[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 130 (Wednesday, September 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11101-S11112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--
                               Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 2642, the Military Construction 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Reed is in the Chamber or at least 
in the building. He and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison have been wanting 
to move this bill.
  I indicated, and the distinguished Republican leader agreed with me 
this morning, we need to move this legislation.
  If there are no amendments that are going to be offered, we should 
move to third reading. If there are amendments that are going to be 
offered, I would hope someone would notify the cloakroom immediately, 
Democratic or Republican cloakroom, and we will certainly be as 
considerate to them as necessary.
  But unless something happens pretty soon, I think we should move to 
third reading. If there are amendments, the two managers of the bill 
are happy to deal with those amendments. We are going to finish this 
bill tonight. I would hope on this bill I do not have to file cloture, 
on Military Construction and Veterans. I do not think that would be 
appropriate.
  But if there are no amendments and simply people let us return to 
final passage of this, I have no alternative. It would send a terribly 
bad message. Both the distinguished Republican leader and I think we 
should move forward. I hope we can. We are going to finish the bill 
tonight or I will file cloture on it tonight.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
H.R. 2642, an act making appropriations for military construction, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2008.
  Let me say at the outset, the leadership of this committee has done a 
tremendous job in bringing forward legislation that hopefully will 
receive the strong bipartisan support of this body. I am especially 
thankful for the great work of Senator Jack Reed and Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison and Senator Tim Johnson and his staff for having moved 
forward in developing a package that, at the end of the day here, will 
hopefully receive the support of most of the Members of this Chamber.
  This legislation is important for us as we move forward to try to 
make sure we are doing everything we can for a strong America. This is 
important for us, for our military, for our men and women in uniform, 
and for our veterans. It is essential legislation which we must pass 
and which we all hope the President will sign into law.
  With respect to military construction, the bill provides $8.9 
billion-plus for our Active-Duty construction efforts and $929 million 
for the National Guard and Reserve construction. This includes key 
projects around the country for the Army National Guard. This is a 
significant improvement over what the President requested for the 
National Guard. It will be part of making sure we have a strong 
military for America.
  Second, the legislation fully funds the 2005 recommendations of the 
BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Account. That BRAC 
recommendation which was approved by this Senate and by the Congress 
now 2 years ago is an important document that charts the way forward 
for the American military. This legislation will fully fund the 
recommendations of that legislation.
  Third, with respect to Veterans Affairs, I am proud that this 
legislation will provide $87.5 billion for the VA. That is an increase 
of almost $3.6 billion over what the President requested. That increase 
will go to veterans health care and make sure our PTSD and mental 
health issues and TBI issues that we are seeing in great numbers as we 
are involved in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan--that we are 
providing the right kind of care to our veterans.
  I am appreciative of the national issues that are embraced in this 
legislation that will allow the funding to move forward and to make 
those projects a reality.
  I wish to comment on a few provisions in this legislation that are 
important to my State of Colorado. I must say, as we worked on these 
matters over the years, it has been my honor to work closely with 
Senator Allard as we worked on important projects for our veterans and 
for our military in my State.
  I wish to mention the Fitzsimons VA Hospital. There is $61 million in 
this legislation for Fitzsimons. Today in Colorado, the VA hospital in 
Denver is in very rough, shoddy condition. Our veterans deserve better. 
Over the last decade, there has been an effort in Colorado to try to 
establish a VA hospital that can become one of the crown jewels of our 
national health care. We are fortunate today that, under the leadership 
of MAJ Andy Lobb and others, we have found a site at what is the old 
Fitzsimons Army hospital which has been turned over to the city of 
Aurora and to an authority that is rehabilitating that site. At that 
site today, we have already located the health facilities and hospitals 
for the University of Colorado. We are about ready to open a brand-new 
children's hospital at this center. The VA hospital is the next move in 
the creation of what is going to be a crown jewel for health care and 
for biotech in the Rocky Mountain West. The Fitzsimons VA Hospital is 
very much a part of that program, but at its core it is making sure we 
in America are standing up and giving to the veterans of our country 
the health care services they deserve.
  Next, Fort Carson. Fort Carson is a very important military 
installation in my State and helps us protect our Nation. Many of the 
men and women who serve and have trained at Fort Carson are now serving 
in Iraq and in Afghanistan. There is $470 million in military 
construction funds for Fort Carson. That amount of money will 
accommodate the arrival of an additional 12,000 Active-Duty and 18,360 
Active-Duty family members who are currently moving to Fort Carson. I 
am very proud of the inclusion of that amount of money in this 
legislation because it will allow us to warmly welcome the soldiers who 
are coming to Fort Carson, as well as their families, with the kinds of 
facilities they deserve.

[[Page S11102]]

  Schriever Air Force Base is part of our national defense. As I say, 
Colorado is blessed to be the crown jewel of the Nation's homeland 
defense and national security. We do that through many of our military 
installations, including Schriever Air Force Base. It is part of the 
air and space integration program. It is the place where we have our 
Air Force Space Command. It will receive $24.5 million for construction 
of the facilities that are needed there.
  The U.S. Air Force Academy, located since the 1950s in El Paso County 
in Colorado Springs, is one of our Nation's premier institutes in 
training the future military leaders of our country. It is an 
installation of which I am very proud. This legislation includes $15 
million for upgrades to the academic facilities at the U.S. Air Force 
Academy.
  The National Guard and Reserves station at Buckley Air Force Base in 
Aurora, CO, is an important part of the Army installations in our 
State. This legislation will add $7.3 million to replace the outdated 
squadron operations facility that houses the F-16s of the 140th Air 
Wing of the Colorado National Guard.
  This is important legislation, and I am proud to be a supporter of 
this legislation.
  We also will be speaking at a later time this afternoon or this 
evening on several other amendments I want to bring forth which are 
important amendments to the future of the State of Colorado but also 
very important to the future of our Nation's military and assuring that 
our military has the appropriate training facilities. We will be 
speaking to an amendment I will be calling up in short order.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2686

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like of offer, 
but since I do not see a manager here, I will explain the amendment 
first and then ask that the amendment be brought up as soon as I finish 
my comments.
  The amendment I will offer will strike an earmark from this bill that 
takes $4 billion intended for America's veterans and transfers it to 
the well-to-do citizens of Beverly Hills, CA. It is remarkable that we 
are even considering a veterans bill that contains an earmark for a 
facility on Wilshire Boulevard--the main street through Beverly Hills--
a site barely 3 miles from the ritzy shops of Rodeo Drive.
  This earmark prevents the Veterans' Administration from taking highly 
valuable land in one of America's most lucrative real estate markets 
and putting it to work for our veterans. It would require that 200-plus 
acres in the middle of Beverly Hills that could be better used to 
generate revenue to care for America's veterans to sit empty.
  The earmark completely undermines the results of over 3 years of 
study performed by nonpartisan, independent experts. It also undermines 
the authority of the Veterans' Administration to best help veterans 
around the country, not just those in the Beverly Hills area. The 
language on page 44 of the Senate substitute prohibits the Veterans' 
Administration from taking any action to:

       exchange, trade, auction, transfer, or otherwise dispose 
     of, or reduce the acreage of, Federal land and improvements 
     at the Department of Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles 
     Medical Center, California, encompassing approximately 388 
     acres on the north and south sides of Wilshire Boulevard and 
     west of the 405 Freeway.

  The Veterans' Administration estimates that reuse of this land would 
result in approximately $4 billion in savings--that is $450 per square 
foot for 205 acres--that would go directly to the Veterans' 
Administration for future construction since the receipts are deposited 
into Veterans' Administration accounts under its enhanced-use lease 
authority. We should note that the Veterans' Administration's enhanced-
use lease authority specifically allows the Veterans' Administration to 
lease land and retain receipts from the lease.
  In addition, the Veterans' Administration can place an option to buy 
in the lease, whereby the property can be sold shortly after 
commencement of the lease, allowing the Veterans' Administration to 
retain the sale proceeds. This process was used in 2005 to sell 
property in downtown Chicago and the Veterans' Administration realized 
$50 million in proceeds. All can be used to better the health care of 
veterans.
  As important, this prohibition that is written into this earmark 
would result in voiding the Capital Assessment Realignment for Enhanced 
Services process, known as CARES, which has been agreed to by Congress 
and the administration. Much like BRAC, one exception could undermine 
the entire process that was based on veterans' needs and not on 
earmarked interests.
  CARES is a systemwide process to put the Veterans' Administration's 
infrastructure to the best use for the current and future health care 
needs of veterans. This process was completed in May of 2004, and 
approved on a bipartisan basis by Congress and the administration. All 
medical construction budget requests since the completion of the study 
have complied with CARES recommendations and passed by Congress; that 
is, until today, if this bill passes.
  The study identified 18 sites which called for downsizing or disposal 
but which were naturally very controversial. Consequently, it was 
decided each of these sites needed ``further study and analysis.'' Some 
of these studies have been completed, and realignment has begun, but 
the West Los Angeles study is still in process.
  The White House recently weighed in against this earmark, saying in 
its Statement of Administration Policy:

       The Administration strongly opposes the earmark provision 
     that prohibits the disposal or transfer of property at the 
     388-acre West Los Angeles Medical Center. This language 
     circumvents the recommendations in VA's nationwide 
     infrastructure study, the Capital Asset Realignment for 
     Enhanced Services (CARES). The original decision on this 
     property would have allowed VA to designate a portion of the 
     campus for disposal or leasing . . . it is likely that the 
     restrictive Senate language would eliminate more than $4 
     billion of revenue, which would be used to improve facilities 
     around the country for our Nation's veterans.

  The central concerns of those opposed to the reuse of portions of the 
388-acre facility seems to be that it will result in large commercial 
development. However, in the statement of work for the West L.A. 
project, the Veterans' Administration has included the following:

       Because of a commitment made by a previous Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, certain reuses of the property for 
     commercial purposes were not considered in this study. In 
     this context, the term ``commercial'' [includes] . . . uses 
     such as shopping malls, movie theaters, convenience stores, 
     fast food outlets, industrial/manufacturing activities, and 
     other like operations. . . .

  So the Veterans' Administration is listening to the community and is 
considering their concerns.
  In August of 2005, the Veterans' Administration issued an interim 
report, describing several options available for reuse of the land, but 
a final decision is still pending, and there is not yet a timetable as 
to when a decision will be made.
  Two public hearings--in May and September of 2005--have taken place, 
and one is taking place tomorrow night at the VA Center in West L.A. We 
should let the process we put in place run its course and not overrule 
the recommendations of independent experts and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs who are looking out for the needs of America's 
veterans.
  If every Member of this body were to begin blocking modernization of 
the VA system every time a well-connected constituent in their State 
complains, America's veterans would be saddled with outdated 
infrastructure and their health care needs would not be met.
  I wish to put this earmark in perspective because it would be the 
most wasteful and questionable earmark we have seen since the infamous 
``bridge to nowhere.'' The ``bridge to nowhere'' was extremely 
troubling, but at its heart was only an egregious waste of taxpayer 
dollars. This earmark, sadly, is much worse. It takes money--$4 billion 
of money--which would be used to care for the brave men and women who 
fought for our country and turns it over to build a park for Beverly 
Hills.

[[Page S11103]]

We should all be able to agree that a community with an average 
household income of $125,000 a year has a sufficient tax base to build 
a park and does not need a $4 billion handout from the Federal 
Government. The men and women who wore America's uniform need the money 
a lot more than the men and women who live in this part of L.A.
  In fact, the Los Angeles Times editorialized on this situation 
recently, citing ``the compelling demands for park space'' in Beverly 
Hills as the best use of $4 billion. I disagree with the L.A. Times, as 
I often do, that $4 billion that belongs to veterans should stay with 
the Veterans' Administration.
  Let me repeat, according to the judgment of the L.A. Times, the best 
use of $4 billion is a public park between Beverly Hills and Sunset 
Beach. This defies common sense, and we should all disagree with it.
  My amendment is very simple. It would strike this language from the 
bill and preserve the VA's ability to make changes at this property 
that could generate over $4 billion for our Nation's veterans, as well 
as create a better facility that better serves the health care needs of 
our veterans. It would also preserve the integrity of the VA's process 
for realigning its infrastructure to meet the current and future health 
care needs of veterans and ensure that decisions are made according to 
the needs of our veterans, instead of the local desires of America's 
most rich and famous citizens.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to move that we set aside the pending 
amendment and that my amendment be sent to the desk and called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). No amendment is pending.
  Mr. DeMint. Then, Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2686.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike section 225, relating to a prohibition on the 
 disposal of Department of Veterans Affairs lands and improvements at 
              West Los Angeles Medical Center, California)

       Beginning on page 44, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 45, line 23.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to oppose the 
amendment just presented by Senator DeMint. I worked very hard to get a 
provision in the military construction bill regarding this major piece 
of veterans property in the center of Los Angeles. I want to begin by 
thanking Senator Reed and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for agreeing to 
put this legislation in the Military Construction bill. This is 388 
acres--388 acres--in the middle of Los Angeles. It is bisected by 
Wilshire Boulevard. It is near Santa Monica Boulevard. It is a large 
piece of property, and on that property is a 1,000-bed veterans 
hospital.
  The property was deeded in 1888 following the Civil War by two 
families to the Federal Government to be used specifically and 
permanently as an Old Soldiers' Home for the use of veterans. As many 
Members know, California has the largest number of veterans in 
America--over 2 million--and over 300,000 veterans are enrolled to use 
the facilities in this State of which this facility is prime. At the 
time, as the population of disabled and elderly veterans grew following 
the end of the Civil War, the Government decided to respond by 
establishing a number of national homes throughout the United States.
  In March of 1888, Senator John P. Jones and Arcadia B. de Baker 
donated their Santa Monica ranch lands in southern California to 
establish the Pacific branch of the National Homes for Disabled 
Volunteer Soldiers.
  The deed reads very specifically:

       That whereas by an act of Congress approved March 2, 1887 
     to provide for the location and erection of a branch home for 
     the disabled volunteer soldiers west of the Rocky Mountains, 
     the Board of Managers of the National Home for Disabled 
     Volunteer Soldiers were authorized, empowered, and directed 
     to locate, establish, construct, and permanently maintain a 
     branch of said National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

  The sole purpose outlined in the original deed was affirmed in 2002 
by then Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi when he visited the 
site and again when he issued a May 2004 decision regarding plans for 
the modernization of VA facilities elsewhere.
  What has happened is the administration sees this land dedicated to 
veterans and says: Aha, there is a higher and better use for this land. 
We can make $4 billion if we lease out the unbuilt-upon parts of this 
land. That is what they have done under the radar screen. They have 
leased out to an automobile rental agency. They have leased out to a 
Fox movie lot. This is veterans land. This is land that was deeded to 
veterans to be used by veterans, not to be used by Fox movies, not to 
be used by automobile rentals. The administration admits if they do 
this, they can raise $4 billion in commercial rentals from this land, 
thereby taking this hospital, now in its park-like setting, and 
encrusting it with high rise buildings along Wilshire Boulevard.
  Well, let me tell my colleagues what has happened. The veterans 
community has risen up in Los Angeles and said: We are the largest 
veterans community anywhere in the Nation. You are taking land deeded 
to us. You are going to lease it, rent it in any way you can for this 
higher and best use, which is high-rise construction, and they don't 
like it. The neighbors don't like it. The city doesn't like it. The 
Board of Supervisors doesn't like it. Yesterday, the L.A. Times 
editorialized against it.
  So this amendment is not an amendment just concocted out of my brain. 
This is an amendment that has been worked on for a long time, with 
Members of the House who represent this area and with the Military 
Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations. We want to preserve the 
integrity of the land that was originally granted for use as an Old 
Soldiers' Home for veterans purposes in this new modern-day era and do 
it in a way where we have access to the largest number of veterans 
anywhere in the United States.
  I find it shocking that the Department of Veterans Affairs went ahead 
and leased parts of this land. The VA continues to this day film 
production on the property. It recently allowed Fox Studios to 
construct a set storage building there.
  In 1996, a 65,000-seat NFL football stadium was proposed for the open 
space on the west L.A. VA until Congress stepped in and passed a 
resolution to prohibit the action. Once again, I have asked Congress to 
step in and prohibit the commercialization of this site. It should be 
used for veterans purposes.
  So when I was in Los Angeles in August, I met with former Mayor Dick 
Riordan and Eli Broad to discuss various options. No decisions were 
made, but they have a vision for this. The important thing is that it 
not be commercialized; that for the financial problems of the 
administration, they shouldn't commercialize this land. They shouldn't 
sell it to the highest bidder. They shouldn't go for the highest and 
best use. They shouldn't build high-rise construction. I will tell my 
colleagues, if it happens, there will be an uprising from the neighbors 
in the area because this land is right off of the 405 freeway, and 
congestion and difficulties will result. I find it rather a crass 
gesture to take veterans land that is dedicated to veterans, that has a 
large hospital, 1,000 beds in it, that serves tens of thousands of 
enrolled veterans--no other city serves so many veterans--and go ahead 
and commercialize this site.
  So what this does is stops that commercialization of the site. The 
California delegation is united, whether it is in the Senate or whether 
it is in the House. I can give my colleagues two

[[Page S11104]]

pages--and I will give my colleagues some of them--of people supporting 
this legislation: the County of Los Angeles; the City of Los Angeles; 
Zev Yaroslavsky, chairman of the County Board of Supervisors; Mayor 
Antonio Villaraigosa; Representatives Henry Waxman, Berman, Harman, and 
Sherman; City Council members, every one of them; State Senator Kuehl; 
Assemblyman Feuer, Assemblywoman Bass, Assemblywoman Brownlee; Santa 
Monica mayor; Santa Monica council; AMVETS Post 2; AMVETS Post 116; 
American Legion Post 123; VFW Post 875; Vietnam Veterans of America 
Chapter 446; the Bel-Air Association; the Beverly Glen Association; 
Blair House; the Brentwood Community Council; and on and on--the 
Coalition for Veterans Land; the Federation of Hillside and Canyon 
Associations; Friends of Westwood; the Pacific Palisades. It is 
virtually all of west L.A. that is saying: Don't sell this land for 
commercial use.
  What the Department has announced is that they intend to make $4 
billion by selling this land. You and I know what is going to go on 
this land: commercial, office, high-rises because that is what you get 
the money from. It would be a travesty.
  One of the things we now know is that traumatic brain injury is a 
major injury from this war. We need to build on veterans facilities, 
not take their land away.
  So I would say, Senator DeMint, take back this motion. It is the 
wrong thing to do. Administration, I know you have a statement saying 
you oppose the amendment, but the city of Los Angeles, the county of 
Los Angeles is united.
  So, Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it is just an interesting note that 
the man who gave this land, the 300-plus acres, to veterans was a 
United States Senator at the time, John P. Jones. He actually was a 
Republican from the State of Nevada, and he served 30 years in the 
Senate, from 1873 to 1903. So he was a 50-percent owner of this land, 
and it was a wonderful gift to the veterans. I think it should not be 
destroyed. Thank you.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I withdraw my motion to table at 
this time because I know Senator Boxer is coming to the floor and 
wishes to address this question, and Senator DeMint may wish to also 
respond, and I will remain and propose the motion at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have come over to the floor, and I am 
a little out of breath because this amendment was somewhat of a 
surprise to me, although Senator Feinstein was a little worried about 
it possibly coming. I am sorry Senator DeMint isn't on the floor at 
this moment because I would like to look him in the eye and tell him 
that his amendment is misguided. It does damage to the veterans of this 
country and the faith they put in us.
  As Senator Feinstein eloquently stated, and just reiterated to me, 
the individual who gave this land for the veterans happened to be a 
Republican from Nevada who wanted to make a commitment to our veterans. 
So here we have a circumstance that is so bizarre because this 
amendment that Senator Feinstein wrote, which Senator DeMint is trying 
to pull out of the bill, and is now in the bill, is a very wise one. It 
is one that keeps faith with the veterans of this country at a time 
when they deserve that support.
  In some ways, I say to my colleagues, we have battled many times on 
this floor for California and for the environment and for women's 
rights and all the rest. But I remember when another administration at 
another time tried to sell the Presidio army base for billions of 
dollars, when the people were promised it would be a park and it was 
written in legislation that it would be a park. That administration 
said we could get billions of dollars. But the fact is that certain 
things you cannot put a price on because, in the long run, it is the 
wrong thing to do. In the long run, it is wrong in this case to harm 
our veterans.
  Now, here we have this land. As Senator Feinstein has explained to my 
colleagues, it is in the middle of Los Angeles. Land is a precious 
commodity in Los Angeles. We have a huge number of veterans who need 
services in Los Angeles--maybe the highest concentration of veterans in 
the country. I would have to check that out, but I would not be 
surprised; it is certainly one of the highest concentrations. Here we 
are in the middle of a war and we all know the horrors our soldiers are 
facing. We know there are great unmet needs in the Veterans' 
Administration all over this country, and certainly in California. For 
example, we didn't even have a burn unit in California and this war has 
brought so many problems with serious burns.
  We finally were able to accommodate some beds in San Diego for that 
purpose. We finally were able to accommodate some of those who have 
lost their limbs because they were not able to get the services in 
California.
  This, I say to my friend, Senator DeMint of South Carolina, is not 
the time, not the place, not the moment to say to our veterans: You are 
not important; it is more important to have a rental car agency here or 
a movie studio here. This is not the time to tell that to our veterans. 
They are sacrificing.
  We may have to have a women's clinic there someday. We may want to 
expand services for homeless veterans. Those of us who have lived 
through the Vietnam era know that homelessness followed our veterans. 
And still when you go on the streets of our cities, whether it is San 
Francisco, Los Angeles, or anywhere else, you will find a third to 45 
percent of our veterans are from that era. They are Vietnam-era 
veterans who are homeless and struggle.
  We may need to have job training centers for these returning 
veterans. Posttraumatic stress--my senior Senator made the point that 
we are now learning the depth of the problems we have. Is this the time 
to take this land away from the veterans? It is outrageous, and it is 
wrong.
  Senator Feinstein has absolutely done the right thing in this bill. I 
praise all of her colleagues on the committee. I wrote to Mr. Nicholson 
about this issue several months ago saying: Why are you doing this? I 
will ask to place that letter in the Record in a moment.
  Senator Feinstein is right not only for our community in southern 
California but for the veterans throughout this country.
  I sent a letter on June 6, 2007, on this subject to the Honorable 
James Nicholson, Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record the letter I sent to Secretary 
Nicholson.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Hart Senate Office Building,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2007.
     Hon. R. James Nicholson,
     Department of Veterans Affairs,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Nicholson: I am writing to you regarding the 
     development of the West Los Angeles VA property and to urge 
     you to ensure that its land and facilities are used by and 
     for the veterans of the Los Angeles area.
       I believe that two important facts should serve as the 
     overriding guidelines for the discussion about the West LA VA 
     property.

[[Page S11105]]

     First, as has been pointed out many times, this property is 
     veterans' property--given to veterans, to be used by 
     veterans--and should not in any way be viewed as excess 
     property to be sold, leased, or used for other purposes. I 
     oppose the use of an Enhanced Use Lease for any project at 
     the West LA VA. It is for this reason that I fully support 
     Congressman Waxman's and Senator Feinstein's legislative 
     efforts to preserve the land for veterans' use.
       The second important fact is that at least one million 
     veterans reside within a 50 mile radius of the West LA VA 
     property, more than in 42 other states combined. When we 
     consider that this number continues to grow and that the 
     recent additions to the veterans rolls are sometimes severely 
     disabled, more services rather than fewer services will be 
     needed over time. Additionally, a remarkable number of the 
     homeless population of the area are veterans, many of whom 
     suffer from substance abuse or mental health problems. In Los 
     Angeles County alone, it is estimated that at least 18,000 
     veterans are without shelter or a place to live. A broad 
     range of services are desperately needed for them.
       As the master plan for this property is developed, many 
     people are looking to the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
     use this property to support veterans and their needs. The 
     veterans of the Los Angeles area benefit greatly from the 
     services offered there now, and it is crucial that with the 
     increasing numbers of returning veterans it remain a facility 
     fully committed to serving them--they deserve nothing less.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Barbara Boxer,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I talked about the fact that at least a 
million veterans reside within a 50-mile radius of the west Los Angeles 
VA property, more than in 42 other States combined. When we consider 
that this number continues to grow, this is clearly the wrong thing to 
do.
  Let me say that what my colleague has done in this bill is in concert 
with everyone in our area. I don't think she or I would walk in and 
offer an amendment that was a direct blow to a community in South 
Carolina. We would never do that. That would not be the right thing to 
do.
  The community is opposed to what Mr. DeMint wants to have happen. 
Local government, many veterans, from the mayor's office, to the city 
council, to the board of supervisors, to the full congressional 
delegation, there is enormous support for the provision that Senator 
Feinstein has placed in this bill. Dozens of local veterans groups are 
in support of her provision.
  I am going to read some of these supporters because I want to give a 
sense to my colleagues that they should stick with us on this issue 
because Senator Feinstein's language that she got placed in this bill 
is strongly supported.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire 
list.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       County of Los Angeles; City of Los Angeles; Supervisor Zev 
     Yaroslavsky, Chairman, Los Angeles County Board of 
     Supervisors; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa 
     Representative Henry Waxman; Blair House; Brentwood Community 
     Council; Brentwood Homeowners Association; Cahuenga Pass 
     Neighborhood Association; Citizens for Veterans Rights; 
     Coalition of Homeowner Associations-Council District 5; 
     Coalition for Veterans Land; Federation of Hillside and 
     Canyon Associations; Friends of Westwood; Holmby Hills 
     Homeowners Association; Holmby Westwood Property Owners 
     Association; Mandeville Canyon Association; Pacific Palisades 
     Chamber of Commerce; Pacific Palisades Community Council; 
     Pacific Palisades Residents Association.
       Roscomare Valley Association; Santa Monica Canyon Civic 
     Association; Save Westwood Village; St. Paul the Apostle 
     Catholic Parish; Sullivan Canyon Homeowners Association; 
     Representative Howard Berman; Representative Jane Harman; 
     Representative Brad Sherman; L.A. City Council President Eric 
     Garcetti; L.A. City Council Member Jack Weiss; L.A. City 
     Council Member Bill Rosendahl; State Senator Sheila Kuehl; 
     Assemblyman Mike Feuer; Assemblywoman Karen Bass; 
     Assemblywoman Julia Brownlee; Santa Monica Mayor Richard 
     Bloom; Santa Monica Councilman Bobby Shriver; Former Los 
     Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; Former Assemblywoman Fran 
     Pavley; AMVETS Post 2; AMVETS Post 116.
       American Legion Post 123; VFW Post 875; Vietnam Veterans of 
     America Chapter 446; Bel-Air Association; Beverly Glen 
     Association; Tract 7260 Homeowners Association; West L.A. 
     Chamber of Commerce; West L.A. Neighborhood Council; West of 
     Westwood Homeowners Association; Westside Neighborhood 
     Council; Veterans Park Conservancy; Westwood Gardens Civic 
     Association; Westwood Hills Property Owners Association; 
     Westwood Homeowners Association; Westwood South of Santa 
     Monica Homeowners Association.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will name a few. The County of Los 
Angeles, the city of Los Angeles, Representative Waxman, and every 
other Representative from that area; Howard Berman, Harman, Sherman, 
the L.A. City Council president, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, all those 
local folks, former Los Angeles Mayor Riordan, AMVETS Post 2, AMVETS 
Post 116, American Legion Post 123, VFW Post 875, Vietnam Veterans of 
America Chapter 446, and then a slew of homeowners associations, 
including the Coalition of Homeowner Associations Council District 5, 
the Coalition for Veterans Land, Friends of Westwood, and it goes on 
and on.
  Then we have the religious community: St. Paul the Apostle Catholic 
parish. We have the chamber of commerce. We have the neighborhood 
council. It just goes on. The park conservancy, the civic association. 
The administration is wrong to take this action.
  Senator Feinstein is right. She mentioned colleagues on the committee 
who were very helpful to her. It is very important to note that she 
moved in a very bipartisan way.
  In conclusion, I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for 
withdrawing her motion to table to give me this opportunity to express 
myself because I think what she did was so important, and certainly she 
spoke for both of us when she did it.
  I hope she will make this motion to table at the appropriate time, 
and we can table this amendment and send a message tonight to the 
veterans across this country that we stand with them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I join Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer 
in their efforts to preserve this property in west Los Angeles as a VA 
facility and not turn it over to developers. This is commensurate with 
the deed that originally granted this property to the United States 
back in 1888. The deed reads as follows:

       Whereas, by an act of Congress approved March 2, 1887, to 
     provide for the location and erection of a branch home for 
     the disabled volunteer soldiers west of the Rocky Mountains, 
     the board of managers of the National Home for Disabled 
     Volunteer Soldiers are authorized, empowered, and directed to 
     locate, establish, construct and permanently maintain a 
     branch of said National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

  The purpose of this donation and the purpose that has been preserved 
over these many years has been to provide a place where veterans can be 
hospitalized, and it has become part of not only the Veterans' 
Administration system, it has become part of the culture of the 
community of Los Angeles.
  The purpose of the original deed has been reaffirmed numerous times. 
It was reaffirmed in 2002 by then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi when he 
visited the site and when he issued a May 2004 decision regarding plans 
for the modernization of VA facilities nationwide. In fact, a document 
released by the VA previewing the September 6, 2005, Capital Asset 
Realignment for Enhanced Services--the CARES process--of the local 
advisory panel meeting regarding the west L.A. VA site states the 
following:

       It is important that the VA preserve the integrity of the 
     land originally granted for use as an old Soldier's home.

  And that is the purpose of the language included in the 
appropriations bill by Senator Feinstein.
  The CARES process was akin to the BRAC process used for the military, 
going around and looking at the uses of all the Veterans' 
Administration facilities around the country and concluding what is the 
best and highest purpose.
  It is terribly important that the conclusion of this panel, very 
recently, is that it is important that the VA preserve the integrity of 
the land originally granted for use as an Old Soldiers' Home. That is 
what Senator Feinstein proposes to do, and it would be undercut by the 
amendment of Senator DeMint.
  I join Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer as they are trying not 
only to preserve the integrity of this land but also to preserve the 
integrity of the community of west Los Angeles.
  I had occasion to drive by this area, and I will stand corrected by 
the local geographic experts, but it is a place of open space and 
tranquility in a very large metropolitan area. So it is a value beyond 
the VA system; it is a

[[Page S11106]]

value to the community of Los Angeles. That is why there is a huge 
number of supporters of this initiative by Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Boxer: the County of Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles, 
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, chairman of the Los Angeles County Board of 
Supervisors, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Representative Waxman, our 
colleagues in the House--all these individuals are standing shoulder to 
shoulder on this issue. This is consistent with the original donation 
of the land. It is consistent with the evaluation of the Veterans' 
Administration as to how they should use the land, and it is consistent 
with the community of Los Angeles.
  I applaud and commend the Senators from California for their efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I particularly thank Chairman Reed 
for putting this provision in the bill. I am very grateful. I am also 
very grateful for his defense of it today.
  I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, for her help on the 
floor, for her support, and for her continuous advocacy on behalf of 
California.
  The bottom line is, would you sell the National Mall for profit? 
Would you sell Roosevelt Island for profit? Would you sell any part of 
the federal highway system for profit? Why would you take land that has 
been dedicated for veterans purposes and lease it out for profit when 
we know, as Senator Boxer said, we have thousands of homeless veterans, 
and right now there is a proposal moving forward to possibly build some 
homeless units for veterans on that facility?
  This land was deeded to the Federal Government, a huge amount of 
land, for the purpose of veterans, not for Fox movie studios, not for 
Enterprise, or whatever car rental agency, but for veterans in a city 
with the largest number of veterans in the United States, and over 
322,000 veterans enrolled to use that facility, with a hospital of 
1,000 beds on that facility. You are going to begin to lease out that 
land?
  I think it is terrible, just terrible. The next step would be the 
National Mall. We ought to resist this effort. There are a lot of ways 
to make money, but I think the worst way is to make money off veterans 
at this point in time.
  I very much resist this amendment. I join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Boxer, in resisting the amendment. I join with the 
committee chairman in resisting this amendment. I join with the ranking 
member of the committee in resisting this amendment. I hope there will 
be a very strong vote.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays, and I move to table the 
amendment.
  Once again, I will withdraw my motion to table for the greater good 
of getting a unanimous consent agreement, I hope.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to H.R. 2642, 
that they be subject to second-degree amendments which are relevant to 
the amendment to which it is offered, that no other amendments be in 
order: Feingold amendment No. 2661, Obama amendment No. 2658, McCaskill 
amendment No. 2660, Hutchison amendment No. 2681, Coleman amendment 
relating to conventions, Sanders amendment No. 2664, Tester amendment 
No. 2669, Salazar amendment No. 2662, Murray amendment No. 2677, 
Landrieu amendment No. 2679, Stabenow amendment No. 2680, Stevens/
Inouye amendment No. 2682, Allard amendment relating to VA land 
transfer in Denver, the pending DeMint amendment, and the Brown 
amendment No. 2673; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the 
bill on Thursday, the only amendments remaining for disposition be No. 
2664, No. 2662, No. 2673, and the Coleman amendment relating to 
conventions, and passage, with no further debate or motions in order 
except for debate specified in an order related to the vote sequence; 
that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time 
and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon 
passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with 
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees, with the previous order relating to 
points of order remaining in effect with respect to this bill; that 
upon disposition of H.R. 2642, the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 265, H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, if I can inquire for 
clarification, what this really means, then, is that we will have one 
vote tonight on the pending DeMint issue, and the other remaining four 
amendments and final passage would occur without other intervening 
business tomorrow morning; is that correct?
  Mr. REED. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much. That is basically what you just read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. LOTT. And for the sake of one other issue under my reservation, I 
would like to ask that a quorum be put in place, just temporarily. So I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the quorum call?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask that one additional amendment be added to the 
list to be voted on tomorrow, Thursday. It would be the McConnell 
amendment No. 2666.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the 
request to modify?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 2642, 
the DeMint amendment. If I might correct that, it is 2686, the DeMint 
amendment.
  I move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith

[[Page S11107]]


     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Brownback
     Clinton
     Craig
     Dodd
     Graham
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to first of all say I am sure I 
am going to be supporting this underlying bill; military construction 
is such a critical component of our overall defense programs. But there 
is a collateral issue I would like to address for a minute. I, first of 
all, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article 
from the Moody Air Force Base newspaper from February 1 of this year.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Air Force Print News Today, Feb. 1, 2007]

                    Moody Opens Doors to New Housing

                    (By Tech. Sgt. Parker Gyokeres)

       Moody Air Force Base, GA.--Team Moody celebrated the 
     completion of the first new single family housing units with 
     a ribbon cutting ceremony Jan. 31, at the new Magnolia Grove 
     Housing area.
       The $52 million project provides 383 three and four-bedroom 
     homes in Magnolia Grove, each with no less than 1,630 square 
     feet of space.
       Dignitaries attending the ribbon cutting ceremony included 
     Maj. Gen. Del Eulberg, Air Force Civil Engineer, Col. Joe 
     Callahan, 23rd Wing commander, and leadership from American 
     Eagle Communities LLC.
       ``This is a big day for the Airmen and families of Team 
     Moody,'' said Colonel Callahan. ``The Magnolia Grove homes 
     are the nicest base housing units I have ever seen in the 31 
     years I have been living in base housing. Moody Family 
     Housing has created a community that any Airman would be 
     proud to live in.'' Moody Family Housing is a 50-year, joint 
     public-private partnership between American Eagle Communities 
     and the U.S. Air Force.
       ``The partnership is intended to improve standards of 
     living for current and future base housing residents,'' said 
     Louis Screws, 23rd Civil Engineer Squadron housing flight 
     chief.
       The homes are fully owned and maintained by American Eagle 
     under rules agreed to in the project's transaction documents.
       ``The Air Force benefits because they receive quality new 
     housing without the up-front money a military construction 
     contract requires,'' said Mr. Screws. ``American Eagle can 
     use private sector financing and private resources to build 
     these homes faster, better and more economically using local 
     codes and standards.''
       The units are built with an all-metal framing system that 
     arrives partially assembled in a kit for a single home. It 
     takes only four days for a team of eight workers to frame an 
     entire house, said Rich Safranic, Moody Family Housing 
     quality assurance director.
       By using all-metal construction, the materials are less 
     expensive to transport, stronger than wood, will not burn and 
     can be recycled easily, said Mr. Safranic.
       American Eagle plans to use this construction technique for 
     every home in Magnolia Grove, and with an average of five 
     homes a week arriving at the site, every time-saving measure 
     is essential, added the quality assurance inspector.
       Moody Family Housing expects to hand over an average of one 
     house a day to Air Force inspectors for certification, said 
     Naomi Hendricks, Moody Family Housing project director. The 
     construction on Magnolia Grove housing is scheduled to be 
     completed this December.
       The first residents of Magnolia Grove will be the 94 
     families currently residing in the ``Courts'' townhouses of 
     the Quiet Pines housing area.These units are scheduled to be 
     demolished as the residents are relocated. MFH will then use 
     the land for new senior leadership housing, said Mr. Screws.
       American Eagle purchased 700 acres of peanut farmland along 
     the southern edge of Moody. There will be 383 single-family 
     units built on 150 acres of this property. The American Eagle 
     Communities has permanently donated approximately 200 acres 
     to the Banks Lake Wildlife Refuge Area. The remaining 350 
     acres are being set aside for future base-housing growth.
       ``We are the first major installation to accomplish the 
     goal of creating a new community using a privatized 
     partnership like this,'' said Lowell Klepper, 23rd CES deputy 
     base civil engineer. ``Moody has been working towards this 
     point for more than 20 years.''

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I note for the record that after 4 years of work on a 
housing privatization contract and the millions spent, exactly two 
houses have been built. This article talks about a celebration at Moody 
Air Force base upon the completion of these two homes. The problem is, 
neither one of these two houses has ever been occupied, and the 
privatization issue at Moody has developed into a real mess.
  The Air Force entered into a real estate transaction with Carabetta 
Enterprises Inc. for privatized housing at Moody Air Force Base. The 
estimated cost of the project has exceeded available funding by $25 
million, and the project lender stopped funding in March of 2007 to 
prevent all funds from being expended. At least three other Air Force 
bases--Patrick Air Force base in Florida, Little Rock Air Force base in 
Arkansas, and Hanscom Air Force base in Massachusetts--have similar 
contracting delays with privatized housing projects associated with 
this same contractor.
  Despite having declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and supposedly being 
embroiled in a series of previous lawsuits over Government contracts, 
the Carabetta organization was allowed to form a new joint entity, 
American Eagle Communities LLC, and has won Government contracts in 
five States for a total $3.3 billion. American Eagle won the $50 
million contract for the Moody Air Force Base Magnolia Grove privatized 
housing project, hired one of its principals to be the general 
contractor, and now has left dozens of local subcontractors unpaid for 
months, resulting in numerous liens being filed, a complete lockdown of 
the site, and millions of dollars in unpaid bills to local 
subcontractors.
  There has been concern that we have 1,000 new personnel who are going 
to be coming into Moody by 2009 under the BRAC, and this housing 
project is specifically designed to accommodate the influx. I have 
written two letters to the Air Force expressing my concern and 
inquiring about the delay and the intended plan of action. In response, 
the Air Force has said that because it has no legal agreements with the 
contractor, issues of nonpayment between the contractor and 
subcontractors must be resolved through the legal system.
  That is not an acceptable answer. The Air Force is a contractor. This 
directly affects the quality of life of Air Force personnel at Moody 
Air Force Base as well as the other bases that have contracts with this 
particular contractor. Air Force personnel are suffering because of the 
poor performance of this contractor, and the Air Force should have been 
more proactive to fix this problem before we got to this point.
  I have several questions on this issue that have yet to be answered. 
I am specifically asking the Air Force to answer: First, what were the 
factors contributing to the decision to award Carabetta Enterprises, 
Inc. this contract, given their known previous defaults and bankruptcy 
declarations? Secondly, is the Air Force currently taking steps to 
terminate this contract and, if so, what steps are they taking and, if 
not, why not? Thirdly, what is the plan for housing the incoming Air 
Force personnel slated to live in the new quarters at Moody Air Force 
base as well as the other bases that are affected by the default of 
this contractor?
  In my opinion, this issue is also ripe for an IG investigation to 
figure out exactly what went wrong, why this contractor was awarded a 
$3.3 billion contract for privatized housing, covering five States, 
work on all of which has been halted.
  I urge the Air Force's expeditious attention and resolution of this 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to bring up several amendments for 
consideration. These amendments have been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle.


                           Amendment No. 2661

  I call up amendment No. 2661 for Senator Feingold regarding a VA 
mental health GAO report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2661.


[[Page S11108]]


  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require a report from the Comptroller General on the 
 adequacy of mental health care services provided by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to female members of the 
                   Armed Forces and female veterans)

         On page 50, between lines 17 and 18, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 408. (a) Assessment of Mental Health Care Services for 
     Female Servicemembers and Veterans.--The Comptroller General 
     of the United States shall conduct an assessment of the 
     adequacy of the mental health care services provided by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense 
     to female members of the Armed Forces and female veterans to 
     meet the mental health care needs of such members and 
     veterans.
       (b) Report.--Not later than September 1, 2008, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the Subcommittees 
     referred to in section 407 a report on the assessment 
     required by subsection (a).

  Mr. REED. I know of no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2661) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2658

  Mr. REED. I call up amendment No. 2658 for Senator Obama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Obama, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2658.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
 made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an 
 amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such 
   amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain 
            certifications regarding Federal tax liability)

         On page 50, between lines 17 and 18, insert the 
     following:
         Sec. 408.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to enter into a 
     contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a 
     grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective 
     contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency 
     awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee 
     has filed all Federal tax returns required during the three 
     years preceding the certification, has not been convicted of 
     a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     and has not been notified of any unpaid Federal tax 
     assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied unless 
     the assessment is the subject of an installment agreement or 
     offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal 
     Revenue Service and is not in default or the assessment is 
     the subject of a non-frivolous administrative or judicial 
     appeal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. REED. I know of no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2658) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2660

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2660 for Senator 
McCaskill regarding the VA Inspector General Web site.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mrs. 
     McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 2660.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a mechanism by which individuals can report to the 
Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs cases of waste, 
  fraud, or abuse with respect to the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 227. (a) Anonymous Reporting of Waste, Fraud, or 
     Abuse.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs shall establish and maintain 
     on the homepage of the Internet website of the Office of 
     Inspector General a mechanism by which individuals can 
     anonymously report cases of waste, fraud, or abuse with 
     respect to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Link to Office of Inspector General From Homepage of 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall establish and maintain on the homepage 
     of the Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     a direct link to the Internet website of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2660) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2677

  Mr. REED. I call up amendment No. 2677 for Senator Murray regarding 
the transfer of funds from the VA to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to train psychologists.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2677.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to transfer 
     funds to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to train 
                             psychologists)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 227. (a) Authority for Transfer of Funds to Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to Train Psychologists.--Upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that such 
     action is in the national interest, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs may transfer not more than $5,000,000 to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services for the Graduate 
     Psychology Education Program to support increased training of 
     psychologists skilled in the treatment of post-traumatic 
     stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and related 
     disorders.
       (b) Limitation on Use of Transferred Funds.--The Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services may only use funds transferred 
     under this section for the purposes described in subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Notification.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     notify Congress of any such transfer of funds under this 
     section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2677) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2679

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2679 for Senator 
Landrieu regarding a report on the progress of the veterans hospital in 
New Orleans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2679.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require reports on the reconstruction of the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 227. (a) Reports on Reconstruction of Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.--

[[Page S11109]]

     (1) Not later than October 1 and April 1 each year, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations a report on the current status of the 
     reconstruction of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. Each report shall include 
     the following:
       (A) The current status of the reconstruction of the Medical 
     Center, including the status of any ongoing environmental 
     assessments, the status of any current construction, and an 
     assessment of the adequacy of funding necessary to complete 
     the reconstruction.
       (B) If reconstruction of the Medical Center is subject to 
     any major delay--
       (i) a description of each such delay;
       (ii) an explanation for each such delay; and
       (iii) a description of the action being taken or planned to 
     address the delay.
       (C) A description of current and anticipated funding for 
     the reconstruction of the Medical Center, including an 
     estimate of any additional funding required for the 
     reconstruction.
       (2) The requirement in paragraph (1) shall cease on the day 
     that the reconstruction of the Medical Center referred to in 
     that paragraph is completed.
       (b) Report on Designation of Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Medical Center in New Orleans as Polytrauma Rehabilitation 
     Center or Polytrauma Network Site.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report 
     setting forth the recommendation of the Secretary as to 
     whether or not the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center being reconstructed in New Orleans, Louisiana, should 
     be designated as a tier I polytrauma rehabilitation center or 
     a polytrauma network site.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2679) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2680

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2680 for Senators 
Stabenow and Levin renaming a clinic located in Alpena, MI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Ms. Stabenow 
     and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2680.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic 
located in Alpena, Michigan, as the ``Lieutenant Colonel Clement C. Van 
            Wagoner Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'')

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. LIEUTENANT COLONEL CLEMENT C. VAN WAGONER 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC.

       (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs clinic 
     located in Alpena, Michigan, shall be known and designated as 
     the ``Lieutenant Colonel Clement C. Van Wagoner Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs clinic referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``Lieutenant Colonel Clement C. Van Wagoner Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Clinic''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2680) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2681

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2681 for Senator 
Hutchison regarding a clinic lease in Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mrs. 
     Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 2681.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       Sec  . The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out a 
     major medical facility lease in fiscal year 2008 in an amount 
     not to exceed $12,000,000 to implement the recommendations 
     outlined in the August, 2007 Study of South Texas Veterans' 
     Inpatient and Specialty Outpatient Health Care Needs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2681) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2669

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2669 for Senators 
Tester, Brown, McCaskill, Salazar, Johnson, and Byrd regarding the VA 
mileage reimbursement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Tester, 
     Mr. Brown, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. 
     Byrd, proposes an amendment numbered 2669.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide, with an offset, an additional $125,000,000 for 
                the Veterans Beneficiary Travel Program)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 227. (a) Additional Amount for Medical Services.--The 
     amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this title 
     under the heading ``medical services'' is hereby increased by 
     $125,000,000.
       (b) Availability.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this title under the heading ``medical 
     services'', as increased by subsection (a), $125,000,000 
     shall be available for the Veterans Beneficiary Travel 
     Program. The amount available for the Veterans Beneficiary 
     Travel Program under this subsection is in addition to any 
     other amounts available for that program under this title.
       (c) Offset.--The amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this title for the Veterans Health 
     Administration under the heading ``medical administration'' 
     is hereby decreased by $125,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2669) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2682

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2682 for Senators 
Stevens and Inouye regarding a VA rural health report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Stevens, 
     for himself, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2682.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on access to medical services provided by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans who live in remote rural 
                                 areas)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 227. (a) Report on Access to Medical Services Provided 
     by Department of Veterans Affairs to Veterans in Remote Rural 
     Areas.--Not later than six months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the 
     following:
       (1) A description of the following:
       (A) The unique challenges and costs faced by veterans in 
     remote rural areas of contiguous and non-contiguous States 
     when obtaining medical services from the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (B) The need to improve access to locally-administered care 
     for veterans who reside in remote rural areas.
       (C) The need to fund alternative sources of medical 
     services--
       (i) in areas where facilities of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs are not accessible to veterans without leaving such 
     areas; and
       (ii) in cases in which receipt of medical services by a 
     veteran in a facility of the Department requires 
     transportation of such veteran by air due to geographic and 
     infrastructural constraints.
       (2) An assessment of the potential for increasing local 
     access to medical services for

[[Page S11110]]

     veterans in remote rural areas of contiguous and non-
     contiguous States through strategic partnerships with other 
     government and local private health care providers.
       (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Subcommittees referred to in section 407.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2682) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2688

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2688 for Senator 
Allard regarding a land transfer to the VA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Allard, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2688.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to modify certain 
 instruments to allow the City of Aurora, State of Colorado, to convey 
    to the United States certain non-Federal land to be used by the 
   Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the construction of a veterans 
                           medical facility)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In this section:
       (1) The term ``City'' means the City of Aurora, Colorado.
       (2) The term ``deed'' means the quitclaim deed--
       (A) conveyed by the Secretary to the City; and
       (B) dated May 24, 1999.
       (3) The term ``non-Federal land'' means--
       (A) parcel I of the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, 
     Colorado; and
       (B) the parcel of land described in the deed.
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (b)(1) In accordance with paragraph (2), and subject to 
     each term and condition required under paragraph (3), to 
     allow the City to convey to the United States the non-Federal 
     land to be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the 
     construction of a veterans medical facility, the Secretary 
     may execute such instruments as determined by the Secretary 
     to be necessary to modify or release any condition under 
     which the non-Federal land would revert to the United States.
       (2) In carrying out paragraph (1), with respect to the non-
     Federal land, the Secretary shall alter--
       (A) each provision of the deed relating to a reversionary 
     interest of the United States; and
       (B) any other reversionary interest of the United States

     to authorize the use of the property to include use as a 
     veterans' facility in addition to use for recreational 
     purposes.
       (3) The Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1) subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary to protect the interests of the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2688) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. Unless my colleague has anything to say, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Fort Monmouth

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
discuss an important issue with the manager of this bill, Senator Reed, 
and with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez.
  Mr. REED. I am happy to discuss this issue with my colleagues from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I would like to first thank the 
Senator and Senator Hutchison for putting together a good bill. 
Everyone in this body agrees that we must support the men and women of 
the military while they are serving overseas and when they return home, 
and I believe this appropriations bill meets that demand.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I agree and I support this legislation 
as well. It will provide critical money to make sure our veterans are 
given the health care they deserve.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senators from New Jersey. We have no greater 
responsibility than to our veterans, and I am proud of the bill we were 
able to complete in committee and now offer on the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this bill also strengthens our 
military bases, providing money for military construction efforts and 
improvements at bases, and to support projects related to the Defense 
Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005, known as BRAC. While I 
support strengthening our bases and their overall infrastructure, some 
disturbing information has come to light about the BRAC process and the 
closing of the Fort Monmouth Army base in New Jersey since our 
Appropriations Committee completed work on this bill that warrants our 
immediate attention.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, fighting wars involves not just the men 
and women on the ground overseas but also dedicated workers here at 
home. It depends on the training and research done at military bases 
like Fort Monmouth. Fort Monmouth provides intelligence and 
reconnaissance support for our Armed Forces, making them more effective 
fighters and protecting their lives.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Fort Monmouth researchers also develop critical 
technology for our Armed Forces, such as ``Warlock Jammers,'' which 
were engineered at Fort Monmouth and modified for use in Iraq. This 
equipment emits radio frequencies that interfere with the signals that 
set off improvised explosive devices known as IEDs. The military was 
able to deploy them within 60 days of their development, and they 
started saving American lives.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I agree that great work has been done at 
Fort Monmouth to support our military and it deserves recognition. Fort 
Monmouth has played an important role in the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the men and women working there are to be commended.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. The BRAC Commission knew about that important work and 
wanted to make sure our troops in the field would not be harmed by 
closing the base. They included a requirement that the Secretary of 
Defense issue a report to Congress proving that ``movement of 
organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen 
Proving Ground will be accomplished without disruption of their support 
to the Global War on Terrorism.''
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yet more than 2 years after the BRAC Commission vote, 
the administration has failed to produce this report. To make matters 
worse, the Army is trying to move personnel out of Fort Monmouth now, 
before it has even considered the effect on our Armed Forces. Before 
the Army starts to shift work out of Fort Monmouth, we need to know 
that it won't hurt our troops.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. When we raised concerns about this to the Army, it 
halted the transfer and our understanding was that the Army would wait 
until the report required by BRAC was completed. But now the Army has 
reversed course and plans to start transferring people soon.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. This is simply unacceptable. No personnel should be 
transferred out of Fort Monmouth until the Department of Defense has 
submitted the report to Congress proving that the closure of Fort 
Monmouth will not hurt troops in the field.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his thoughts. It is my 
understanding that the Army plans to issue a report on Fort Monmouth by 
the end of the year. I can also assure my colleagues from New Jersey 
that the Senate Armed Services Committee as the authorizing committee 
will continue its oversight of the BRAC process.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record, the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2642,

[[Page S11111]]

the Military Construction and Department of Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008.
  The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
provides $64.745 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $38.327 billion. When 
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $55.001 billion.
  The Senate-reported bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and $20 million below its allocation for outlays. No 
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction and 
Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee for bringing 
this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the 
table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   H.R. 2642, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
                          APPROPRIATIONS, 2008
  [Spending comparisons--Senate reported bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     General
                                          Defense    purpose     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
    Budget Authority...................     21,556     43,189     64,745
    Outlays............................     13,302     41,699     55,001
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........     64,745
    Outlays............................  .........  .........     55,021
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...................     21,371     43,374     64,745
    Outlays............................     13,259     41,573     54,832
President's Request:
    Budget Authority...................     22,071     38,672     60,743
    Outlays............................     13,264     39,120     52,384
 
                    Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........          0
    Outlays............................  .........  .........        -20
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...................        185       -185          0
    Outlays............................         43        126        169
President's Request:
    Budget Authority...................       -515      4,517      4,002
    Outlays............................         38      2,579      2,617
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the level 
of funding provided for the Department of Veterans Affairs in the 
pending Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2008. I also take this opportunity to congratulate 
Senators Reed, Byrd, and the other members of the committee for their 
hard work on this measure.
  This bill truly reflects our commitment to fully fund veterans' 
health care and benefits. Indeed, the bill before us closely tracks the 
level of funding recommended by the Veterans' Affairs Committee in our 
Views and Estimates to the Budget Committee. This legislation would 
provide a $6.5 billion increase for VA health care over last year, $3.6 
billion more than the President requested. This represents the largest 
increase in funding ever for VA health care. I am very pleased that 
there are additional funds included in this amount for the treatment of 
traumatic brain injuries, TBI, and for VA mental health programs, to 
treat the ``invisible wounds'' that many veterans suffer from after 
serving in combat. These are two areas of vital importance to 
servicemembers returning from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.
  I also thank the Military Construction-VA Appropriations Subcommittee 
members for their support of the VA Office of Inspector General. The 
$16 million increase for the OIG will enable that office to continue 
conducting extremely valuable oversight of VA. The VA inspector general 
has consistently been vitally important to the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee in the execution of our oversight responsibilities. The OIG 
is the central gear in VA's internal controls and quality assurance 
mechanism.
  I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of Priority 
8--so-called middle-income--veterans and their current exclusion from 
the VA health care system. The majority members of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, in our Views and Estimates, endorsed re-opening 
enrollment to these veterans. That recommendation was followed. The 
omnibus health care authorization bill recently reported out by the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee contains a provision that would allow these 
veterans back into VA. We would fully allow the VA Secretary to close 
enrollment off at any time. It is my view that adequate funding to re-
open enrollment exists.
  I want to also express my strong support for the $21.5 billion in 
funding for military construction projects included in this bill. This 
bill fully funds the administration's request for BRAC and the 
President's Grow the Force Initiative. It also includes the much needed 
funding necessary to repair and maintain the military facilities that 
are so critically important to the readiness and well-being of the 
Armed Forces. I am particularly in support of the bill's inclusion of 
$929 million for National Guard and Reserve construction. We have asked 
our National Guard and Reserve troops to commit significant sacrifices 
for this Nation and we should be prepared to provide these brave men 
and women the support they need to fulfill their duties.
  I thank Senator Reed and the other subcommittee members for their 
work on this bill and for sending the right message to both our 
Nation's veterans and those currently serving. We have made a 
commitment to providing support both before and after active service, 
and this measure honors that commitment. I urge my colleagues to 
support swift passage of the legislation before us today.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a 
critical issue regarding Iraq and Afghanistan veterans' health care 
needs. America's Armed Forces are sustaining attacks by rocket-
propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, and land mines almost 
daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. These injured soldiers require 
specialized care from providers experienced in treating their unique 
health challenges. These blast injuries result from the complex 
pressure waves generated by an explosion. Air-filled organs such as the 
ear, lung, and other organs surrounded by fluid-filled cavities such as 
the brain and spinal cord are especially susceptible.
  Earlier this year, I visited with a soldier named Mack Richards who 
sustained blast wounds to his wrist and ankle in Iraq, as well as 
traumatic brain injury, or TBI. This soldier recounted to me his 
difficulty and frustration in receiving treatment for his brain injury. 
He was left at an army base far from home for months before he was sent 
back to his family and finally received therapy from our local 
rehabilitation facility.
  Congress has been assured that veterans with brain and other complex 
injuries are able to access the specialized treatment they need. 
However, Mack's story is not unique, and I think the time has come to 
question what role the underutilized capacity in civilian rehab can 
play. That is not to devalue VA efforts and the great facilities the VA 
has to offer, but to ask how civilian providers can complement VA 
facilities and improve the care afforded our veterans returning from 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The large numbers of traumatic brain injury survivors returning home 
from war highlights the need to leverage all of the resources available 
to us for the successful treatment and rehabilitation of our injured 
troops. Tapping into existing civilian TBI research and treatment 
capacity can help improve outcomes and supplement the care systems 
being developed at both the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  This is an issue which I know can stir up sensitivities given the 
diversity of our veteran population. I want to make it clear that I am 
fully committed, as are many of my colleagues, to ensuring the VA has 
the resources and strength to offer sustainable and top quality care 
for every American veteran. That said, the public and civilian sectors 
must come together to meet the needs of our newest generation of 
wounded warriors. This is not unprecedented. In the past, the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have 
contracted with civilian clinicians and providers to make up the TBI 
continuum of care.
  The VA has shown tremendous effort in addressing the needs of our 
returning troops, given the enormous challenges we face. However, I 
believe the large volume of returning veterans with increasingly 
complex health care needs require an increasingly dynamic approach to 
better serve those who have given so much for our country. The need for 
timely treatment and immediate rehabilitation expertise and capacity 
requires additional resources and flexibility for the VA to form 
partnerships to ensure top notch care for

[[Page S11112]]

our service personnel. And, if this care can be provided closer to 
veterans' community and family support networks, then it is a win-win 
as families can be kept together and servicemembers can more easily 
transition back into their daily routines.
  I have included language in this bill requesting the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to report to Congress on the conditions and criteria 
used for contracting with civilian rehabilitation providers, and 
outreach efforts being conducted to inform veterans and those who 
advocate on their behalf about such treatment options. I look forward 
to working with the VA and my colleagues to make sure our veterans have 
access to the care their sacrifices and personal injuries require.

                          ____________________