the United
Kingdom. We have three Air Force F-15 squadrons there. We have used
this fund to provide $25 million for a medical treatment facility at
Aviano Air Base in Italy. At Aviano, we have two U.S. Air Force F-16
squadron stations. And again, as I mentioned, we've used this money to
support needed NATO infrastructure that helps U.S. forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
So I would like to offer to the gentleman a good-faith effort, as we
move to conference committee, to work with Mr. Wicker and work on a
bipartisan basis to see if we can find additional funding for BRAC. I
want additional funding for BRAC, but let's not undermine President
Bush's commitments to NATO, our Nation's commitments to NATO, and
unintentionally undermine important infrastructure programs that do
support our troops that are risking their lives in Afghanistan and
Iraq, even as we speak today.
Mr. WICKER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for
yielding.
I would simply join my chairman in his offer to continue working with
Mr. Hayes with regard to this effort. Certainly, no one has been a
stronger advocate for the men and women at Fort Bragg, and also Pope
Air Force Base and the families in that surrounding area, than has
Robin Hayes of North Carolina.
I appreciate the sense of the amendment. I suspect that it will not
pass
[[Page H6536]]
today, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to work with Chairman Edwards to see
if we can accommodate the gentleman from North Carolina's needs as we
move forward in the process.
Mr. EDWARDS. I would absolutely look forward to working and looking
through every nook and cranny in the budget to see if we can squeeze
out additional funding for BRAC. I agree with the gentleman from North
Carolina that the Department of Defense has underestimated the full
cost of BRAC, and we need to watch that very carefully as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HAYES. I thank very much the chairman. People who know Chet
Edwards and Robin Hayes clearly understand our love for the military.
And I appreciate Ranking Member Wicker's comments. When all is said and
done, they have tough decisions to make, but there is no place like
home. Home is Fort Bragg, and I hope that the Members will support my
amendment.
Again, I thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wicker, and I look
forward to working with them however this comes out, because this
process is not going to end this morning or tomorrow. And again, I
thank you for the time and look forward to working with you. I hope the
membership will support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do look forward to working with Mr.
Hayes to see if we can find additional funding for BRAC.
I will just finish by saying that right now home for many American
forces is Iraq, it's Afghanistan, it's with NATO forces throughout the
world defending our families and our homes. That is why I simply must
oppose this, reluctantly, but strongly oppose this amendment because of
the source of the funding. If we can find a better source of the
funding, I would be glad to support the gentleman.
But I must oppose the amendment because it would undermine our
commitment to NATO and vital infrastructure programs and investments
that are so very important to our servicemen and -women serving in
Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HAYES. 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 North Carolina will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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,
$419,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.
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, $742,920,000.
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, $298,329,000, to remain available until September 30,
2012.
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, $371,404,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$362,747,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.
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, $688,335,000.
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, $48,848,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $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, $86,176,000, to remain available until September 30,
2012: 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.
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), $270,689,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Page 10, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 10, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $201,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first, let me begin by expressing my deep appreciation
to the subcommittee for their work in providing an increase over the
President's request for funding base cleanup. And particularly what
we're talking about here are the legacy locations, places that have
been closed in previous BRAC cycles, 1995, 1993, 1991, 1988. However,
as we consider this appropriations act, I am concerned that we continue
to dramatically underfund our commitment to communities impacted by
these past BRAC rounds.
{time} 1315
These communities are ones that have been penalized twice. They are
penalized when the base is closed, and second, they are penalized
because they are unable to make use of the land left behind because of
hazardous contamination caused by unexploded ordnance.
According to the most recent Defense Environmental Programs' annual
report, there is an estimated $3.5 billion backlog for environmental
cleanup of these bases. This represents over 140,000 acres of land that
remain unusable by local communities for economic development across
this country.
At the current levels, Mr. Chairman, we are facing people who went
through the trauma of base closure in 1988, for instance, in
Sacramento; they are going to wait over 60 years to be cleaned up.
I appreciate the words of the subcommittee Chair and ranking member
[[Page H6537]]
in terms of what they are trying to do with the difficult issues
regarding BRAC, and I appreciate there is a very generous number that
have been established, maybe not completely adequate, to try and deal
with the people who were just whacked in the last round of closure.
But, for heaven's sake, we need to keep our commitments to the
communities that have worked in good faith, that had their bases closed
5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago, and still are awaiting our meeting,
our commitment to them.
I strongly urge support of the amendment that I have introduced with
Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, while I cannot support this amendment, I
want to thank Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Farr for having led the fight in
Congress to bring to every Member's attention the terribly important
need to better fund the cleanup of past military sites that have been
closed as a result of base realignment and closing process.
There is a $3.5 billion backlog for the BRAC 1990 round 17 years ago.
For those communities that have been a partner in defending our Nation,
we owe it to them morally to see that we provide the adequate funds to
allow those sites to be cleaned up so they can be utilized in a
productive manner on behalf of their communities.
The reason I can't support the amendment and will oppose it is
because of the outlay technicalities, the gentleman actually has to cut
$200 million from the BRAC 2005 account in order to fund additional $50
million for the BRAC 1990 account. So that outlay problem could create
great problems by cutting funding for BRAC 2005 in order to help the
cleanup of BRAC 1990. We could inadvertently make it more difficult to
have barracks ready for troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan to
their homes here in the United States. It might be more difficult to
have military training facilities, necessary at new Army bases, built.
So, I oppose this.
But even as I oppose this amendment, I want to thank the gentleman.
He has done every community in this country a service, along with Mr.
Farr. Every community that has continued waiting 17 years after the
1990 BRAC round has suffered from the fact that the Congress and the
administrations have not adequately funded this. It is time we work
with the administration and ask them to increase that funding.
Because of the Members' strong support, Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Farr,
we have provided $271 million for the 1990 BRAC round, and that is an
increase of $50 million, or a 23 percent increase over the
administration's budget request, recognizing that budget request, in my
personal opinion, was inadequate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to
first of all compliment the chairman for adding an additional $50
million.
What every Member of Congress ought to worry about is that we have so
many bases that have been closed in the United States that have not
been able to finish their cleanup. That means that they can't do
economic development. They just sit there with fences around them
because they have unexploded ordnances. It is what they call ``warm
basing'' a property. Mayor and city councils and local government folks
are furious about this.
There is a $3.5 billion cleanup necessary. What Mr. Blumenauer is
saying is, let's just put $50 million more towards that. That will go a
long way toward getting those high-priority communities cleaned up.
Frankly, there is no movement that can be taken until this is done,
because the only government that can clean up unexploded ordnances is
the Federal Government. You can't delegate it out. It can't be a State
or local issue.
If you want to do economic development in your States and home
communities which have been affected by these numerous base closings
over the years, for those of you that have base closures, just the
recent base closure, there is a separate account. But the reason we
have to put more money into this is, there are only two ways of getting
money into there, either from sales of property or from direct
appropriations. The sales of property haven't filled up this account.
So the only way, if we are going to address the unexploded ordnance
cleanup, to amend the bill is to add an additional $50 million. It is
urgent for economic development at the local level. It is good
government.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. May I inquire as to how much time remains.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon has an additional 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Crenshaw), a leader on our Appropriations Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise very briefly in opposition. I share the
same concern that we all share about these unexploded ordnance sites.
The safety of our citizens is important, and I think our subcommittee
has recognized that by stating very clearly in very strong language
that the Department of Defense should make this a priority, that we
should get rid of this unacceptable backlog.
But I don't think we can take money out of the 2005 round of BRAC to
solve the problem. That would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The
2005 round of BRAC has been put together. There is already some concern
that it may not be fully funded, so if we take one penny out of that
pot of money and spend it somewhere else, we could upset a very
delicate balance.
We have to remember we have made a commitment to our men and women in
uniform. For instance, I know in my community, they are building a $129
million hangar to house all the P-3s that will come down from Maine. If
there is not enough money to do that, what happens to those planes?
They are stranded. What happens to the sailors that are coming? They
are stranded.
So while I share everyone's concern in dealing with this backlog, I
think it is inappropriate and I think it is wrong to take money which
would upset that kind of balance. We have to remember not only do we
care about our communities, but we care about our commitment to our men
and women in uniform.
Therefore, I would rise in opposition and urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what my friend from
Florida said, and I have no interest in robbing Peter to pay Paul. But
let's take it down to a very specific example that you are familiar
with in Jacksonville. You had a base closed, Cecil Naval Air Station,
in a prior round. Under the current schedule, this facility is not
scheduled to be cleaned up until 2026, another 19 years.
Now, you are right, we have put a significant amount of money into
the 2005 round of BRAC closures. We put $5 billion in the supplemental.
And you have put in this bill which I appreciate, almost $8.2 billion.
But where I take modest exception with the gentleman is that you can't
spend it. The payout rate is about 10 percent. I am seeking to transfer
2 percent away from areas that you can't spend this year or next year
or the year after that.
But I will distribute a list of people who have been waiting in some
cases since 1988. They have plans ready to go. They are ready to clean
up. If you talk to the companies that are the ordnance contractors,
they are ready to go. They will clean this up. But we have got to stop
the fits and the starts, where we don't follow through on our
commitments.
With all due respect, if I had a facility in the 2005 BRAC cycle, I
would like this Congress to start meeting its commitments from 1988 and
1990 and 1992 and 1995, because if we don't, subsequent Congresses are
going to play the
[[Page H6538]]
same game. Because you can't spend this $13 billion, it will be dragged
on and dragged out, and it will ultimately be diverted. Then we will be
here, or some of you will be here, 10 years from now, and people will
be wondering why the 2005 round of BRAC is waiting, like Mather Air
Force Base, for 60 years, or why people in El Toro are waiting for 30
years.
With all due respect, I would hope that the subcommittee would build
on its good work, but look at the payout rate for the $13 billion you
have for 2005, which we estimate maybe will be spent, 10 percent.
Join with me in shifting a modest 2 percent of that money, so that we
can keep our commitments to people who have been waiting since 1988,
since 1990, 1993 and 1995.
I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, and I
appreciate Mr. Edwards, you have been encouraging and helping the work
that I have done in the past on this with Mr. Farr. And it is important
that you put $50 million in above the administrations request but I
hope we can work to keep the commitment to the people.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
At this point, the gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to just reiterate on what Mr.
Blumenauer indicated. This isn't a ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' case. But
if you are from the Jefferson Proving Ground, you have been waiting a
long time. If you are from Fort Ord, California, where I am from and
why I am really interested in this, we closed in the 1992 round, and we
are doing massive economic development, and it is foreclosed if you
can't get into cleaning up the unexploded ordnance. Fort Meade, Fort
McClellan, Savannah Army Depot, the list goes on and on. These are the
kinds of projects that are out there, ready to go. Just take the
projects off the shelf, fund them and get it done.
I am on this committee and I am very sympathetic. I am very
appreciative of what the chairman has done, increasing the account by
$50 million. We are going to have an amendment in a minute to cut it,
which would be the worst thing we could ever do for all these reasons.
Mr. Blumenauer is trying to increase it by $50 million so we could
actually have enough money to get some of these projects started. I
think it is good government. It is promises made, promises kept, and
that is what we ought to do.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I think I have 1\1/2\ minutes left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my Republican cosponsor is stuck in
traffic, and I wanted Ginny to have a chance to speak on this.
Evidently, she is not going to make it.
Mr. Chairman, I do think this is very important in terms of our
keeping our commitments. I appreciate the work that the subcommittee is
doing in this broad range of areas, but I would hope that you would
work with us, because you cannot spend the $13.5 billion. The adoption
of this amendment will have no effect on BRAC cleanup for the 2005
round for years to come, if at all.
But failure, failure for Congress to keep our commitments to these
legacy BRAC programs, not only does it penalize these people who have
been waiting in line for, in some cases, 19 years, but it makes it more
likely, frankly, that people who are in the 2005 cycle are going to end
up having Congress do to them what pass Congresses have done to the
legacy BRAC.
{time} 1330
I appreciate the work of the subcommittee, and I look forward to
working with you, and echo my friend from California that it would be
the worst of all possible worlds if somehow the next amendment, taking
money away from these critical bases, was somehow diverted for another
use. But I hope that we spare ourselves that problem by adopting the
amendment before us.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a Co-Chair of the
Unexploded Ordnances Caucus, I strongly support this amendment. Anyone
who lives on or near a site containing disposed munitions can attest
how unsettling this can be.
In Florida, thousands of my constituents have moved to an area on or
adjacent to an old military gunnery. Unfortunately, inspections have
found rockets, mortars, and grenades, putting people at substantial
risk. In fact, one piece of live ordnance was found less than six
inches beneath a child's backyard trampoline.
This is not a problem confined to a few areas--this is a nationwide
issue. Across the country, from Representative Earl Blumenauer's
district in Oregon, to Brooksville, Florida, many sites face a similar
dilemma. Some people are literally sitting on ticking time bombs.
Congress has an opportunity to prevent the worst from happening.
Jurisdiction over cleanup at these older sites falls under two major
accounts--the Formerly Used Defense Sites account within the Defense
Appropriations bill, and the BRAC 1990 account within this legislation.
Our amendment would redirect funds from the BRAC 2005 account, which is
set to see a large increase over its previous year funding, to cleanup
efforts at these older sites, where people are increasingly taking up
residence.
Listen up America! The Federal Government has an obligation to clean
up its mess. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this commonsense amendment and put public safety first.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 10, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 6, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $22,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the opportunity to
present this amendment.
This amendment is very simple. It transfers $50 million from the 1990
BRAC account and puts $22 million into the Veterans Health
Administration and Medical Services account. The proposal for the 1990
BRAC account is $50 million above the Department of Defense request. As
has been talked about with the previous amendment, it is nigh
impossible to be spending more than the request.
The money that is in the request is used for environmental cleanup
associated with previous BRAC-based closings, and my amendment would
make the 1990 BRAC account reflect the Defense Department request and
place $22 million of these funds in health care for our veterans. The
amendment as scored by CBO is outlay neutral which is the reason for
the difference in the figures.
While cleaning up after base closings is indeed important, the
unrequested money, as has been mentioned, would be very difficult to
spend and would be better spent, I believe, by providing better health
care for our returning service men and women.
The conflict we are in has left many soldiers with lifelong injuries,
and veterans are acquiring lasting health care. As a physician, I am
well aware of the fact that traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder are the signature conditions from our current conflict.
As we are learning more about traumatic brain injury and PTSD, we find
that more and more of our soldiers are suffering from these injuries.
I believe it is imperative that we ensure that as much funding as
possible
[[Page H6539]]
is available to go for important veterans health care. I believe this
amendment to be a fiscally responsible amendment that ensures that our
veterans are taken care of in the finest possible manner. I urge
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the fact that under the new leadership in
the Congress, in a period of 6 months, we will have increased veterans
health care spending by over $10 billion compared to the funding level
that existed in December of 2006.
Virtually every major veterans organization in America has applauded
this bill for its $6 billion increase in veterans health care spending.
I salute any Member of this House who has worked or is working or
will work to improve funding for veterans health care, but I must say
to the gentleman, and perhaps in fairness to him he spoke to other
Members of the House, but when I was working as chairman on the
Subcommittee on Veterans Funding for a $3.4 billion increase in VA
health care spending for the 2007 continuing resolution, I didn't hear
from the gentleman.
When as chairman I worked to add $1.8 billion in the Iraq war
supplemental for VA health care programs, I didn't hear from the
gentleman.
When Mr. Wicker and I worked together on a bipartisan basis to put
together the largest increase in VA health care spending in the 77-year
history of the VA, I didn't hear from the gentleman any requests for an
additional $22 million for VA medical services.
Here at the relatively last moment we get this amendment. While it is
well intentioned and I salute and respect the gentleman for trying to
increase funding for VA health care, we have been working for 6 months
to provide more health care funding for the VA than any previous
Congress in the history of the country. And with Mr. Wicker's
bipartisan leadership, we have accomplished that so far.
The problem I have with this amendment is that it takes $50 million
out of the BRAC 1990 account. Now, in this bill we provide $3.8 billion
above the President's request for VA health care and benefits programs
and only $207 million above the President's request for BRAC and
military construction together.
I think it is very modest to ask for, given there is a $3.5 billion
backlog to clean up former military sites all across America, in States
such as California, Texas. And in a number of other States, Alabama,
Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, this BRAC 1990 money is needed to help these communities get
back on their feet and take this former military land and use it for
the benefit of their communities and for economic growth in their
communities.
So given we have had a $3.8 billion increase in veterans health care
spending above the President's request in this bill, I think it is more
than fair that we add an additional $50 million to a BRAC 1990 program
that needs $3.5 billion.
So I am going to oppose the gentleman's amendment and encourage him
to work with our committee on a bipartisan basis in the months ahead,
just as the Members of the committee worked on a bipartisan basis to
provide historic increases in veterans health care funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy,
and I am really bitterly disappointed that we would have somebody come
before us to break the commitment that we have to the previous BRAC-
round cleanups, communities across the country who are going to wait up
to 60 years to have their bases cleaned up, to take that funding and
further reduce it. I think this is a very cruel cut.
If you wanted to do something, you've got $13 billion in the 2005
BRAC account that is only going to be spent a maximum of 10 percent.
Why in heaven's name would we reach back and penalize people who have
been waiting in some cases since 1988 to have the Federal Government
keep its commitment to base closure and cleanup. I think this is cruel.
I think it is unjustified. I think that it is unfair to make these
communities that have dealt with unexploded ordnances and military
toxins and have land that is not available for reuse and penalize them
for a small amount of veterans health.
I respectfully request that we reject this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's
comments, and I applaud the work he has done to increase funding for
veterans health care, sincerely. I don't recall, specifically, requests
to the committee; but I am certainly on record in multiple areas across
this Congress in urging increased funding for health care. As a
physician, I appreciate the need for increased funding for health care
across all areas of our budget.
My understanding regarding this provision in the bill is that the $50
million increase over the DOD request is, as I understood it, money
that would not be able to be spent in fiscal year 2008. Consequently,
that was the reason we requested or proposed in this amendment that the
money come from that. So removing $50 million from there, based on
outlays by CBO, would stipulate that $22 million was available; and it
is my respected request to my colleagues that we place that money for
veterans health care for the obvious benefits to all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to the gentleman
from Georgia about his amendment.
First of all, I think it is an ill-conceived amendment, and here's
why.
In order to build veterans facilities on former military property,
you have to have that property cleaned and cleared and transferred. I
happen to represent a base where we have that problem. We have to clear
the area. So if you want to provide health care for your communities,
you have to do this clearance.
Your statement that this money couldn't be spent is totally false.
These are projects ready to go. It is the newest BRAC round that can't
be spent until 2008 because they have to have all their plans in place.
You are cutting $50 million out of something that is very critical
for a lot of communities and can do a lot of good, and you are adding
it to a program where we just put in $3.4 billion. $3.4 billion. So $50
million more in that account is not going to help.
Frankly, we have already raised that account in committee with strong
bipartisan support by $1.7 billion over what the President asked for.
So you are going to steal from essentially accounts that are critical
and put it into an account that has been plussed-up and is fat. The
consequences are going to be that people who are wanting to provide
health care services for veterans in their community won't be able to
build that facility or get that facility refurbished because the
environmental cleanup hasn't been done because we didn't have enough
money in the old account. And the only way we can get that money in the
account, as I said previously, is to appropriate it.
I think this is a very reckless amendment. I would prefer that we
even add more, but that was opposed. But this one, I would hope that
you might withdraw your amendment because you are going to do more harm
than good.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the chairman yielding.
I would hope that we wouldn't impugn an individual's motives for
bringing amendments forward. My motive is sincere. I believe it is
appropriate to increase funding for veterans health care as much as
possible, and it was my understanding, and we can disagree about
whether or not the funds would be available to be spent in fiscal year
2008, and we may have a legitimate disagreement about that, but I would
hope that we wouldn't impugn an individual's motives.
[[Page H6540]]
Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, I certainly don't question the
gentleman's motives. Could I ask the gentleman where did the $22
million figure come from.
We increased VA health care spending in this bill by $3.8 billion
above what President Bush asked for. That is a $6 billion increase in
VA health care spending over last year. That level of funding has been
saluted by every national veterans organization, including the American
Legion, Military Officers Association of America, AMVETS, National
Association for Uniformed Service, Disabled American Veterans, and
dozens of others. Where did the gentleman at the last minute come up
with the $22 million figure?
We haven't had this conversation at any time during the first 6
months of this year when we were working on adding $10 billion, and it
was done on a bipartisan basis, to VA health care funding.
Where did the $22 million figure come from, if I can ask the
gentleman?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
commend you for the increase in health care spending.
The $22 million comes from removing the $50 million that the Defense
Department didn't request in the account, and then it works out to be
$22 million based on outlays.
Mr. EDWARDS. Right. You take $50 million in order to add $22 million,
but did the gentleman meet with Veterans Administration leaders,
perhaps the Secretary of Health for the VA, and did they request this
additional $22 million?
Was there a specific project that wasn't being funded or a particular
need that wasn't being met by the $6 billion increase in VA health care
spending this year that caused the gentleman to ask specifically for a
$22 million increase?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think I mentioned in my comments that the
increase in traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome
that we are seeing with the conflict that we are currently in obviously
warrants as much funding as we can make available to our veterans who
are serving us so proudly.
Mr. EDWARDS. And I agree with the gentleman. That is why we provided
over $600 million more than the administration request to improve
mental health care, traumatic brain injury and PTSD services.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's
intentions in this effort. I would simply say that we have provided a
historic increase in VA health care spending in this bill. That level
of funding has been supported by virtually every major veterans
organization in America, and we ought not to have to gut another
important program for the gentleman's last-minute amendment.
{time} 1345
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia 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), $8,174,315,000, to remain available until
expended.
Administrative Provisions
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.
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.
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.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among veterans who access
the VA health care system is markedly higher than that of the general
population. Furthermore, barriers within this system contribute to
already late diagnoses of HIV among veterans. Early diagnosis is
crucial because the sooner an HIV-infected person begins treatment, the
more manageable and the more cost effective their treatment will be.
I speak today as a member of the subcommittee with concern about the
impact of HIV/AIDS on veterans, not only in Georgia, but throughout the
Southeast and every major city around the Nation.
The need for action on this issue, Mr. Chairman, is exemplified by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recent Heightened
Response to HIV/AIDS in African American Communities initiative. These
actions follow the September 2006 release of the CDC's revised HIV
testing guidelines, which advise HIV testing become a routine part of
medical care.
The VA is the largest integrated health care system in the United
States and, therefore, the largest provider of HIV care in the country.
However, VA's current HIV testing policy is based on an outdated
testing model which is inconsistent with the CDC guidelines.
Compared to the general population, the prevalence of HIV infections
is higher among those accessing the VA health care system. A recent
study that was conducted by a VA researcher found that at the time of
diagnosis 55 percent of HIV-positive veterans had already developed
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS, which takes roughly 10
years to develop after it's initially contracted.
Even more disturbing is the fact that most of these veterans had
accessed the VA health care system on an average of six times before
they were ever diagnosed with this disease. This outdated VA HIV
testing policy denies veterans sensible and what is now recommended as
standard access to HIV screening in other health care systems.
I applaud the chairman for his leadership in making health care for
veterans a priority in the VA appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm
hoping that we can work together to further explore this important
issue and address it in an appropriate way as we move forward on the VA
Appropriations measure for fiscal 2008.
At this point, I'd like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he
would be so kind as to yield to Mr. Jackson from Illinois to speak to
the issue of HIV prevalence among veterans.
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me say that I thank both the gentleman from Illinois
and the gentleman from Georgia for their leadership on this important
issue. I look forward to working with them and the Veterans' Affairs
Committee and our subcommittee to address the needs and pursue the
solutions that you have proposed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop)
for his remarks and for his leadership in bringing this topic to the
attention of our colleagues. I would also like to recognize the
timeliness of his comments, as National HIV Testing Day is on June 27.
The gravity of this issue cannot be understated, and I hope to work
with Mr. Bishop and lend my support to address the veterans who suffer
from this interminable disease.
[[Page H6541]]
Chicago is the epicenter of HIV/AIDS in Illinois. Roughly 70 percent
of reported AIDS cases in the State are in Chicago. Minorities account
for approximately 69 percent of the city's total population, but
represent 81 percent recently diagnosed AIDS cases. Minorities
constitute 20 percent of veterans in Illinois; yet the trend of HIV/
AIDS among the State population and the higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS
among veterans in general demonstrates minority veterans are
disproportionately affected by this disease.
HIV/AIDS has had a significant impact on veterans across the country.
Combating the spread of this disease through testing and education is
not only important to our communities, but vital for the health of all
Americans.
I want to thank the chairman for yielding me the time and thank Mr.
Bishop for his leadership.
Mr. EDWARDS. I want to thank Mr. Jackson and Mr. Bishop for your
leadership on this. By exercising early intervention, we can save the
lives of thousands of America's veterans and prevent them from having
HIV or AIDS. It will be a tremendous service to those who have served
our country in uniform, and I look forward to working with both
gentlemen as we go to conference committee and as we work with the
Veterans' Affairs Committee to address this serious national problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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.
(including transfer of funds)
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.
(including transfer of funds)
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.
(including transfer of funds)
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.
(including transfer of funds)
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.
[[Page H6542]]
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.
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 2008 for that program that
remain available for obligation, may be obligated or expended
for the conduct of studies of missile defense.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
Page 19, beginning on line 15, strike section 125.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, in an age of sophisticated
missile development and rampant nuclear proliferation, the United
States must continue to invest its attention and resources in
developing and fielding defenses to stay ahead of the ominous threat of
ballistic missiles.
It is critical that the United States continue to work with our
friends and allies who wish to cooperate in our mission to develop a
robust ballistic missile defense against our common enemies.
The United States is currently working with NATO and negotiating with
European countries about the possibility of placing a ballistic missile
interceptor site in Europe. This is an example of a missile defense
opportunity that could offer protection for the U.S. homeland and our
European friends from a perilous threat that we share, ballistic
missiles potentially carrying nuclear warheads, being launched from
rogue nations such as Iran.
Mr. Chairman, incidentally, Iran is projected to have missiles
capable of reaching the United States homeland within 7 years.
As it currently stands, this bill prohibits funds made available
under the NATO Security Investment Program from being obligated or
expended to conduct studies on missile defense. My amendment would
strike this section. Mr. Chairman, in the midst of the current debate
regarding the need for greater international support of missile
defense, we must not arbitrarily prevent our allies from joining with
us to pursue these vital and common goals.
For the sake of defending our cities and our freedom, I encourage our
colleagues to support our Nation's policy to build a robust, layered
ballistic missile defense; to support our allies against common
threats; and to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few points about this amendment,
and I will be glad to accept the amendment when I'm completed. Let me
just make a few points that are clear, though.
Section 125 prohibits the use of funds appropriated to the NATO
Security Investment Program for studies of missile defense. The history
of this is that in the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction bill, it
was a Republican majority that put this language into the bill which
has been repeated year after year without any controversy or serious
discussion. It grew out of concerns that large sums of these NATO funds
were being spent on expensive studies.
I do want to emphasize and clarify that this provision relates to the
studies for a NATO missile defense system that is not related to the
proposal by the administration to pursue and place a missile defense
site in Poland and in the Czech Republic. That is a U.S. initiative,
not a NATO initiative, and I want Members to understand that
distinction.
I also want to make it clear that I believe NATO Security Investment
Program funds should focus primarily on building current NATO
infrastructure, including critical facilities in the NATO mission in
Afghanistan. Because these funds are limited, I think they should be
wisely and directed to where they have the greatest impact in support
of our military troops around the world.
With that being said, I will accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I would only add that it is vitally important from our perspective
that NATO countries be encouraged to cooperate with the things that
we're doing there and some of the countries that we're working with for
the European missile site. We understand that everything you said is
correct. We also believe that it doesn't make sense to single out
missile defense as the only study that would be prohibited under this
section.
And there may come a day when we will have to apologize to the
American public for putting so much emphasis on building expensive
missile defense capabilities, and if that happens, I will be willing to
stand here and do that, but it would be far harder for me to apologize
to the American people for failing to do everything that we could on
every front to protect the homeland and our European allies and our
soldiers and warfighters abroad from the most dangerous offensive
weapons that have ever come upon humanity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1400
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman of South Carolina
(Mr. Brown) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss a
very serious battle our veterans are waging here at home, a battle
against ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease.
Several independent and government studies have found that military
veterans are at a greater risk of dying from Lou Gehrig's disease than
those who have never served in the military. In fact, veterans are at a
60 percent greater risk to develop ALS. Lou Gehrig's disease is a
horrific disease that robs a person of the ability to control their
muscles.
Unfortunately, I have met firsthand and have knowledge of the true
nature of ALS and its impact on veterans. I have watched the disease
attack a good friend of mine, Tom Mikolajcik, a retired Air Force
brigadier general. He was diagnosed with ALS in 2003. Since then I have
seen the disease take a once-powerful man and rob him of nearly all of
his physical abilities.
Mr. Chairman, only certain veterans with ALS who served in theatre
during the 1991 Persian Gulf War are currently presumed to be eligible
for service-connected benefits, and there are significant research
needs related to the causes and treatment of ALS. As such, we must
begin to take the steps necessary to not only discover why our veterans
are at greater risk of ALS and to find treatments for the disease but
also to help ensure that they have timely access to needed VA benefits.
I hope that you and the committee will work in conference and ensure
the resources of the VA are directed towards meeting the research and
benefit needs of all veterans who are diagnosed with ALS.
[[Page H6543]]
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank the
gentleman for bringing this important problem and issue before the
House. It is something we have a responsibility to deal with. I am
proud to say that Mr. Wicker and I worked with the Members of our
subcommittee to ensure that we had $69 million increase in this bill to
increase VA health care research funding above the President's request.
I think we have had the VA research budget at a stable number for a
number of years. I think, given our war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
challenges we face trying to support our veterans from past combat, as
you have pointed out, this additional research money is much needed and
very well deserved.
While it hasn't been the tradition of the Congress to try to earmark
funds, we have made this a peer review process to let the VA in its
peer review process determine what are the highest priority needs for
research. I, for one, would certainly hope that it would take a serious
look at the challenge of Lou Gehrig's disease and its impact on
veterans who have been exposed to various chemical agents in their
service.
I would point out, as the gentleman well knows, that right now the
Bronx VA Medical Center has worked on research to improve the
identification of this disease. With the gentleman's leadership, we
will do even more.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 126. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any other
official of the Department of Defense is requested by the
subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives or the subcommittee on Military
Construction, 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).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a senior member of the Military
Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, someone
who has fought long and hard in this House on behalf of our servicemen
and -women and their families and our veterans. I offer him an
opportunity to talk about provisions of the bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, our subcommittee
chairman, for his tremendous work and bringing our bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in full support of our FY
2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
As a member of the subcommittee, I am extremely proud of the work
that the subcommittee and members on both sides of the aisle have done
in crafting a bill which truly supports America's servicemen and -women
and their families by boosting military construction funding so that
they can have more effective training facilities, better housing,
health care and day-care facilities, providing an unprecedented $21.4
billion investment in military construction, family housing and BRAC,
or nearly $207 million more than the President's request.
Just as important, I am extremely proud to join my subcommittee
colleagues in recommending a historic expansion in support and
resources for our Nation's veterans. This bill includes the largest
single increase in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration,
increasing the VA budget by $6.7 billion above the 2007 level and $3.8
billion above the President's request.
For the first time in history, funding for VA medical care exceeds
the budget of the veterans service organization's independent budget
that has been going on now for decades. This will ensure quality health
care for 5.8 million patients, including about 263,000 Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans, who the VA will treat, expectantly, in FY 2008.
This bill will provide veterans with health care and benefits that we
have promised them, resulting in the hiring of more qualified doctors
and nurses to improve medical services to our veterans and to reduce
the waiting times for doctor appointments and to provide more help to
veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury, PTSD, mental health
care issues and lost limbs to rebuild their lives. This is truly an
accomplishment that all of us, as Members of this august body, should
be very proud of.
Of note, our bill also provides funding that gives much-needed
nonrecurring maintenance of the VA health care facilities, $500 million
above the President's request to prevent a Walter Reed-type situation
from occurring in the VA medical system. It will significantly reduce
the 400,000 claims backlog of veterans that are waiting for disability
and other benefit determinations.
It will provide for better barracks, housing, training facilities for
our troops when they return from combat through an unprecedented $24.4
billion investment in military construction, family housing and BRAC,
$207 million more than the President's request.
It provides funds to grow our military forces to begin the process of
supporting an additional 65,000 Army, 27,000 Marine and 9,000 National
Guard troops that will increase our ultimate end strength.
I have the privilege and the honor of representing Fort Benning and
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, and the men and women who work,
live and train at this great military facility, who are defending and
serving our great Nation with dignity, honor and distinction.
As such, I was very pleased that our subcommittee saw fit to include
full funding for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Account, which
is also known as BRAC, at the level of $8.2 billion. This level of
funding will be critically important to military facilities, such as
Fort Benning, which are expected to see and experience significant new
personnel as a result of BRAC and the global repositioning of our
forces around the world.
While we in the Columbus area continue to have some concerns with
respect to what impact the BRAC process may have on our local school
systems in terms of potential dramatic increases in school enrollment,
we continue to be encouraged by the interest and support shown by our
colleagues on the subcommittee, particularly Mr. Edwards, our chairman.
Finally, I would like to recognize and thank the staff of the
subcommittee, Carol Murphy, Mary Arnold, Walter Hearne, Tim Bishop and
Donna Shabaz, majority staff; Liz Dawson, Deana Baron and Jamie
Swafford, minority staff; and, of course, Michael Reed on my staff for
their hard work.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title I and all of title II be considered as read, printed in the
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
I believe this has been cleared with the minority leadership.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:
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
[[Page H6544]]
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.
(including transfer of funds)
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 in this title shall be used for
any activity related to the construction of an Outlying
Landing Field in Washington County, North Carolina.
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 section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53,
55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; pension benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 15, 51,
53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; 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. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits as
authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, and
chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States
Code, $41,236,322,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $25,033,000 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
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 21, 30,
31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United
States Code, $3,300,289,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That expenses for rehabilitation program
services and assistance which the Secretary is authorized to
provide under subsection (a) of section 3104 of title 38,
United States Code, other than under paragraphs (1), (2),
(5), and (11) of that subsection, shall be charged to this
account.
veterans insurance and indemnities
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, chapters 19 and
21, $41,250,000, 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 Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2008, 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, $154,562,000, 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, $71,000, 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
$3,287,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $311,000, 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, $628,000, 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 2008.
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.
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, food services, 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;
$28,906,400,000, plus reimbursements, of which not less than
$2,900,000,000 shall be expended for specialty mental health
care; not less than $130,000,000 shall be expended for the
homeless grants and per diem program; not less than
$428,873,754 shall be expended for the substance abuse
program; and not less than $100,275,000 shall be expended for
blind rehabilitation services: Provided, That of the funds
made available under this heading, not to exceed
$1,100,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2009:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a
priority for the provision of medical treatment for veterans
who have service-connected disabilities, 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: Provided further, That for the DOD-VA
Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund, as authorized by section
8111(d) of title 38, United States Code, a minimum of
$15,000,000, to remain available until expended, for any
purpose authorized by section 8111 of title 38, United States
Code.
medical administration
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.); $3,635,600,000, plus reimbursements, of
which $250,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2009.
medical facilities
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities, and
other necessary facilities of 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 services, $4,100,000,000, plus
reimbursements, of which $250,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2009: Provided, That $300,000,000 for
non-recurring maintenance provided under this heading shall
be allocated in a
[[Page H6545]]
manner not subject to the Veterans Equitable Resource
Allocation.
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, $480,000,000,
plus reimbursements, to remain available until September 30,
2009.
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,
$1,598,500,000: 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 $1,324,957,000: 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, 2009: Provided further, That from the funds made
available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits
Administration may purchase (on a 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 and
pay and associated cost for operations and maintenance
associated staff; 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, $1,859,217,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That
none of these funds may be obligated until the Secretary 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 the date of the 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, $170,000,000, of which not
to exceed $7,800,000 shall be available until September 30,
2009.
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 (5 U.S.C. App.), $76,500,000, of which $3,630,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2009.
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 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,
$1,410,800,000, 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,
including 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 2008, for each approved project
shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a construction
documents contract by September 30, 2008; and (2) by the
awarding of a construction contract by September 30, 2009:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall promptly submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress a written report on any approved
major construction project for which obligations are not
incurred within the time limitations established above:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 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.
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, $615,000,000, 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: Provided, That funds in this account shall be
available 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: 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.
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 through 8137 of title
38, United States Code, $165,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries
For grants to assist States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by section
2408 of title 38, United States Code, $37,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2008 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 such Committees issue an
approval, 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 through 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 to such hospitalization or
examination under the laws providing such benefits to
veterans, and persons receiving
[[Page H6546]]
such treatment under sections 7901 through 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 the cost of such hospitalization or
examination 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 2007.
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 only from ``Compensation and
pensions''.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 207. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2008, 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 such an insurance program during
fiscal year 2008 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 such 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 2008 which is properly allocable to the provision
of each such insurance program and to the provision of any
total disability income insurance included in that 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.
(including transfer of funds)
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 of
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of
Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under
section 319 of title 38, United States Code, for all services
provided at rates which will recover actual costs but not
exceed $32,067,000 for the Office of Resolution Management
and $3,148,000 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.
(including transfer of funds)
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.
(including transfer of funds)
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 that account.
Sec. 215. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall allow veterans who are
eligible under existing Department of Veterans Affairs
medical care 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.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 216. 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. 217. None of the funds available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in this 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. 218. 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. 219. 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. 220. Amounts made available for the ``Information
technology systems'' account may be reprogrammed between
projects: Provided, That no project may be increased or
decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost before the
Secretary submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress a reprogramming request and the Committees
issue an approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days
has elapsed.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 221. Any balances in prior year accounts established
for the payment of benefits under the Reinstated Entitlement
Program for Survivors shall be transferred to and merged with
amounts available under the ``Compensation and pensions''
account, and receipts that would otherwise be credited to the
accounts established for the payment of benefits under the
Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors program shall be
credited to amounts available under the ``Compensation and
pensions'' acount.
Sec. 222. Amounts made available for the ``Construction,
minor projects'' account may be reprogrammed between
projects: Provided, That no project may be increased or
decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost before the
Secretary submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress a reprogramming request and the Committees
issue an approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days
has elapsed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
Page 27, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $125,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee's work in
regard to the funding levels that are here before us in this Veterans
Administration and Military Quality of Life appropriation bill.
[[Page H6547]]
I am pleased to be here in support of this legislation, but I do have
an amendment. My amendment would transfer $125 million from veterans
health administration accounts to the medical services account, and the
purpose of doing so is to increase the amount of mileage reimbursement
that disabled veterans receive for travel for medical services.
Currently, and, in fact, since 1978, our veterans have received 11
cents per mile. One would think that to be a misstatement on our part.
I think it's very hard to believe that since 1978 we have not increased
that reimbursement rate.
Because of funding constraints and priorities, I'm not asking that it
be increased to what most of us would think is appropriate. Amendments
have been offered in support on this House floor that have been
demonstrated for the 48\1/2\ cents allowed by IRS regulations.
On the floor today is the gentleman from Georgia who offered an
amendment that passed unanimously by voice vote earlier this session
that would increase the rate, authorize the increased rate to 48\1/2\
cents. My amendment today appropriates the money, provides the money
necessary to double the mileage reimbursement rate for disabled
veterans from 11 cents per mile to 22 cents per mile.
A reasonable reimbursement rate is awfully important. This bill, in
my opinion, goes a long way toward increasing the likelihood that
veterans will have access to medical care and services that they so
desperately need and so sincerely desire and deserve.
Those of us, however, who come from places in which it's a long
distance to receive that service, to receive those benefits, are very
concerned that there are people who are slipping through the cracks, as
we have heard in other instances, within the VA system, because they
cannot afford to make the trip to see the physician, to be seen at the
hospital, to receive the services that they are entitled to.
I represent a district approximately the size of the State of
Illinois. There is no VA hospital within the district. So my veterans
must travel significant distances in order to receive care and
treatment, and we know what has occurred in regard to the cost of
travel with gas prices where they are today, as compared to where they
were in 1978 when 11 cents per mile was established.
This concept is supported by our veterans service organization. I am
a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have chaired the
health care subcommittee. This has been an issue we have dealt with for
a long time, and I have seen amendments offered in previously years
often stuck on a point of order or for me to withdraw them.
Today, I think it's important that we move forward, particularly at a
time when we were increasing the amount of money available within the
VA funding stream. If we don't do it now, when will we do it? I offered
this amendment, a similar amendment, in 2003, and most years since.
It's always going to be next year.
With the levels of funding that are provided for in the underlying
appropriation bill, it seems important for us, to me, for us not to
sidestep this issue for another year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The reservation is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, I had not seen this
amendment until 2 minutes ago.
I wish we had an opportunity to sit down, as our subcommittee has
been doing for the last 6 months on a bipartisan basis, to see if the
legitimate needs that the gentleman from Kansas has raised could have
been dealt with through our subcommittee process.
The problem with what the gentleman has proposed in this amendment,
while it might sound like we are cutting medical administration
overhead at the central office in Washington, D.C., the gentleman may
or may not know that the VA Medical Administration account funds
employees with their feet on the ground, in the hospitals all across
America, including in the gentleman's home State.
So, perhaps, unintentionally, I assume unintentionally, this
amendment would cut funding needed to fund security at our VA
hospitals, it would cut funds needed to provide patient medical
information, transcription of patient records, financial management
services at our VA hospitals and third-party collection activities.
{time} 1415
So, unintentionally, by cutting this funding, it could make it more
difficult to even bring third-party funding into the VA system and into
the Treasury. So for those reasons, I must rise in opposition to this
amendment.
I would be happy to sit down and work on a bipartisan basis to try to
find a way to increase the miles reimbursement rate for veterans. I
completely agree with the gentleman that the miles reimbursement rates
are inadequate.
And I would like to think, given that we increased the medical
services account for 2008 by $3.4 billion over the 2007 level, and
given that we increased it by $1.7 billion over the President's request
for medical services, my hope would be that the VA could seriously look
at using those significant increases in funding to address the
shortfall that the gentleman has mentioned.
I'm not sure what the authorizing process is. Since this amendment
was one I'd never seen prior to, now 4 or 5 minutes ago, I'm not sure
if there's a need to authorize funding for this if that authorization
has passed both the House and the Senate. I think it might have been in
the Wounded Warrior legislation. But there might be an authorization
question. Perhaps not.
But I would like to request the gentleman draw down the amendment. He
doesn't have to, but I'd be happy to work in good faith, as we've been
working all year long, to address legitimate needs. And the gentleman
has pointed out a legitimate need.
But I want to be clear. I strongly oppose this amendment because it
could hurt medical services provided to veterans by cutting out funding
needed to staff our VA hospitals. The source of this money wouldn't be
cutting out the Washington, D.C., office staff; it would be cutting out
employees that are serving vital roles in our veterans hospitals in the
gentleman's home State as well as mine.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments offered
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I will have to admit to him
that my amendment is not unintentional, and so his assumption that the
offset that I'm providing is an unintentional offering on my part is
not true. I'm aware of where the money comes from and still believe
that this is a high priority. And, in fact, this bill, the medical
administration account, receives a 14\1/2\ percent, $458 million,
increase over last year's funding levels, and $193 million more than
the President requested in fiscal year 2008. And, in fact, our
authorizing committee, both the minority and majority views, accepted
those, the President's recommendation, as our suggested funding levels.
So again, in searching year after year for a place from which this
money can come, it is not without concern that we have chosen these
accounts. But this is the year in which there is a 14.5 percent
increase in those funds. And even if my amendment would be adopted, it
would still allow for a 10.6 percent increase in those administrative
accounts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if I could use my remaining time, I'd like
to just say to the gentleman, I appreciate his bringing this serious
problem before the House. I wish, in hindsight, he'd brought it to us
earlier than 5 or 10 minutes ago. I hope we could work together to try
to find a way to address the needs he's mentioned.
But, my colleagues, let me reemphasize two points. He may know the
source of the funding, but I'm not sure he intended to actually cut out
funding, which this amendment would do, that is needed to hire VA
employees to man our VA hospitals to see our veterans get the service
that they desperately need and deserve.
In addition, we've had lengthy discussion, including from the
Republican leadership, about the importance of oversight of this
additional funding,
[[Page H6548]]
this historic level of funding we're putting into the VA this year. If
we cut out the accounts that the gentleman's trying to cut out in this
amendment, that undermines the entire effort that was discussed so
eloquently by my Republican colleagues, that we've got to have enough
money to have oversight to see that these new dollars are spent wisely
and for the highest priority.
So, if the gentleman persists in offering the amendment and having a
vote on it, I would ask my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, in all
due respect, to reject it and allow us to then work together in the
months ahead to find an appropriate way to more adequately fund
reimbursement rates for America's veterans.
I believe, personally and strongly, that this amendment would do harm
to medical care to veterans, not intentionally, because the gentleman
is a strong supporter of veterans. But nevertheless, it would do harm
to service to veterans and undermine our ability to have strong
oversight on the historic increases in VA funding that we provide in
this bill.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. 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 Kansas will be
postponed.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) for
the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill that addresses
the needs of our veterans who've been neglected for too long now.
Taking care of our veterans is important at any time, but it's
particularly important in a time of war. So I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and your staff for your hard work on this bill.
I recently conducted a tour of veterans service organizations all
across my district, and one of the things I heard over and over again
was the growth in demand for veterans services in the future, and
that's what I'd like to discuss with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, community-based outpatient clinics play a vital role in
meeting the health care needs of our veterans, especially in the rural
parts of our country. My district, a 17-county area centered on
Statesboro, Georgia, contains some 34,000 veterans. And I ask for your
commitment, Mr. Chairman, to work in conference with the other body to
look at this area and evaluate the need and determine the feasibility
of a community-based outpatient clinic in Statesboro, Georgia.
Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the
gentleman for his focus on the importance of VA outpatient clinics.
In my 16 years in Congress, I think one of the most important
improvements made in VA care to veterans, particularly in rural areas,
is the creation and development and expansion of VA outpatient clinics,
particularly for those veterans that live a long way from VA hospitals.
I'll be happy to work with the gentleman as we go to conference, and
to work with the Veterans Administration as well, to put the facts
together to see if we can provide funding for a Statesboro clinic. And
I know the gentleman will be a strong advocate on its behalf.
For the record, I will say we have not, as a procedure in the past,
earmarked specific funding for specific outpatient clinics. But the
gentleman has spoken very strongly and eloquently about the need for
his clinic, and we will work with him and the VA to see if we can
provide the funding.
And I will say that the bill that the gentleman has strongly
supported provides, as we previously said, an enormous increase in VA
medical services funding, far above, $1.7 billion above the President's
request, $6 billion in total VA medical care funding over fiscal year
2007. So I hope the VA will make a high priority out of expanding these
clinics where they are needed.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Capito:
Page 28, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)(decreased by $5,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a bipartisan
amendment highlighting the importance and need for an Office of Rural
Health within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I'd like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their
good, solid, hard work on this bill and the tribute it pays to
America's veterans. I would also like to thank Mr. Salazar of Colorado
and Mr. Smith of Nebraska for their work on this bipartisan amendment.
I was pleased that language was included in the legislation that was
signed into law by the President last year calling on the Department of
Veterans Affairs to create an Office of Rural Health within the Office
of the Under Secretary for Health. However, the Department has yet to
make any progress towards establishing this very important office.
This is a simple amendment that should encourage the Department to
make the Office of Rural Health fully operational as expeditiously as
possible, and provide them with the resources needed to do so by
rerouting $5 million in the Medical Services Account to help fund the
Office of Rural Health, thus making it revenue neutral.
Rural Americans face different and unique challenges than our fellow
citizens who reside in urban and suburban areas, and this is no
different for our veterans and their ability to seek the services and
the treatments that they need. For some rural veterans, a simple trip
to the doctor can often involve hours of travel to reach the
appropriate facility within the veterans health facilities health
system.
It is my hope that the Office of Rural Health will shed light on many
of these challenges, and will be a resource with many new and creative
ideas for methods to help our rural veterans receive their much-
deserved benefits in a manner that is efficient, and allowing them to
stay as close to home as possible.
One of the great challenges we are beginning to face is the number of
servicemen and -women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who have
sustained a traumatic brain injury. The Department of Veterans Affairs
has four large polytrauma centers, in Richmond, Tampa, Minneapolis and
Palo Alto, California. These facilities provide first-class treatment
for veterans suffering polytrauma, and also provide inpatient
rehabilitation services.
Despite the services provided at these facilities, many veterans will
eventually return to their homes in the rural areas of America, but
they will still need care and treatment. The Office of Rural Health
will be the basis for new ways to provide rural veterans with
polytrauma with the care that they need.
Another development within the Department of Veterans Affairs that
has been going on for a while are the Community-Based Outpatient
Clinics, or CBOCs. Often serving rural areas, CBOCs are a tremendous
asset to the delivery of care for veterans, allowing them to seek
treatment closer to their home. Unfortunately, underserved areas still
remain in the rural areas. Again, the Office of Rural Health will be an
excellent resource for new ways to provide primary outpatient care.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this commonsense amendment so that
the rural veterans concerns can be appropriately addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for
bringing to the attention of the House, once again, the importance of
providing quality veterans care to the men and
[[Page H6549]]
women who served our Nation and happen to live in small, rural
communities, areas perhaps in many cases far away from veterans
hospitals. I think the community clinics have been one great, great
addition to the VA health care system over the last 2 decades.
And let me point out, for the Record, before I will express that I
will support this amendment, that Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr.
Latham, in our full Appropriations Committee, added language on this
issue which I know the gentlelady and I will both support; and it says
this: ``The committee notes that the Public Law 109-461 directed the
establishment of an Office of Rural Health within the Office of Under
Secretary for Health. To date, after more than 6 months, there has been
no action taken to implement the provision regarding the Office of
Rural Health. The Committee urges the Department to move forward in an
expeditious manner.''
{time} 1430
With that, I would like to express my support for the amendment.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And
I would also like to thank the chairman of the committee for expressing
his support for this amendment.
At the end of the 109th Congress, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care,
and Information Technology Act of 2006 was signed into law. This
legislation created the Office of Rural Health within the VA and tasked
the office with conducting research into issues affecting rural
veterans, as well as developing and refining policies and programs to
improve care and services for rural veterans.
Unfortunately, as the chairman has clearly stated, since this
legislation has been signed into law establishing the Office of Rural
Health, no action has been taken. Just yesterday in the Veterans'
Affairs Health Subcommittee, I asked the VA Under Secretary to give me
an update, and he confirmed that as of this date a director has not
even been hired yet.
This amendment would simply allocate $5 million from the same account
within Medical Services to establish this office.
The care our Nation provides rural veterans in return for protecting
our country should not suffer because some have chosen to live in rural
America. We owe them no less for their sacrifice.
For the 25 percent of all veterans who live in rural areas, and the
nearly 45 percent of all recruits coming from rural America, I urge you
to strongly support this amendment, and I commend the chairman for
supporting this amendment.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank the Chair for
his support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congresswoman Capito.
I appreciate your support for this amendment, the Capito-Smith-
Salazar amendment. And I don't want to be repetitive because many good
points were offered by the chairman of the committee as well as others.
So I just want to add my support and certainly state that it is
unfortunate that nearly 6 months since the legislation was signed into
law for the Office of Rural Health, little action has been taken. So I
believe this is a good step forward for those in rural America because
they should not have to suffer simply because they live in rural
America.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
Page 30, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, and Chairman Edwards for bringing
this bill to the floor. The motto of the former Veterans Secretary, my
friend Jessie Brown, was ``putting veterans first.''
Well, the leadership they have shown, bringing the largest increase
in the history of veterans funding to the floor, over $7 billion, I
have got to thank you, sir. I have served on this committee for 15
years, and for 15 years we have struggled to put the veterans first.
And I am so pleased that the House of Representatives under your
leadership has finally put the veterans first.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on my amendment to bring attention to a travesty
occurring in my district. A travesty not just affecting my district,
but this regional hospital affects Florida and Georgia.
The Gainesville VA Medical Center is 40 years old and looks every day
of it. There are five beds to a room, no shower, and no place for
families.
This facility received one of the highest rates of returning
Afghanistan and Iraq veterans and is being shortchanged by a lack of
proper facilities. The bed tower project includes 228 single-patient
bedrooms for surgical, medical, and psychiatric patients. This includes
extra space for support of the psychiatric care inpatient program.
Finally, the building itself was required to be structurally
strengthened to protect it from potential terrorist attack since we are
part of the national emergency response system. The current design will
be completed in June 2007 and will be ready to be released for bid in
September 2007.
Since the approval by the National CARES Commission and initial
funding allocation, much has changed in the construction world. The
dual impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the construction boom in China
have caused the costs of all construction in the U.S. to rise.
The total estimated construction cost is over $103 million. The
original projection was $64 million for construction. That leaves a
shortfall of about $40 million.
Every month of delay costs about $1.1 million. An additional $40
million is needed in order to complete the project.
The men and women returning to Florida and southern Georgia will be
greatly impacted, and I would like to work with the committee to
resolve this matter.
Mr. Chairman, do I have the word of the chairman to look into this
matter?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I yield to Chairman Edwards.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentlewoman for her
kind words about our work on this bill and, more importantly, for her
15 years of leadership on the Veterans' Affairs Committee on behalf of
our veterans not only in Florida but on behalf of veterans all across
the country.
Because of the concerns raised by the gentlewoman, we increased the
major construction project account in this bill by $683 million above
the President's request because the reality is it is not just the VA
system. It is the DOD health care system. It is construction all across
America that is facing huge increases in costs, and obviously the
Gainesville Florida hospital is a terribly important health care
facility in our national VA health care system. And I look forward to
working with the gentlewoman to see that we have enough funding to see
that that additional funding is possible. And we will work with the VA
as we go to conference and beyond on that issue.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again
thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H6550]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 30, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 36, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish to rise
to say that I appreciate the work of both the Chair and ranking member
with regard to their work on behalf of veterans of this country.
The amendment that is before us is an amendment to seek increase in
funds for the State veterans homes. It does so in the amount of $10
million. There are 126 facilities, veterans homes, across the 50 States
and Puerto Rico. These are State veterans homes and they care for
nearly 30,000 of our Nation's heroes. The number of veterans that are
going to be requiring care is large and is going to continue to grow
through the year 2020. And the conflict today is leading to more
veterans that will need special care throughout the rest of their
lives.
As many of our veterans move into these extended care facilities, we
must continue here in this House to ensure that the facilities are both
safe and comfortable for the residents. As you may know, there is an
extensive list of backlogged projects just waiting for the funds, many
of them in the area of critical health and safety needs. Of the $500
million of projects waiting for Federal funds, nearly half are
classified as priority one.
We must also see that these facilities are able to provide for high
quality of life as well for those individuals who have made great
sacrifices in the past years for our Nation. These are homes, as I said
before, for our heroes. They are not simply institutions that we are
funding. If we are not able to fund the priority one projects that I am
worried about, these homes will be inadequate and we will not be
honoring our veterans.
The staff at these homes work hard to honor our veterans and work
with them to provide that they have, for the remaining years of their
lives, a comfortable environment. I have had the opportunity to spend
some time in these veterans home, particularly the Paramus Veterans
Home in my district in Bergen County, and I particularly had the chance
to visit with the people who live there and the staff and their friends
and relatives who come along. In addition to that, there are local
veterans service organizations that have worked hard to secure State
matching funds for these essential projects as well at this facility,
just as their counterparts are doing the same sort of thing all across
this country in their homes as well.
Finally, I would like to point this out, that our colleagues in the
Senate Appropriations Committee just this week approved $250 million
for this account. So including my amendment here would still mean that
we are falling short of where the Senate is by around $75 million; so I
therefore believe that this $10 million is well called for.
While this backlog is much greater than what this amendment can
provide, I wanted to call attention to this difficulty these homes
currently are facing and have been facing for some period of time, and
I hope that we can work together now to find a way to honor these vets
and make sure that they receive the best care and the best quality of
life in their remaining days.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his support for state-extended care facilities, and I agree
with him that the President's budget for this account was, in my words,
woefully underfunded, and it is because of the importance of these
extended care facilities that in our subcommittee we provided a 95-
percent increase over the President's request for that. The President
has requested $85 million; we fund it at $165 million.
The reason I oppose this amendment and would ask my colleagues to do
the same is that the gentleman, in order to provide additional funding,
cuts $10 million out of the funding account that is necessary to meet
one of the veterans service organizations' highest priorities this
year, and that is reduce the terrible backlog of 400,000 veterans
waiting to get their claims reviewed by VA caseworkers. And with the
funding we provided in that account in this bill, if we don't reduce it
in this or other amendments, we are going to be able to hire 1,100 new
VA caseworkers in order to reduce that backlog. Right now that backlog
is averaging 177 days, and many veterans are having to wait longer than
that, including combat veterans, to get their earned benefits approved
and started.
The gentleman in no way would want to or intend to cut the funding to
try to help our veterans get their benefits more quickly. But the
reality is that taking $10 million out of that very account, the very
account that the VAV, the VFW, the American Legion, and others
emphasized to us all year long, we have to reduce the terrible backlog
in veterans benefits claims processing. All the groups supported that
additional funding. And that is why I would ask, with all due respect,
that our colleagues on a bipartisan basis respect that 95 percent
increase we provided in this bill for state-extended care facilities
and let's not cut one of the top two priorities of veterans service
organizations this year all across the Nation, and that is, reduce the
400,000 claims backlog of veterans benefits.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. As you know, this is not an issue that is
new. I actually brought this up and talked about this back early in the
year in the Budget Committee, and we had a discussion on it at that
time.
Just a question to you: That account you are referencing where we are
drawing the money from has grown as well, has it not?
Two questions. And the second question is there are other aspects of
that account other than just that provision that you are referencing;
so does it necessarily mean, in your opinion, that if we do withdraw
some funds from the fairly large account that it will have a
detrimental effect on the area that you are specifying, one which I
agree with?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we can't say on the
floor at this moment exactly what the VA would do, but what I could say
for a fact is this $10 million comes out of the account. It is used and
intended to fund an additional 1,100 VA claims caseworkers, and I am
afraid if you start cutting that account, the VA will obviously have to
cut funding out of our intended plans to increase those numbers.
We still have a long way to go in this process. Who knows, as we look
carefully at various projects in military construction and the VA side,
where we might find additional money. And I think the committee has
shown its good intention by increasing President Bush's request for
this program by 95 percent. We understand it is an important need, and
the gentleman has spoken out on it earlier this year and in the past.
I would just say to our colleagues, not this year, not now, not
today. Let's not cut $10 million out of an account that the veterans
service groups say we desperately need funded in order to reduce the
backlog for 400,000 veterans to get their benefits started. Many of
these veterans need their benefits started as soon as possible. Many of
them are living day to day, week to week; and the earlier we can get
them their benefits, the quicker they go on with rebuilding their
lives. And for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
comments. And we are on the same page as far as both aspects that we
wish the Department to deal with.
On this amendment, I think your comment was ``just not this year.''
And obviously as a Member who has been here 4 years now fighting, as
you have also, probably before me, but myself here on this floor
fighting for these
[[Page H6551]]
veterans homes, fighting literally for the ones back in my districts as
well for the veterans there and seeing just the smallest improvements
in just a certain number of the safety areas. And there are other area
safety areas that would seem to me to need improvements in and health
areas as well, and we just can't get the funds.
{time} 1445
And the quality of life even goes beyond those issues as far as what
these gentlemen need in these homes.
So I bring this amendment to the floor today for that reason,
firstly. And secondly, also from a pragmatic point of view that this
will go to the Senate and, as I did make the reference, that the Senate
has already marked it up even significantly higher than what the
gentleman has already done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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 New Jersey will be
postponed.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield time to the
gentleman from Rhode Island, a valued and important member of our
subcommittee who, I must say, giving credit where credit is due, has
been an eloquent and powerful speaker on behalf of the need to increase
funding for mental health care services for our vets, drug and alcohol
treatment programs for our vets, as well as increasing funding for
homeless veterans. The product of his hard work and dedication is very
obvious in this bill.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I don't want anyone to mistake, after
hearing the previous debate or any one of these amendments, what the
big picture is here today. The success story today, the take-away
message today is that this bill is the biggest increase in veterans
health care in the history of the veterans health care system, the
biggest increase in the 77-year history of the veterans health care
system; and it has happened under the chairmanship of Chet Edwards.
Every amendment here is talking about nickels and dimes compared to
the overwhelming increase in billions of dollars, billions of dollars
that are going into this veterans health care system that has never
seen such an infusion of dollars. We're not talking about a little bit
of money here, a little bit of money there, and that's often what ends
up happening. We're talking about money for this program or that
program. We are talking about billions of dollars that have never been
even seen in this kind of fashion in any kind of veterans health care
program before.
And so what we are doing here is raising the bar for generations to
come because what we're doing now is layering the bar up. So from now
on, the floor is 20 stories higher than it was the day before. And from
now on, whenever another veterans budget comes up, it is going to start
from the top floor and move even higher.
I want everyone to know that this is a monumental day. This budget
exceeds even the proposed budget of all the veteran service
organizations, even the VFW, the American Legion, the Paralyzed
Veterans of America; this is even more than they have asked for.
And I want to say on behalf of the mental health needs of our
veterans, we are doing all that we need to do and more to try to make
sure that their needs are met. And we should do so, because the
suffering that these veterans have had to undergo as a result of this
war has been unbearable. And we, as a Nation, owe it to make sure that
not only do their outward physical wounds get met and treated, but
their inward psychological wounds get tended to as well. And this bill
does that.
I want to thank the chairman for his work to make sure that not only
their outward wounds, but their inward wounds get addressed as well.
And I commend him for his leadership. He ought to feel very proud to be
chairman on such an historic bill such as this, and I thank him for his
leadership.
Mr. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentleman not only for his kind
words and for his eloquent and powerful words on behalf of our
veterans, but even more importantly, for his deeds, not just this year,
but for every year you've been in Congress. Millions of veterans are
living a better life today because of that leadership. I thank you for
that.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico:
Page 31, line 6, after ``Philippines'', insert ``: Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this heading,
$2,000,000 is for the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans
under section 542 of title 38, United States Code''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations bill this year.
My amendment would designate and devote $2 million from the
Department of Administration general operations expenses account. This
is a very large account. The President requested $1.4 billion for that
account. This body is appropriating $1.6 billion for that account, and
what it does is fence that money and say that $2 million of this must
be devoted and appropriated to the Advisory Committee on Women
Veterans.
The intent of this amendment is that the Advisory Committee on Women
Veterans would undertake a special effort, through a task force or
special commission, to study and make recommendations on the health
care needs of women veterans. All of us are concerned about whether the
veterans health care system is meeting the needs of this newest
generation of veterans. But there is a special category of veterans
that I think sometimes gets overlooked.
In 1978, I got a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the
third class with women at the United States Air Force Academy. And I
walked up a ramp, and over that ramp was a big sign in aluminum letters
that said, ``Bring Me Men.'' That sign stayed there for 20 years after
women were admitted to the Air Force Academy. It's gone now, but some
of us as women veterans feel that maybe the VA hospitals have a similar
sign over their doors, if not literally, then certainly figuratively.
I am the only woman veteran serving in the Congress. And women
veterans face different obstacles than men and have different health
care needs than men when they start to get care from the VA. To start
with, many women don't even consider themselves or call themselves
veterans, and they don't think of the VA as their system.
A larger number of women are serving in the military, and in the
future we are going to see higher numbers of women veterans, and they
will face different problems and challenges as they age. One in seven
veterans of the current war on terrorism, one in seven Americans who
are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman, and yet the VA health
care system is very oriented towards the health care needs of men.
Just let me give you one example. If you are a veteran and you go to
the VA for a clinic on PTSD, if everyone else in that group is a guy,
are you really getting the care that is appropriate to you? A lot of
women veterans don't feel comfortable in those settings. They are not
sure that the OB/GYN care is what
[[Page H6552]]
they need. If they face osteoporosis, they're not sure that the VA is
where they should be. Or if they face problems with cancers particular
to women, is the VA going to meet their needs?
My goal in proposing this amendment is to get the VA to bring
together a group of people who can truly devote the time and effort
needed to study the needs of women veterans and examine the care that
is available to our women veterans and the challenges that we face so
that they can report their findings to Congress and to the VA so that
we as a body can evaluate and adjust the system so that all of our
veterans get the care that they have earned.
I am very grateful, and I think all Americans are, to those who serve
our Nation, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they receive
the best possible care. The burdens of this war on terrorism has fallen
on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have
volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. We owe them, our
veterans past, present and future, a debt of gratitude for their
selflessness and for their service. We need to make sure that our
veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they
deserve, and the recognition that our Nation owes them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to thank the gentlelady for her strong voice on behalf of
women veterans. I had the honor of working in the Texas State Senate
under then Lieutenant Governor Bill Hobby, whose mother, Oveta Culp
Hobby, played a leading role in heading the WACs in World War II.
When I was first elected to the House in 1990, the famous, some would
say infamous, but the wonderful and always famous Sarah McClendon, the
White House reporter, who I think at one point was second in line in
seniority at the White House and was an outspoken advocate on behalf of
women veterans. And I thank the gentlelady for continuing in the
tradition of Ms. Hobby and Ms. McClendon.
There is no doubt that the VA has come a long way in its history in
trying to improve care to women veterans, but we have yet a long way to
go. And for that reason, I will support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank my colleague for his support of
this effort. I look forward to working with him to make sure that the
VA undertakes this effort and takes it seriously, and we get some good,
solid recommendations that all of us can work on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and would
be glad to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank my colleague from Texas for putting
together a great bill. I know he has been a long-time advocate of the
best care possible for our veterans in this country. And as a military
general, I want to commend him for the great work he has done on a
bipartisan basis. And I thank you for that, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring attention to the shortcomings of
the Department of Veterans Affairs in addressing the infrastructure
needs of community-based outpatient clinics. These clinics provide
convenient care to our veterans on an outpatient basis.
There are currently 64 pending clinics that have received approval
from the VA either in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008. One of
those clinics is set to be established in my district in Hickory, North
Carolina. When opened, this clinic will serve approximately 10,000
veterans on an outpatient basis annually. However, since the VA Mid-
Atlantic Health Care Network announced last June that the clinic in
Hickory would open in January of this year, there has been nothing but
delay after delay after delay. Now, veterans in western North Carolina
are frustrated with these delays, as many of us are, and there seems to
be this common issue throughout the system.
This particular clinic has been in the works in some way or another
for roughly 12 years, Mr. Chairman. The time is up for delays, and
veterans of these 64 regions are entitled to answers.
Last month, my two North Carolina colleagues in the Senate and I
formally requested an update about the status of the outpatient clinic
in Hickory. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response to our
inquiry. Our veterans, I believe, deserve better.
I would ask that as this bill moves forward to the Senate and to
conference, the chairman and the ranking member work to get answers
from the Department of Veterans Affairs, answers to why we have these
continued delays for pending outpatient clinics. Veterans in Hickory,
North Carolina, and across the country have sacrificed too much for our
country and deserve to have, at the very least, convenient health care.
They deserve a proper explanation and progress report as well.
I also want to finish by commending the chairman for his, again, hard
work on increasing funding for our veterans. I know that on both sides
of the aisle we are very pleased with the work you've done, both the
chairman and the ranking member, and we are looking forward to passage.
{time} 1500
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank the
gentleman for his kind comments and say that while I don't know
specifically where the Hickory Outpatient Clinic stands in the list of
priorities for the VA, for the very reasons the gentleman mentioned
about the importance of these clinics we have report language in this
bill to require the VA to report back to us the status of these
clinics.
I think it is pretty clear the reason the VA hasn't funded many of
these clinics, and there are 717 that have been funded, is simply that
they didn't have enough money to fund the clinics. That is one reason
we worked so hard this year in this Congress to provide an increase in
VA care funding that is unprecedented in our Nation's history. If you
count the 2007 continuing resolution plus the Iraq war supplemental
plus this bill, if it passes today and becomes law, we will have
provided in this Congress this year in the last 6 months an $11.9
billion increase in VA discretionary spending, 90 percent of which goes
to VA medical care.
I hope that with passage of this bill, and now the administration has
agreed not to veto it, we will perhaps have enough money to fund some
of the clinics that have not been funded.
We will look forward to working with the gentleman. He deserves an
answer from the VA. I don't know why the gentleman hasn't gotten an
answer back from the VA. I encourage you to keep calling them or
talking to them until they do answer you.
Again, I can't answer specifically on where Hickory does stand or
should stand in the process. That should be a process based on the
reality of the veterans' needs, comparing one community to another. But
I sure look forward to working with our colleagues to see that we have
enough funding in this bill to increase the number of VA clinics that
we can build around the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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,
$43,470,000, to remain available until expended.
foreign currency fluctuations account
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, $11,000,000, to remain
available until expended, for purposes authorized by section
2109 of title 36, United States Code.
[[Page H6553]]
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 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code,
$21,397,000, of which $1,300,000 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, $30,592,000, 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
trust fund
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,
$55,724,000.
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Federal Fund Payment
For payment to the ``Armed Forces Retirement Home'',
$800,000, to remain available until expended.
TITLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2008 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 403. 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. 404. 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. 405. 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.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mrs. Blackburn:
In section 405 (page 48, beginning on line 11), strike
``encouraged'' and insert ``directed''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, American businesses in the private sector continue to
advance the use of information and e-commerce technology to strengthen
their bottom line and increase customer service. However, too many
government agencies continue to use antiquated operating systems that
do not use taxpayer dollars efficiently or create optimal conditions
for customer service.
Right here in the House of Representatives, we offer Americans e-
commerce services in the form of ``Write Your Rep.'' I am sure most of
my colleagues and their staff use this program, and they use it with
efficiency. It helps us to stay in touch.
I have a military post in my district, Fort Campbell. It is located
in Montgomery County, Tennessee. I also have 60,000 veterans that are
there. One of the things we find is that many times our agencies,
working with these constituents, continue to do business on antiquated
systems that don't optimize efficiently.
That is why I am offering this amendment today. Increasing the use of
e-commerce technology and procedures in the bureaucracy will allow
critical agencies funded under this act to operate more efficiently.
But, more importantly, it will allow our members of the military and
our veterans to gain access to records, especially health records, that
they need in a timely manner.
I want to thank the chairman for recognizing this important business
objective. The underlying legislation takes a step forward to the goal
by encouraging the agencies to expand the use of e-commerce.
My amendment, however, is an important step further. It would direct
the agencies funded under H.R. 2642 to expand the use of e-commerce
technologies in the conducting of their business practices within the
limits, within the limits, of the existing statute and funding.
It is a straightforward, simple amendment. As we know, the
bureaucracy is not going to do this on their own. They need the
oversight from Congress.
If successful, we have got three points we hope it would achieve:
number one, lead to greater transparency in agency asset and records
management; number two, enhance governmental reform and efficiency;
and, number three, spur agencies to build best practices and conduct
themselves in a more businesslike manner.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I think
this is a good amendment, and I will support it. I think there will be
broad bipartisan support for your amendment, because it is well thought
out and it is a positive thing to do. We will support it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
chairman for thinking about the records process with our veterans and
our military.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 406. 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 or any other
appropriations Act.
Sec. 407. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and
notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
Sec. 408. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall, not later than February 1, 2008, submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report projecting annual appropriations
necessary for the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue
providing necessary health care to veterans for fiscal years
2009 through 2012.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used for any action that is
related to or promotes the expansion of the boundaries or
size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern
Colorado.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman for his work on
[[Page H6554]]
this bill, and I would like to commend the ranking member for the
yeoman's job that you have done, for the work you have had before you.
I very much appreciate it.
In Colorado, we have a very unique situation. We have a maneuver site
that the United States Army uses, and it is 236,000 acres presently.
The Army is wanting to expand this by 418,000 additional acres.
If you drive in that area of our State, you will see this sign. This
was created by a high school teacher from La Junta: ``Our land is our
life. It is not for sale.''
As a very strong supporter of the United States military, but also a
very strong supporter of our private property rights, I am opposed to
this expansion, and my amendment would say that no funds in this bill
would be used for the expansion.
A month ago in Colorado, our Democratic Governor, Bill Ritter, signed
into law a bill to withdraw the State's consent to give up any land
that the United States Army might acquire through condemnation. So
there is a very strong message that comes from our State legislature,
from our house and senate and from our Governor. But the most poignant
opposition that I hear about is from the farmers and ranchers, many of
them who have been there for five generations who will lose their land,
who will lose their way of life.
When you look at the opposition to the Pinon Canyon expansion, it
goes on and on. But, interestingly enough, it is very diverse. The
opposition comes from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It
comes from property rights groups. But it also comes from groups such
as the Sierra Club, Colorado Springs Chapter. This is all over the
political spectrum that this expansion is opposed.
As we think about what could happen in that area, it is interesting
to look at the National Trust for Historic Preservation issues and
their 2000 list of America's most endangered places: ``Pinon Canyon,
Colorado. In Southeastern Colorado, under uninterrupted blue skies,
Pinon Canyon is an area of scenic buttes, river valleys, family ranches
and historic and archeological sites that span 11,500 years. The area
is threatened by the United States Army's plan to expand its maneuver
training ground by as much as 418,000 acres, a move that could lead to
forced condemnation of private lands and damage or destroy historic
Santa Fe Trail monuments, ranches and historic and prehistoric
archeological sites.''
That is what is at stake in southeastern Colorado. As we look at how
much land the government already owns, in the red area you can see how
much of our State is already government land in Colorado. The expansion
of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site would be as large as the State of
Rhode Island. It is striking.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise as a proud veteran, as a son of a veteran
and the father of a veteran. I am honored to be the only veteran of the
Colorado delegation.
As an Army man, today I am saddened to rise in opposition to the
Army's plan to condemn nearly half a million acres of privately owned
ranches and farms in my district.
Pinon Canyon currently has a 235,000-acre training facility which
Fort Carson utilizes in southeastern Colorado. Now the Army is seeking
to expand the Pinon Canyon site by an additional 418,000 acres,
utilizing condemnation as a power to do so. The Army's plans include
taking this land by condemnation. If the Army succeeds, Fort Carson and
Pinon Canyon combined will be larger than the State of Rhode Island.
Opposition to the expansion is unified, as the gentlewoman from
Colorado stated. But when the Army acquired the original Pinon Canyon
land in 1982, they promised local landowners that it would never be
expanded. Now they are planning to take even more. The loss of 400,000
acres of ranch land, Mr. Chairman, would devastate the economy of
southeast Colorado.
The BRAC decision of 2005 stated that the Army did not need
additional space. In 1970, the Army first looked at condemning land in
El Paso County, which is now in Mr. Lamborn's district for the original
Pinon Canyon. Many residents from El Paso County fought against the
possible land grab in their own backyard, and the site was eventually
moved to southeast Colorado.
I would ask my fellow Members, if you can't support this in your
backyard, please don't support it in my district.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this is with mixed feelings: I want to make
it clear that I think the Army has responsibility to these communities
in Colorado to sit down with them, work with them and work with the
landowners, because it is my understanding that at one point the Army
made the statement that it would not exercise eminent domain.
I also want to clarify that there is no money in this bill to allow
for any acquisition of any land. The money in this bill could be used
by the Army to pursue plans to later acquire land.
I respect Mrs. Musgrave and Mr. Salazar for their opposition, and I
say that with great respect to you, Mr. Salazar, knowing of your
service and your family's service to our Nation's military. The reason
I personally oppose this amendment is that the Army sees Fort Carson as
an important part of growing the Army, of bringing troops back from
Germany and South Korea, of implementing the BRAC process, and the Army
has identified up to 5 million acres worldwide that they need for
additional training operations.
{time} 1515
Fort Carson is one of the tremendous beneficiaries of the BRAC 2005
process, getting two additional brigades that are moving from Fort Hood
as well as additional forces there. So I am going to oppose the
amendment because I believe it would stop even the planning process for
even a smaller amount, much smaller than 418,000 acres. I understand
why the gentlewoman and the gentleman are opposing what the Army's
intentions are, but at least let's clarify that there is no money in
this bill for land acquisition.
I yield to Mr. Salazar.
Mr. SALAZAR. I agree there is no money for actual land acquisition,
but there is money for the planning process. Do you agree with me that
in the 2005 BRAC decision that the Army clearly stated they did not
need any additional land in Colorado when they moved the troops from
Fort Hood to Colorado to Fort Carson? Is that correct?
Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, actually, this is the first BRAC
round, in 2005, that I actually voted against. One of the reasons was
that I felt the Army was making some decisions that weren't in the best
interests of the taxpayers and the Army. But the Army made their
decisions. The BRAC recommendations were passed by the Congress, and
now they are being implemented. I do have some concerns despite my
opposition to BRAC 2005 that if we totally stop the planning for this
expansion, we could seriously impact the training of forces during a
critical time in the Army's history.
I respect the gentleman's position, and I am going to encourage the
Army to sit down and meet with both Members who are sponsoring this
amendment, and perhaps the gentlelady and gentleman can win this vote.
But if not, I am still going to encourage the Army to sit down and
deal with the landowners and the people of Colorado, and the two of you
in particular, to try to address this problem and the concerns, the
legitimate concerns that you have raised.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, for a different perspective, I yield to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
I rise today in opposition to this amendment which would cut off all
funding to study an expansion of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site. This
amendment would stop the Army from
[[Page H6555]]
providing the soldiers with much-needed additional training space, an
action which could have serious negative consequences for the Army and
for the brave men and women serving our Nation.
By prohibiting these funds, the Army would not even be able to study
the area and complete an environmental impact statement. The purpose of
an EIS is to assess the environmental, economic and other impacts of a
proposed action before a Federal action is even taken up.
Private property rights are deeply important to me. Any option to
increase the size of the PCMS should be thoroughly studied, and if
plans for the expansion were to go forward, it should occur to the
greatest extent possible, if not completely through willing sellers.
The type of enemy we are now facing overseas is much different than
during the Cold War. PCMS contains terrain much like areas such as Iraq
and Afghanistan. We are fortunate as a country to have this training
area, but the Army has outgrown it. It would be a shame to not even
study the possibility of using an existing facility that could easily
be transformed into a 22nd-century facility. During the Cold War,
divisions consisting of approximately 20,000 soldiers fought in
relatively small areas in Europe. Consequently, training could be
conducted in areas of approximately 22,000 acres or 5 by 7 miles.
Today, brigade-size formations of approximately 3,500 soldiers must now
operate in and control areas of approximately 615,000 acres, or 31 by
31 miles.
While Army units have gotten smaller, the battlefield has gotten
larger. We owe our soldiers proper training for the conditions they
will experience in other combat theaters. Not allowing the soldiers to
train adequately puts them in harm's way.
The Army is simply asking for an opportunity to study an expansion.
To deny them this opportunity would be to substitute political pressure
for the considered judgment of our military commanders who are charged
with training and protecting our troops.
It is unrealistic and irresponsible to think other public lands in
Colorado or the West, such as roadless wilderness areas or national
parks, could be used as a substitute. No critic of PCMS has come
forward with a responsible and specific alternative. The longer
distances involved would also make that difficult.
Over 200 soldiers from Fort Carson have died in Iraq and Afghanistan
fighting terrorism. The soldiers and commanders at Fort Carson know
what it takes to wage war in the 21st century, and they are serious
about it. It would truly be a shame if they don't have the proper
training facilities so that they can succeed. The Army should at least
be given a chance to study the issue and present their findings.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave), but I would express to all of my colleagues, though,
that we are receiving calls from people who have made airline plans and
are hoping to get back to their districts and to their homes for
Father's Day. Mindful of that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that my
son-in-law served in Afghanistan, and I would like to commend Mr.
Salazar, his father and his son for their service to this great Nation
and point out that in the 1970s the land was thought about in the
Colorado Springs area in El Paso County, and the landowners there
fought it.
And so when anyone would imply that Mr. Salazar and I, Mr. Chairman,
are responding to political pressure, what we are doing is standing up
for private property rights and balancing that with our concern that
our soldiers have the proper training.
It is like Mr. Salazar said, you oppose it in your own yard, but it
is okay for someone else. I am standing up for those ranchers. You
might as well cross southeastern Colorado off the map if this expansion
goes forward. So I respectfully look at the opinion of my friend from
Colorado and I do say, though, that in this country the government owns
enough land. There are alternatives to this that would be satisfactory
in balancing our support for private property rights and our support
for our troops.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
Passage of this amendment will not stop the proposed expansion of the
Army's Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern Colorado, but it will
delay consideration of the Army's plans until two very important
questions can be answered: (1) What are the Army's real training needs,
and (2) will the Army assure Coloradans that it will not resort to
condemnation to acquire land?
Before giving the Army money to take the first steps toward expanding
these training grounds, we should be convinced that there is a real
military need for the Army to acquire an additional 418,000 acres. I
have kept an open mind on this question and that that is why, along
with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Readiness Subcommittee of
the House Armed Services Committee, I have asked the Government
Accountability Office to report to Congress on whether this expansion
is the right way to meet the Army's training requirements and what
other alternatives the Army should consider.
More important, it is abundantly clear to me that there is no
support--even among proponents of an expansion--for the Army's use of
eminent domain to acquire any land. But so far, the Army has been
reluctant to give the State of Colorado and the landowners in the area
a commitment that it will not resort to condemnation. For me, that
commitment is essential, and unless and until the Army makes clear it
will not use condemnation, I believe Congress should not allow the
expansion process to go forward.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be
postponed.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wicker and I would not want to cut off
any Member from expressing his or her heartfelt views on important
issues in this bill, but we would like to bring to the attention of the
House and our colleagues that there are a number of colleagues trying
to catch airplanes to get back home for Father's Day weekend. There are
a number of amendments that are subject to a point of order. I would
like to respectfully request Members on those amendments to keep your
remarks to 2 minutes. I will reserve my right to exercise a point of
order. If we take too much time, we might have to go ahead and exercise
those points of order.
If we could proceed ahead expeditiously, I would appreciate that.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hall of New York
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hall of New York:
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 provide to any officer of the Department of
Veterans Affairs who is appointed by the President, by and
with the consent of the Senate, or to any Deputy Under
Secretary or Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs a performance award under section 5384 of
title 5, United States Code, or a performance-based cash
award under section 4505a of such title.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a small change
to funding at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would prohibit any
funding to be spent for performance bonuses to senior level staff at
the Department for fiscal year 2008.
[[Page H6556]]
This amendment would effectively mean no person in a Presidential-
appointed position or Secretary-level position would receive a
performance bonus during the coming fiscal year.
As I begin, let me state that the Department of Veterans Affairs has
done a very good job in many areas for our Nation's veterans. In fact,
its health care system is rated amongst the very best in the country,
and the demand of veterans to get into the system speaks to the high
level of care that it provides.
However, there remains a significant need for improvement in many
areas. In the last 3 years, the VA has underestimated its health care
budget by nearly $1 billion. It has roughly 600,000 veterans claims
backlogged and veterans currently waiting an average of 177 days before
receiving a decision on their claim.
Furthermore, according to a draft Inspector General's report, the VA
is significantly overstating its success in getting patients timely
appointments with VA doctors. The number of claims pending before the
Department has steadily increased over the last 5 years. The current
wait time is nearly 2 months longer than what Secretary Nicholson
suggested in front of our Veterans Affairs Subcommittee would be
acceptable to him, which was 125 days rather than the 177 currently
being suffered by our veterans. That is nearly a 2-month difference.
The Secretary himself called this ``unacceptable.'' However, the
awards for bonuses last year ranged up to and included a number of
members of high management at the VA of $33,000 in annual bonus. Their
award bonuses were because of evaluations of outstanding and excellent.
In fact, 87 percent of the senior staff were called ``outstanding'' or
``excellent'' in performance. One of those who got the $33,000 bonus
had only served in his position from February 2006 until September
2006. So an outstanding performance for 6 months earned that individual
a $33,000 bonus; this at a time when our veterans are waiting 177 days
average to have their claims for disability heard. And if they go to an
appeal, it is an average of 2 years to wait for that appeal to be
heard. This simply makes no sense. It is either unacceptable or it is
outstanding, but it can't be both.
I am sure that most of the staff at the Department is dedicated and
hardworking and the service they provided in often excellent, but in
other areas it is unsatisfactory. Our veterans deserve accountability
from the VA. Yet Secretary Nicholson himself has signed off on all of
these bonuses, making only one change since 2004.
Veterans in my district and across the country were outraged when The
Washington Post and the Army Times broke this story a couple of months
ago. The VA Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight invited
Secretary Nicholson to testify this week and explain the bonuses.
However, he decline and decided instead to send a substitute who
admitted to knowing very little about the issue.
I understand that the chairman wants to study and best address this
issue; and I would prefer that rather than eliminating bonuses
altogether that we have them tied to performance, as bonuses should be.
So if the chairman agrees, I would like to work with him and other
Members on a separate piece of legislation to add accountability to the
bonus process to the Department.
As in private industry, bonuses at the VA should be tied to
performance, and I believe all of us want to see that happen, want to
see the backlog reduced, and want to see our veterans get their claims
processed promptly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Hall for his strong
leadership; first, on trying to see that this Congress, which we are
going to do in this bill, provides the funding to reduce the terrible
backlog of veterans cases pending. As he mentioned, there are over
400,000-plus veterans waiting for their cases to be considered.
And, secondly, for bringing to the attention of the Congress the
problems raised by the bonuses given to a number of VA employees at a
time when so many veterans are waiting for their benefits.
I thank the gentleman for agreeing to withdraw the amendment. We have
every intention of working with him and the Veterans' Affairs Committee
on which he serves as a subcommittee chairman to address the inequities
of this situation.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, with the chairman's agreement, I
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this
amendment is either ill-conceived or politically conceived in that the
Deputy Secretary is the gentleman who came to the committee to testify,
and that was by agreement at the committee.
So to say that the administration sent someone who was uninformed is
not a good way to address this to our colleagues.
{time} 1530
That was by agreement of the committee, and it was the Deputy
Secretary of the VA who came in and who testified, and as a matter of
fact, his testimony, that I will share with all my colleagues, is that
he testified just last week during the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee hearing on the SEC bonuses, at which the author of this
amendment was present and he said, by statute, senior executive
presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed appointees are not
eligible for performance bonuses.
Did you hear that? They're not eligible for bonuses. So what we have
here is, the gentleman's brought an amendment that is either redundant,
multiplicitous or unnecessary.
With that, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, thank you for agreeing to allow
the amendment to be withdrawn.
For the record, I would like to say that Under Secretary Mansfield,
under oath this week at the Subcommittee on Oversight hearing, at least
six times answered that he did not know the information and would have
to go back and respond in writing. And one of those times specifically
had do with an individual who was identified by the Congressional
Research Service as being a presidential appointee who is among those
receiving bonuses.
So at least in one case that may need to be clarified.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 49, after line 11, insert the following new section:
Sec. 409. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
increase the number of medical centers specializing in post-
traumatic stress disorder in underserved urban areas, which
shall include using the services of existing health care
entities.
(b) At least one of the existing health care institutions
used by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) shall be--
(1) located in an area defined as a HUBzone (as that term
is defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632(p)) on the basis of one or more qualified census
tracts;
(2) located within a State that has sustained more than
five percent of the total causalities suffered by the United
States Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom, as May 1, 2007; and
(3) have at least 20 years experience and significant
expertise in providing treatment and counseling services with
respect to substance abuse, alcohol addiction, and
psychiatric or stress-related disorders to populations with
special needs, including veterans and members of the Armed
Forces serving on active duty.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
[[Page H6557]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my appreciation
to the full Committee on Appropriations, both the chairman and ranking
member, and to this subcommittee. I've seen enormous commitment to
bipartisanship between Mr. Edwards and, of course, Mr. Wicker. But my
good colleague and friend from Texas has outdone himself, and this
particular veterans appropriation, the Military Construction Veterans
Affairs appropriation, signifies nothing but joy for Americans and
veterans all across this country.
Might I just cite the fact that this bill moves above the President's
budget in medical services, making it $28.9 billion; moves above the
President's request on homeless vets, $130 million; moves above the
President's request on medical facilities, $4.1 billion; and moves
above it on extended care facilities, $165 million.
Many of us have risen to the floor today to talk about post-traumatic
stress. I just wanted to remind my colleagues of the kind of horror and
nightmare that many of our soldiers and returning soldiers and veterans
live with, suffering from PTSD. It is simply to acknowledge the fact
that over and over again you relive the tragedy of the experience,
whether it's small arms fire, whether it's IEDs, whether it's seeing
your comrade fall in battle in front of you, whether it's seeing his
body implode, you know that you're reliving it, and the number one
basis of PTSD is military and combat exposure.
Just for the record, let me acknowledge that 94 percent of the
soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small arms fire; 86 percent of
soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured or
killed. This is a major issue and it is a major part of the lives of
our soldiers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply was to do this: It was to provide
more medical centers in places like rural areas or small cities to be
able to be utilized for PTSD. I know Chairman Edwards knows this issue
because it was his leadership that generated the change of the Waco
veterans hospital into a mental health facility. I want that to
continue to stand, and I want to thank him for the increased dollars
he's put in for PTSD.
But, Mr. Chairman, I have a veterans advisory committee that's
indicated that we need centers around the Nation, smaller centers maybe
in small hospitals, that would respond to veterans and returning
soldiers, maybe even to the extent of reimbursing them by being in
those particular centers.
Let me close by simply saying that this bill is comprehensive. I look
forward to working with the chairman on more permanent housing for the
disabled, as we work toward more PTSD facilities, even though we have a
great amount of resources here, more adjusted housing, if you will, for
those who are coming back so they're not living alone.
I want to take special privilege to acknowledge the DeGeorge in my
community for my homeless vets, a facility for homeless vets, DeGeorge
at Union Station and U.S. Vets. All of them confront veterans and
returning soldiers with PTSD. If we expand these facilities so that
rural and small cities and even inner city areas, which is what my
amendment is focused on, everybody would have the opportunity to be
able to access help with PTSD.
I would ask my colleagues to consider as we move toward conference to
be able to work on this issue in an expanded way.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong
support of the bill and in favor of my amendment. I also rise to
express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Edwards, the chairman of the
Appropriations I subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Military
Construction, and the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr.
Filner, for all they have done and continue to do to make real
President Lincoln's admonition that ``we care for him who has borne the
battle, and for his widow and orphan.''
In particular, I wish to commend Chairman Edwards, for the
leadership, commitment, and foresight he has demonstrated on the issue
of PTSD and the overall mental health of our nation's veterans. On
February 28, 2007, he announced that $3 million has been made available
for the Waco VA PTSD program in 2006 which is now available so that
researchers at Fort Hood, Texas A&M, Baylor, the Temple VA, and the
Waco VA hospital work towards realizing their goal of making the Waco
VA, in conjunction with Ft. Hood and the Temple VA, a world-class PTSD
and mental health care research center.
Like Mr. Edwards and Mr. Filner, I am committed to improving the
lives of thousands of veterans who have risked their lives for our
nation, and I believe my amendment plays a crucial role in ensuring
that veterans suffering from PTSD receive the medical treatment they
desperately need.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment
to H.R. 2642, the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2008. As a Member of Congress
from Texas, a state which has sustained more casualties in the ongoing
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq than all but one other, I am pleased
to offer this amendment. This amendment is intended to address the
urgent need for more post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment
and counseling facilities servicing veterans living in some of the more
distressed areas of our country.
Mr. Chairman, according to Webster's, dignity is ``the quality or
condition of being esteemed, honored or worthy.'' We can never do
enough to honor our wounded veterans. Studies have shown that 30
percent of troops deployed to Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety, or
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, when wounded troops
return home the treatment they receive is more befitting a second class
citizen than a hero. This is a shame and a great stain on our nation.
How these problems could be overlooked or neglected by this
Administration is unfathomable. The very leaders that these brave young
men and women rely on let them down. The message that incidents like
Walter Reed Medical Center sends to our troops is that we do not care
enough. But that is not the message we wish to send. The Veterans
Administration and Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2008,
H.R. 2642, will go long away toward correcting this misapprehension.
All members of the House are indebted to our colleague, Mr. Edwards of
Texas, for his masterful leadership in shepherding this landmark
legislation to the House floor. For the 25,380, 2,401 from Texas, brave
men and women who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, help is on
the way. And the 3,519, 298 from Texas, heroes who have given the last
full measure of devotion will always be in our hearts and prayers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in post-
traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to
post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since
veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and
treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mr. Chairman, PTSD is one of the most prevalent and devastating
psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women fighting in
far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.
For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it
is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen
and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see
on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an lED, or an
insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your
face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the
mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your
20th birthday.
But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after stress
and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and
memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters
with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.
PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war
veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such
as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child
abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural
disasters such as floods or earthquakes.
People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb,
especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close, lose
interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling
affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become
violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original
incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.
PTSD symptoms seem to be worse if the event that triggered them was
deliberately initiated by another person, as in a mugging or a
kidnapping. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their
thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are
called flashbacks. Flashbacks may consist of images, sounds, smells, or
feelings, and are often triggered by ordinary occurrences, such as a
door slamming or a car backfiring on the street. A person having q
flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic
incident is happening all over again.
[[Page H6558]]
Mr. Chairman, the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have
other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These
veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol
and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.
The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most continuous
combat operations since Vietnam. Only one comprehensive study has
examined the mental health impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and that was performed by Charles W. Hoge, MD. This study looked at the
experience of soldiers in the war zone and symptoms of psychological
distress. Soldiers in Iraq are at risk for being killed or wounded
themselves, are likely to have witnessed the suffering of others, and
may have participated in killing or wounding others as part of combat
operations. All of these activities have a demonstrated association
with the development of PTSD. Hoge's study indicated that 94 percent of
soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small-arms fire. In addition, 86
percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously
injured or killed, 68 percent reported seeing dead or seriously injured
Americans, and 51 percent reported handling or uncovering human
remains. The majority, 77 percent, of soldiers deployed to Iraq
reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy, 48 percent reported
being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant, and 28 percent
reported being responsible for the death of a noncombatant.
My amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost,
human. They carry their experiences with them. Ask a Vietnam Veteran
about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize
that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether
good or bad. My amendment ensures that no soldier is left behind. By
directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the number of
medical facilities specializing in PTSD that are located in underserved
urban areas, and conducting a concurrent study on increasing access to
PTSD treatment at these facilities those soldiers will never feel
forgotten or taken for granted. These soldiers can be certain that
Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary
treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a
successful one.
As the war in Iraq continues to drag on, and with our country
continuing to send military personnel to Afghanistan, the military has
been overwhelmed with returning soldiers suffering from mental health
problems. Earlier this month, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry
consultant to the Army surgeon general, stated ``as the war has gone
on, PTSD and other psychological effects of war have increased. The
number of mental health workers that was adequate for a peacetime
military is not adequate for a nation that's been at war.''
Mr. Chairman, according to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20
percent of Army soldiers have demonstrated signs of post-traumatic
stress. Symptoms of this serious disorder include nightmares,
flashbacks, emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of
appetite, memory loss, clinical depression, and anxiety. One year after
returning from combat, approximately 35 percent of soldiers are seeking
some kind of mental health treatment. Among soldiers still stationed in
Iraq and Afghanistan, many incidents of abuse, including killings and
rapes by U.S. soldiers, have been attributed to ethics lapses caused by
the strain of combat.
Mr. Chairman, last Thursday, the Department of Defense released a
report that stated ``current efforts fall significantly short'' in
providing help for troops. Further, this report found that the
psychological health needs of America's military service members, their
families and their survivors pose a daunting and growing challenge to
the Department of Defense.
I urge adoption of my amendment. And I thank the Chairman for his
fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor
where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and particularly
want to salute her for her strong support for veterans and, in
particular, for PTSD and mental health care studies.
As she knows, this bill has a significant increase in funding,
historic increase in funding, for VA medical care, and we have directed
in the report of the bill that a significant part of that money should
go to PTSD and mental health care services.
So I hope with the funding levels in this bill we will have
opportunities to provide the kind of expanded service that the
gentlewoman has spoken about so eloquently.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Upton:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 409. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have
the ``ENERGY STAR'' designation.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Edwards and
Ranking Member Wicker, Mr. Obey and others, particularly my coauthor,
Ms. Harman, on this amendment.
As Congress tackles climate change legislation and examines ways to
promote energy efficiency, it is so important that the Federal
Government set a proper example, taking the lead in commonsense
conservation measures. Some would say this is an amendment that sets a
shining example for the rest of the country.
The Federal Government has to be the world's largest consumer of
light bulbs, and with this amendment, we will likely save American
taxpayers probably as much as $100 million.
Why Energy Star light bulbs? Well, current incandescent bulbs on
store shelves are obsolete, and they're highly inefficient. In fact,
only 10 percent of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light, with
90 percent wasted on unnecessary heat.
Energy Star light bulbs use about 75 percent less energy than the
standard incandescent bulbs, as they last as much as 10 times longer.
In fact, if every house in the Nation switched to Energy Star bulbs, we
would have the potential to annually reduce the emissions equivalent of
80 coal-burning plants each year, saving 65 billion kilowatts.
This amendment will make the Federal Government a shining example of
how we can conserve energy, one light bulb at a time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues will excuse the pun, I
want to thank the gentleman for enlightening the VA and the DOD on this
issue. I'm glad to support this amendment. It is an important issue,
and we can set a good example for the country by passing it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a valued leader on armed services and
veterans issues.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our south Texas veterans, we
appreciate the committee's concern regarding access to inpatient and
outpatient care for our far south Texas veterans.
Let me say I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, for doing such a great job
and for having way down in your heart the care of the veterans that
served in many, many wars, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These veterans have to travel upwards of 6 hours each way to receive
inpatient care, and many times they have their appointments cancelled.
As you know, the VA's currently finalizing a study on options to
provide inpatient and outpatient specialty care which will be out this
July.
And Mr. Chairman, as you know, this war has resulted in many
casualties.
[[Page H6559]]
We've had over 46 young men killed in this war. We have lost more,
between Chairman Hinojosa and I, 46 soldiers. In addition, we've had
many more soldiers maimed and injured; and what we would like to see,
Mr. Chairman, would the committee work with us to move the issue of a
veterans hospital in south Texas forward.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the chairman for his strong leadership over the
years on behalf of the veterans in south Texas.
With that, I'd like to yield to my colleague and close friend, Mr.
Hinojosa.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2642, and I also rise on behalf of myself, the Honorable Congressman
Ortiz and the Honorable Congressman Cuellar and the more than 75
veterans who in the fall of 2005 walked in the hot sun a long, long 250
miles from Edinburg, Texas, to San Antonio to raise the level of
awareness of a badly needed veterans hospital in south Texas.
I want to sincerely thank Chairman Edwards for your outstanding
leadership and for the past support for veterans affairs. I look
forward to working with you to accomplish what naysayers have said,
that it will never get done.
And finally, I want to emphasize that our south Texas veterans and
the south Texas congressional delegation have been fighting for a
veterans hospital for more than 20 years. While the VA has a contract
for a few hospital beds, those 10 beds are not enough to take care of
the more than 75,000 veterans living in the eight county region. Once
the VA releases their report next month, will the chairman work with us
to address any shortfalls that are identified for inpatient care in
south Texas?
Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say the answer
to that is yes. As a native son of south Texas, as someone who grew up
admiring Dr. Hector Garcia, the great World War II veteran who founded
the American GI forum as you know, I have always stood in awe of the
service of south Texans and Hispanic Americans as well in south Texas
to our country in time of war and in time of our greatest need.
While a veterans hospital in south Texas would have to be authorized
by the VA authorization committee, if that were to be done, certainly
again as a native son of south Texas, it'd be a dream come true for all
of us who care about that part of the country to see a hospital built.
The data will have to be there. The report should be a very important
one coming in July, but until that report comes, let me just say in the
meantime that veterans all across south Texas have benefited from the
hard work of Mr. Hinojosa and our colleague Mr. Ortiz, and they're
getting services today they wouldn't have gotten without your help, and
I salute you both for that effort.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pearce
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pearce:
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 reimburse employees of the Department of Veterans
Affairs for official travel expenses until the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs increases the mileage reimbursement rate
payable under section 111 of title 38, United States Code, to
individuals traveling to or from a Department facility so
that such rate is equal to the rate payable to Federal
Government employees traveling on official business in
privately-owned vehicles, as prescribed by the Administrator
of General Services under section 5707(b) of title 5, United
States Code.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we call our veterans from World War II
America's greatest generation but our actions don't always hold water.
I rise today to offer an amendment to the Military Construction-
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill which would ensure veterans are
appropriately reimbursed for mileage travel to and from medical
facilities in New Mexico or large rural States.
Many times people in my county, 305 miles away from Albuquerque one
way, are directed to drive to Albuquerque. These people, many are like
my father in their 80s, they cannot travel 5\1/2\ hours one way. It's
unthinkable that we do that. It's unconscionable that we only pay them
11 cents a mile.
From Hobbs to Albuquerque, 305 miles one way, the reimbursement is
$34. I would like to ask anyone in this chamber how they would expect
to drive 305 miles for $34, but even worse, the Veterans'
Administration takes a fee when they get there. Approximately $7.50 of
the $34 is then sacrificed to the VA.
{time} 1545
No allowance is made to sleep overnight. No allowance is made for
hotel. No allowance is made for any circumstance except turning around
and driving another 5\1/2\ hours to get back home. We are reimbursing
all that driving at 11 cents a mile.
Meanwhile many of us in government jobs, all Federal officials are
reimbursed at 48\1/2\ cents per mile because that's the going rate.
That's the rate that we should be paying, and yet to America's Greatest
Generation, we're paying 11 cents a mile.
Now, the director of the service, the Secretary, could change this by
regulation, and all people on this House floor agree that it should be
changed. Back in March of 2007, March of this year, we passed the
Wounded Warrior Act, H.R. 1538, by a vote of 426-0, where we mandated
that the Secretary actually do this.
But we also know in Washington that we play games with people, we
play games with our veterans. So that bill now is trapped over in the
Senate.
What my amendment simply does is say we would like for the Secretary
not to pay anyone mileage from this bill, from H.R. 2642, until he
remedies the situation with our veterans. Pay them what the mileage
costs them to drive. We are mandating that they go that far to the
facilities. That's unthinkable, but it's unconscionable that we are
paying only 11 cents a mile.
So while we are claiming America's generation, America's World War II
veterans, to be our Greatest Generation, let's begin to act with honor
and reimburse them the way that we should. My amendment would ensure
that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say we all know that 11 cents per mile is
inadequate. We need to deal with it. I don't think this amendment is
the right way and the right time to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in 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 an existing law
imposes additional duties.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman that I
understand and accept that, but I would point out to the chairman that
we have legislated this way through appropriations before, and we'll do
it again.
I would simply make the point that the point of order today says we
will not do what our seniors and what our veterans deserve for us to do
one more time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and graciously
accept the gentleman's comments in his point of order and thank him for
his work on this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment imposes a legislative condition on the
availability of funds, namely, the increasing of a reimbursement rate
not required under current law.
As such, the amendment constitutes legislation under clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
[[Page H6560]]
yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you on this bill and
what a tremendous job your committee has done in producing this. I want
to make sure that the Veterans Administration uses the added resources
that you have provided to help reduce the disability claims that we
have seen getting backlogged. We need to reduce that backlog in the
most efficient manner possible.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this underlying bill. For the first
time in years, Congress is going to provide the kind of resources the
VA should have in order to provide the level of health care and
customer service that America's veterans have earned through their
service.
I commend you and the committee for drafting a bill that we can all
be proud of and that works for our veterans.
Today, America's disabled veterans must wait an average of almost 6
months for the VA to make a decision on their initial claim. Right now,
as we speak, almost half a million veterans have pending claims that
have already exceeded that 6-month time period, a period of time, I
believe, that is far, far too long.
With hundreds of thousands of returning veterans from Iraq and
Afghanistan, we can only expect the demand for services to rise. This
is an unacceptable situation, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, and it's
a result from two occurrences, insufficient resources at the VA to
process claims and a system that fundamentally needs to be improved. We
commend you because this bill starts to address the funding issues that
we face.
H.R. 2642 provides invaluable new resources to address the VA's
deficiencies, including funding for over 1,000 additional claim
workers. I want to make sure the VA is doing everything possible in
considering every opportunity to use the funds you are using in a wise
fashion.
The Government Accountability Office has made eight commonsense
recommendations to how it can improve the disability claims process at
the VA. This report, most recently reiterated on May 25, is a report
that deals with our wounded warriors and how to take care of them
better. It has eight strategic ways to fix the disability claims
situation.
However, according to the GAO, the VA is not moving on these eight
recommendations. I think the Congress should know why the VA is not
moving forward with these, and if they do move forward, they should let
us know when and how they are going to implement these recommendations.
We should require the VA to report back to Congress on what it is doing
to implement the GAO recommendations and how they can improve this
process.
Mr. Chairman, we are grateful. The veterans of Indiana's Second
District are grateful for the increase in funds, and we ask your help
in making sure that the VA uses those funds in a wise way and reduces
the disability claims backlog.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank Mr.
Donnelly for his leadership and seeing that we did put additional
funding in this bill to hire, as he mentioned, over 1,000 new VA case
workers, actually over 1,100 VA case workers to reduce that absolutely
unacceptable backlog of handling veterans cases.
I also look forward to working with the gentleman in the months ahead
to see how we can implement the GAO recommendations, to see we not only
have additional money for the VA to reduce that management backlog, but
to see that we are putting in place management practices to reduce it
even further.
This is not the first time the gentleman has spoken out on behalf of
veterans on this problem. I thank him for his continued leadership on
this effort.
Mr. DONNELLY. I thank you for your leadership and your wisdom on this
issue.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. At this time I would like to yield to my colleague and
friend, a distinguished veteran who comes to this Congress as the
highest ranking enlisted officer to have ever served in Congress, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Thank you to the distinguished colleague and
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, having been a member of our armed services for over 20
years and a member of many of our veterans service organizations for a
long time and now as a representative of tens of thousands of veterans,
I can assure you that no one has been a bigger supporter and fought
harder for veterans than the gentleman from Texas.
It is an honor to stand here as we have crafted, I believe, under his
leadership, one of the best pieces of legislation that has ever come
through the House. I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
Having represented the district of southern Minnesota that includes
the Mayo Clinic, the efficiency and quality of care in health care
services is of deep concern to me.
One of the areas that I am concerned with, and one that I look
forward to working with the chairman and his committee on, is how we
figure out how to make sure that VA and the Department of Defense are
fully cooperating in the efficient use of their health care resources.
In the past, the VA and the DOD have been encouraged by Congress to
do the best they can to make sure they share those resources
effectively. Some great examples of successes come out of that. Joint
purchasing of pharmaceuticals has been one of those where we have seen
great savings for our Nation, great savings for our veterans.
A year ago, the Government Accountability Office found that the VA
and DOD are, indeed, making progress. But they also made some
suggestions where they said standards must be developed to measure that
performance in order to determine whether they are doing an adequate
job of sharing their health care resources.
A year later yet we haven't seen, even though DOD and VA have agreed,
we haven't seen them implement some of those recommendations.
Once, again, I applaud the chairman for a great piece of legislation,
very thoughtful. I applaud my friends on other side of the aisle for
great cooperation, thoughtful care, and an absolute commitment, a moral
commitment to taking care of our veterans.
I look forward to working with you on this issue in the future to
make sure that we are not only taking care of our veterans at the
highest quality standard; we are also safeguarding those precious
resources of the American taxpayers to make sure we are not duplicating
services when we don't have to and to make sure that we are maximizing
our effect.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I want to thank the
gentleman for his distinguished military service to our country.
Veterans of America ought to be grateful to having someone like you
with your experience on the VA Committee.
You have taken a leadership position this year. Particularly we look
forward to working with you in getting the VA and DOD to work together.
There needs to be a seamless transition as someone moves from active
duty or is a member of the Guard and Reserves into the VA health care
system or the VA benefits system. We know we will have a better system
because of your leadership, and we will work with you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and very close friend from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
appropriations bill and thank Chairman Obey, Chairman Edwards, and our
ranking members for their work in setting a new standard for funding
our veterans program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this appropriations bill,
and to congratulate Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member and Chairman
Obey for their work in crafting this bill that sets a new standard for
funding veterans' programs.
For the first time since the veterans' service organizations began
producing their independent budget, Congress has met and even exceeded
their request in this bill. The bill appropriates a total of $87.7
billion for veterans' programs, which marks a $6.7 billion increase in
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs--the largest increase in
veterans' health care funding in the 77-year history of the VA.
[[Page H6561]]
This level of funding lets veterans, our troops, and their families
know this Congress is going to make sure the promises we made to the
men and women who fight for our country will be fulfilled, even after
they are done with their service. The wait times at VA medical
facilities have increased in recent years; the number of veterans has
increased and will continue to grow in the coming years as service
members return from Iraq and Afghanistan; and unspeakable conditions at
Walter Reed uncovered earlier this year all require attention, and this
bill ensures there is funding to address these problems.
During a time of war, we need to demonstrate a strong commitment not
only to our troops currently serving, but to those who have returned
from service and those who fought to defend our country in previous
conflicts. I would also like to offer my support for a project request
to provide funding for a fire station at Ellington Field, and I hope
the chairman will give it strong consideration as projects are funded.
The existing fire station at Ellington field is in a rapidly
deteriorating condition and does not meet OSHA or Air Force standards.
Roof leaks and lack of insulation result in equipment being destroyed
and extremely high operating costs. New firefighting apparatus must be
parked outside the station because they will not fit into the truck
bays.
This fire station supports all flying operations at Ellington Field
including Air National Guard, Army National Guard, U.S. Coast Guard,
NASA, and civilian aircraft. Construction of a new fire station at
Ellington is critical for the Texas Air National Guard and all units
stationed at Ellington Field.
Mr. Chairman, I again applaud the leadership from the chairmen who
drafted this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this legislation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
These will be my last remarks of the day. We have had a lot of debate
here over the last 4 hours.
I just want to say that we are facing a historic moment. Never before
in the history of this Congress have we voted on the floor of this
House to increase veterans health care spending by the level we will in
just a few moments.
I want to thank all those who have been part of it. I want to salute
Speaker Pelosi for having said we must keep our promises to our
veterans. I want to salute Chairman Obey; Congressman Spratt, the
chairman of the Budget Committee; Mr. Filner, the chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee; as well as Mr. Wicker and the others who
have worked on this in a bipartisan basis.
As the son of a World War II veteran, son of a dad I love greatly for
his service to our country, as my mentor was Congressman Olin B.
``Tiger'' Teague, known as Mr. Veteran in Congress for over 32 years,
his service here, what an honor and privilege, and humbling privilege
it is to me to work with us here today to pass this historic bill for
America's veterans.
We know we can never repay our debt of gratitude, but this bill today
will be a great down payment on that debt, and ultimately it will be a
show of respect for those who have sacrificed so much for the American
family.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Hayes of North Carolina.
Amendment by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
Amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
Amendment by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayes
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes) 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.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of
the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
Point of Order
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I don't see a sufficient
second, Mr. Chairman. I think we have been going automatically
assuming. I see staff people on both sides. I do not see Members.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to have a quorum call first?
Mr. DICKS. I just want to make sure that everybody sat down and we
had the Members stand up.
The CHAIRMAN. A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is
ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 110,
noes 304, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 492]
AYES--110
Alexander
Arcuri
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bordallo
Boyda (KS)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carney
Chabot
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Duncan
Etheridge
Fallin
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Hunter
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
Kingston
Kline (MN)
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McCrery
McIntyre
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Platts
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Sali
Shadegg
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Terry
Tiberi
Turner
Wamp
Watt
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--304
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
[[Page H6562]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Higgins
Jones (OH)
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Tancredo
Westmoreland
{time} 1622
Messrs. HOBSON, RYAN of Wisconsin, ALTMIRE, ADERHOLT, AKIN, TIAHRT,
BOOZMAN, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FOSSELLA, WATT and ROHRABACHER, and Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 68,
noes 347, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 493]
AYES--68
Abercrombie
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Campbell (CA)
Capps
Cardoza
Clay
Cleaver
Costa
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Doggett
Duncan
Ellison
Farr
Feeney
Foxx
Gilchrest
Gordon
Herseth Sandlin
Hinchey
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Kingston
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Napolitano
Pascrell
Payne
Pitts
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wu
NOES--347
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (WA)
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 30
seconds remaining in this vote.
{time} 1627
Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price)
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 260, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 494]
AYES--154
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
[[Page H6563]]
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Taylor
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Waters
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--260
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bordallo
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (WA)
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Melancon
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 30 seconds remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1632
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran)
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 264,
noes 152, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 495]
AYES--264
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Cleaver
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dent
Dicks
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holt
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--152
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bordallo
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
[[Page H6564]]
Kind
Knollenberg
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wicker
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (WA)
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 30 seconds on this vote.
{time} 1636
Ms. GIFFORDS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 211, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 496]
AYES--206
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Sullivan
Tanner
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Yarmuth
NOES--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Knollenberg
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Gutierrez
Hastings (WA)
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1641
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Musgrave) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 383,
noes 34, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 497]
AYES--383
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
[[Page H6565]]
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--34
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Blumenauer
Capuano
Crenshaw
Dicks
Edwards
Emanuel
Frelinghuysen
Hastert
Higgins
Johnson (IL)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Marshall
Pascrell
Putnam
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sestak
Shimkus
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Visclosky
Wicker
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Gutierrez
Hastings (WA)
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1645
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008''.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lynch, 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. 2642) making
appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes, pursuant to the previous order of the
House by unanimous consent, he reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409,
nays 2, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 498]
YEAS--409
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
[[Page H6566]]
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Campbell (CA)
Feeney
NOT VOTING--21
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Coble
Davis, Jo Ann
Diaz-Balart, L.
Eshoo
Gutierrez
Hastings (WA)
Kilpatrick
LaHood
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Meehan
Miller, George
Paul
Pickering
Sessions
Stupak
Tancredo
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1653
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I was detained and not present on the House
Floor when the final vote for passage of H.R. 2642--Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations was taken. Had I been
present I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________