[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11405-11436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 298 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2528.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1147


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2528) making appropriations for military quality of life 
functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Biggert (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, today I am proud to represent the first Subcommittee 
on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill for consideration of the House.
  This subcommittee was formed for the purpose of taking a more 
comprehensive look at the programs related to providing a suitable 
quality of life for our service men and women, from recruitment through 
retirement. I believe the bill before Members today does just that, and 
it does it in a fiscally responsible way.
  Since the advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, quality of life 
has come to play an increasingly important role. In the short time 
between the subcommittee's organization and today, I have met with many 
officials from the Department of Defense who are energized and excited 
with the makeup of this new subcommittee. Everyone we met said the same 
thing, you recruit the soldier, but you retain ``the family''; and this 
new bill structure will make a significant contribution to that goal.
  I have also met with many people on the issues related to the Defense 
Health Program and the VA. Again, there is excitement about the 
synergies that currently exist and the ones that can be developed or 
enhanced between DOD and VA. This bill makes all that possible.
  I salute the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for having 
the foresight and persistence to bring about this positive change.
  The bill before us today totals $121.8 billion, of which $85.2 
billion is discretionary spending and $36.6 billion is mandatory 
spending. On the discretionary side, the bill is $1.1 billion above the 
President's request and $5.9 billion above last year's bill. The bill 
funds the VA at $68.1 billion, $2.3 billion above fiscal year 2005, and 
$635 million above the budget request. Included in this amount is $21 
billion for medical services, a $1.6 billion increase above the 2005 
enacted level, and $1 billion above the budget request. This is an 8.5 
percent increase over last year. I would also note that with the 
funding in this bill, the medical services account will grow by 18.2 
percent over the past 2 years.
  Also, this funding level does not assume adoption of any new fees, 
nor does it preclude the committee of jurisdiction from moving on such 
legislation. The VA funding level, among other things, restores funding 
for long-term care to the level it was in the fiscal year 2005 
appropriation, and we direct the Secretary to work with the National 
Association of State Veterans Homes to come to some agreeable policy to 
make the program work better for veterans and the taxpayers.
  The bill also includes language directing the Department to spend not 
less than $2.2 billion on specialty mental health care in fiscal year 
2006, in direct concern to many Members of Congress that the VA needs 
to make this a priority. We have never specified funding for a category 
of care in this bill in the past.
  We have also included report language directing the Department to 
more than double the funding available for mental health research. For 
the Department of Defense, the bill provides $53.5 billion. Within this 
total is funding for military construction, family housing construction 
and maintenance, costs associated with BRAC for the prior rounds and 
the current round, basic allowance for housing payments, facilities 
sustainment, restoration and modernization, and environmental 
restoration.
  Regarding BRAC, let me just repeat what we have said in subcommittee. 
As of now, we consider the Secretary of Defense's recommendations just 
that, recommendations only. We will be following the commission 
process, but we see no need to make changes to the military 
construction budget at this time. Also included in this total is $20 
billion for the Defense Health Program, an increase of $1.8 billion 
above fiscal year 2005 and $192 million above the budget request. This 
amount supports troop readiness by making sure we have an adequate 
funding level to prepare our soldiers, sailors, and airmen for training 
and deployments while caring for their families and dependents.
  One last thing I wanted to mention is the joint DOD-VA incentives 
program which was authorized in fiscal year 2003 and has been 
appropriated since that time. This program creates a fund which creates 
the opportunity for the DOD and VA to explore joint ventures in 
research and information technology that establishes and enhances 
continuity between these two Departments and contributes to the 
synergies we all want.
  We have a responsibility to make sure that the limited resources we 
have are spent efficiently and effectively and that programs achieve 
their mission. The structure of this bill provides

[[Page 11406]]

us with an opportunity to take a bold look across programs and 
Departments and find synergies and efficiencies. Change is not always 
easy to go through, and it does not happen overnight; but we have taken 
the first step towards producing a more focused bill, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his vision and 
support.
  Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking member of the subcommittee. We have 
developed a strong working relationship based upon trust. He has a 
wealth of experience with the military, given his long association with 
Fort Hood, Texas. He has been very generous with his time and his 
counsel as we assembled this bill, and it is much appreciated.
  Thanks to my subcommittee members for their active participation in 
the hearing process and also for their advice, and also to our very 
professional staff led by the capable Carol Murphy, and to my personal 
staff for their help in preparing this work product. I am very grateful 
to all of them. This would not have been possible without their help.

[[Page 11407]]

TH26MY05.001



[[Page 11408]]

TH26MY05.002



[[Page 11409]]

TH26MY05.003



[[Page 11410]]

TH26MY05.004



[[Page 11411]]

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I first want to salute the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) for his professional, thorough, and fair-minded leadership 
in crafting this bill, which I support.
  Throughout this entire process, every step of the way, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) focused on doing one thing: asking what is 
best for our service men and women and veterans, and for that he has my 
deep respect.
  I would like to offer my observations on this important bill from the 
perspective of someone who had the privilege of representing over 
40,000 Army soldiers who served our country in Iraq. For 14 years I 
represented Fort Hood, Texas, an Army installation which is now very 
ably represented by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  I have seen firsthand, like so many Members of Congress here, the 
sacrifices made by our troops and their families in time of war and 
peace: time away from children and loved ones, combat injuries, both 
mental and physical, and I have seen widows in their 20s holding babies 
in their arms that will never know their fathers because they gave the 
ultimate sacrifice to our Nation in combat.
  I believe, as other Members do, that we have a solemn, moral 
obligation to support our troops, their families, military retirees, 
and veterans. They have kept their promise to our Nation, and now we 
should keep our promise to them. That is why I consider it a privilege 
to serve on the first Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and 
Veterans Affairs with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  My respect for our service men and women and veterans is also why I 
voted against the House budget resolution earlier this year and against 
the 302(b) allocation that determined how many dollars our subcommittee 
would have today to allocate to spend on DOD health, military 
construction and VA programs, including VA health and research 
programs.
  I believe, especially during a time of war, Congress should make 
greater investments in health care and military construction programs 
that are vital to the training and well-being of our troops and their 
families. I believe we should invest significantly more in VA health 
care for our veterans. And despite dollar increases, and they have been 
real and they have been significant over the last 5 years for VA health 
care, our VA hospitals are facing serious budget challenges due to two 
things: one, high health care inflation that is affecting all 
hospitals, whether they be VA or in the private sector; and secondly, 
because the average annual increase in the number of veterans needing 
VA health care has been about 250,000 to 300,000 veterans.
  Having said that, our appropriations subcommittee did not have the 
power to determine how much money we had to spend on programs under our 
jurisdiction. That was largely decided by the budget resolution. I 
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). Given the FY 2006 
budget resolution, the gentleman worked hard to get an increased 
allocation for this subcommittee.
  Given what I consider to have been tough choices, I believe the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and our subcommittee worked hard 
and we have worked in good faith on a bipartisan basis to put limited 
dollars where they are most needed: veterans and DOD medical services 
and housing for military troops and their families. We went the extra 
mile, along with professional staff on both sides of the aisle, to 
scrub the budget to put dollars in the highest priority areas. That was 
our responsibility, and I think we did it well.
  I believe there are a number of very important positive steps taken 
in this bill. First, VA medical services were increased by $1 billion 
over the President's request, a request which I thought, frankly, was 
inadequate. The bottom line is we are allocating $1.6 billion over last 
year's VA medical services. I believe the VA needs more to keep up with 
medical inflation and an expected increase of 300,000 veterans. But 
given our allocation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in 
particular, fought very hard to make VA medical services funding our 
top priority; and I stand with him in that priority. I think it is the 
right choice.
  Second, it is positive that DOD health care was increased by 10 
percent. During a time of war, that is important.
  Third, base allowance for housing was increased by 9.5 percent. Our 
troops deserve improved housing.

                              {time}  1200

  Let me also add that this committee, under Chairman Walsh and its 
bipartisan committee membership, has continued the very important role 
in leading what I consider to be the most important family housing 
improvement program in our military history, that is, the public-
private partnership that is building tens of thousands of new homes to 
deserving men and women and their families serving in our military.
  I salute the subcommittee's leadership on that important program.
  Fourth, the subcommittee rejected the Administration's request to 
more than double prescription copays for veterans and to add a new $250 
annual enrollment fee for some veterans. In addition, in my viewpoint, 
the committee wisely rejected massive proposed cuts in veterans' 
nursing home care. The committee's work in this area will mean tens of 
thousands of veterans will get long-term nursing care that otherwise 
might have been deprived of that care.
  A fifth good thing that this committee did in its work is, it 
directed the VA to focus more of its medical care and research dollars 
on mental health care, an essential priority given our wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as the mental health care needs of veterans from 
past wars. I particularly salute the gentleman from New York for his 
leadership in this much-needed initiative. I, for one, believe it will 
be one of the important legacies of his service in Congress.
  The VA has underfunded mental health care services and research for 
too long and that is going to change because of the leadership of this 
committee.
  While I wish we did not have to cut VA medical facilities operations 
by $400 million and VA health administration programs and DOD health 
care research and cut, $9 million out of VA health care research, I 
believe the committee put the limited dollars where they were most 
needed, in funding VA and DOD health care during a time of war.
  I also wish we were not at the point where we were still funding 
military construction at levels below levels spent before the Iraqi war 
began, but this bill moves us in a positive direction, increasing 
military construction by 4 percent.
  Given a smaller budget than I would have preferred, the bottom line 
is that I believe the subcommittee, led by its chairman, made solid 
decisions on a bipartisan basis to scour the budget and to fund our 
highest-priority needs. We stopped harmful cuts to VA nursing home care 
and took important new steps to ensure that mental health care services 
for our troops and our veterans will be improved. That is why I intend 
to support this bill and ask my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to 
do the same.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2528--The Military 
Quality of Life and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
year 2006. Let me begin by commending the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Walsh, for his work on this important bill.

[[Page 11412]]

  I'd like to comment briefly on an issue that is important to me as 
the Chairman of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 
Subcommittee on the Veterans' Affairs Committee--the National Shrine 
Commitment. As you may know, pursuant to Public Law 106-117 the 
Department of Veterans Affairs entered into a contract to assess the 
state of VA's national cemeteries. That study identified $279 million 
of needed repairs and maintenance. While the President requested $14.4 
million to fund this initiative, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, in 
its views and estimates letter to the Budget Committee, recommended an 
additional $45.6 million in minor construction funding to begin a 5-
year plan to fully fund needed repairs and maintenance.
  It is necessary that Congress ensure our national cemeteries are 
maintained in a manner that pays proper tribute to our fallen veterans. 
Funding the National Shrine Commitment achieves that end. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Walsh to see if we can find the 
necessary resources to fund the National Shrine Commitment.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2528, a 
bill which will provide the essential funding that our Nation's heroes, 
our veterans, need. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the gentleman from the 25th District of New York (Mr. Walsh) for 
their vision and leadership on this important issue, and I also thank 
them for allowing me the time to speak on a bill that is so important 
to our country.
  This bill increases overall veterans' benefits to $21 billion which 
is nearly $1.6 billion more than last year's funding level for our 
veterans.
  Madam Chairman, over the last 2 years alone, this Congress has 
increased funding for veterans' medical care by 18 percent. In 
addition, H.R. 2528 doubles veterans' mental health research funding 
and requires a comprehensive study on post-traumatic stress disorder. 
As a veteran of our Armed Forces, I understand that this is an issue 
that our future veterans, who are currently fighting in the war on 
terror, will most certainly struggle with. I applaud the efforts that 
this bill makes to ensure America's veterans will receive the mental 
health care they need when they return home as our heroes.
  Madam Chairman, I also support this bill because of the assistance it 
will provide to the veterans in my home State of Nevada. H.R. 2528 
provides $199 million for a new veterans hospital in Las Vegas. Las 
Vegas is the fastest-growing metropolitan area in our Nation. Nevada's 
veteran population is simply exploding. This new hospital will ensure 
that those who have bravely served our country have access to all their 
health care needs. This is great news for Nevada's veterans.
  The committee's report that accompanies H.R. 2528 also ensures that 
the vital per diem payments that the VA provides to our State veterans 
home in Boulder City will not be cut. This report language also 
requests Secretary Nicholson to engage in a dialogue with our State-
operated veterans homes to come up with a solution to increasing the 
costs of providing quality health care to our veterans.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it 
provides our Nation's veterans with the benefits that they have earned 
by protecting our great Nation.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I rise 
in support of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations bill. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for their very hard 
work in drafting this well-balanced bill.
  I also want to acknowledge the majority and minority staff for the 
diligence and dedication that they have demonstrated throughout this 
process. I can appreciate the tough choices that both the gentleman 
from New York and the gentleman from Texas had to make with this tight 
allocation. Admittedly, if there were a different majority in the 
House, there would have been more money allocated to these programs, 
but within the budget constraints imposed upon the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), I believe they have done a fine 
job, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee, I want to 
commend both our chairman and ranking minority member for producing a 
bill which will dramatically improve the life and the experience of men 
and women joining the United States Navy and going for basic training 
and other schools in my district at Great Lakes Naval Training Center.
  This bill funds two new barracks for the Great Lakes Naval Training 
Center and an infrastructure upgrade. It continues a $1 billion 
capitalization program which has transformed Great Lakes into the 
birthplace of the United States Navy.
  But this bill does something even more important. Throughout the 
country, we know that we have several hospital facilities funded by the 
Department of Defense close to VA facilities also funded by the 
taxpayer in caring for our veterans. What this bill does is it 
accelerates plans to build a new joint VA-Navy hospital in North 
Chicago, Illinois. This new facility, with two reports required by the 
administration to accelerate the progress, will be the first ever Navy-
VA joint facility. We are very proud that that will be located in North 
Chicago, Illinois. This $100 million facility will ensure veterans' 
health care in northern Illinois and provide cutting-edge, quality care 
for the recruits who are joining the United States Navy.
  For these reasons and others, I really commend the chairman and the 
staff for what they have done to accelerate this, better health care 
for veterans, better health care for naval recruits and at lower cost 
to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am pleased that we have the creation of a 
Military Quality of Life committee. It is hard to imagine more capable 
leadership than that that will be offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and there 
is tremendous potential to look holistically at the problems and 
opportunities dealing with military quality of life.
  I am particularly pleased because it will give for the first time a 
true focus to look at what is a serious, hidden issue of military 
quality of life, and that is military cleanup. For too long, this 
Congress has been missing in action. It has never given priority to the 
vast stretches of the United States in every State of the Union, an 
area the size of the States of Maryland and Massachusetts combined, to 
deal with the cleanup of past military activities.
  It impacts our troops and their families on the bases, their 
neighbors past and present, and it has significant financial impacts, 
although if we do this job right, we have the opportunity to 
dramatically reduce the cost. I am impressed over the last 7 years 
working on this issue that the military, the men and women in the 
ranks, want to do this job right. They have sensitivity to the 
environment and they know that they are in trouble if they are exposed 
unnecessarily to pollution and unex-
ploded ordnance.
  Cleanup gives the military many advantages. There are less hazards to 
fighting men and women. There will be more area to train. There are 
better relationships with the surrounding area. Most important, it will 
develop tools and techniques that will save American lives. It will 
give the military long-term security with these new techniques and 
technologies.
  Every day people die unnecessarily from land mines and UXO around the

[[Page 11413]]

world. I am going to offer some amendments because, frankly, as much 
respect as I have for the new subcommittee and the fact it is new, they 
are looking at a whole new range of areas.
  We are looking at allocating over $1.5 billion to the 2005 base 
closure rounds, and we have not yet cleaned up after the very first 
round of military closures. That is unacceptable. It is time for 
Congress to no longer be missing in action. We need to step up, provide 
the guidance, and clean up these areas.
  It is unacceptable after 17 years that we will tell the people in 
Sacramento that their base might be cleaned up in the year 2072. The 
money is available. The Congress just needs to find the will to 
allocate it and support the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee in 
its important work to make sure that we protect military families and 
the military environment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a very respected member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding me this time. I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
for a fine job, with limited resources, in producing, I think, a very 
good work product.
  I know that the gentleman from New York shares my concern for our 
service men and women who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with 
the adverse psychological effects of combat. Many of the difficulties 
experienced by these brave men and women can be classified as post 
traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. As you are aware, the GAO report on 
VA and defense health care dated September 2004 has highlighted the 
lack of services at the Department of Defense military treatment 
facilities and VA hospitals to address the needs of these former and 
active duty personnel. The report language and various initiatives that 
you have included in our bill address this problem, and I want to thank 
you for your leadership.
  However, the lack of services available demands that we take 
immediate steps to increase psychological screening and treatment for 
our returning troops. PTSD cannot be just a Veterans' Administration 
problem. The needs of our active duty men and women have to be at the 
forefront of our agenda, meaning that it is wrong simply to discharge 
service men and women because we do not have the capacity to treat them 
while they are on active duty.
  Since most of our military hospitals lack the expertise to deal with 
a large influx of such patients, I would like to urge the chairman, as 
the bill goes to conference, to consider allowing the creation of 
regional centers across our country located at private hospitals or 
available military clinics to help meet these increasing needs.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for raising this issue, 
and I share his concern.
  The gentleman has correctly indicated that this bill works to address 
PTSD research so that we can better treat mental health symptoms of our 
active and retired military personnel.

                              {time}  1215

  As the gentleman is aware, in this difficult budget climate, we 
crafted a bill that uses our resources wisely. I commit to the 
gentleman that I will take his views with great respect as they relate 
to PTSD into consideration as we move forward toward the conference of 
this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman for his consideration and for his leadership, and I thank him 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague 
from Texas for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of this bill because, as a member of the Military 
Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, I can 
tell the Members that people are the most precious resource we have in 
our Armed Forces.
  As we get closer to Memorial Day, many of us here in Congress will go 
home and talk about how important it is to support our troops and our 
veterans, and that is a fine sentiment, and I agree 100 percent. But 
what does Congress actually do to follow through? Our obligation to 
support our troops by no means ends when they separate from their 
branch of service. Yet in the age of spiraling deficits, some folks in 
Washington seem all too willing to forget the promises that we have 
made to our veterans.
  The Veterans Administration is chronically underfunded every year, 
and it is struggling to provide the basic services and benefits that 
veterans have been promised.
  The President's proposed VA budget, for example, would have 
significantly raised out-of-pocket health care expenses for many 
veterans. That was his so-called increase, by increasing fees to our 
veterans. And I am glad that this Committee on Appropriations saw to it 
that we would not raise the out-of-pocket costs for veterans. That is 
not the acceptable answer for the VA funding problems. The answer to 
the funding problem is to adequately fund the VA in the budget so that 
the veterans will receive the kind of care that they were promised when 
they signed up to defend our country.
  While I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to 
increase VA funding from the wholly inadequate amount requested by the 
President, I am very disappointed that the efforts of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, to provide significant 
additional funding, $2.6 billion, for our Nation's veterans, financed 
by reducing the tax cut for the very richest Americans, that all of 
this was blocked by the Republican majority.
  As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I readily advocate the 
importance of fiscal responsibility in government, but let us not do 
that on the backs of our veterans.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the first order of business 
is to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and to thank 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), ranking member, for a very fine 
effort on behalf of the Nation's veterans.
  We leave today and most Americans will join us on Memorial Day to 
honor the fallen heroes and, might I say, sheroes. The women of the 
United States Congress just came back from Arlington Cemetery honoring 
the fallen women who lost their lives in battle. Again, we restate our 
commitment for the opportunity for women to be able to serve on the 
front lines, as they have advocated for and as we have noted that they 
have offered their lives in battle without any suggestion of taking the 
back seat.
  Today we attempt to pass legislation that speaks to the Nation's 
veterans; and many of them, all of them, will be joining us on Memorial 
Day as we honor those who have lost their lives, but we will be with 
the veterans who were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) so very much 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the work that they have 
done dealing with keeping veterans hospitals opened. I would have 
hoped, however, that we would have been able to debate the Obey 
amendment that would have given us $2.6 billion to really be able to 
honor and be with our veterans and mourn those who had lost their 
lives, because let me remind them, when soldiers fall, their families 
are left behind and we need a strong VA health system.

[[Page 11414]]

  In fact, I recently, in my representation, had the Veterans Hospital 
of Houston in my congressional district. I now share it with the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), but we are all still 
fighting for our veterans hospitals. And I thank both of them, and I 
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for the great fight that 
they have had.
  I see the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) on the floor, and I 
just want to note the great work done with the Fisher House in years 
past when we funded a place for veterans' families, families of 
veterans who are in the hospital, that their families may stay nearby.
  We must realize that we have 1,500 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
maybe upwards of 2,000, and they are dying every day. But we also have 
the injured who are coming home who need to have a full open hospital 
system. Their families need to have it. So it is important, Mr. 
Chairman, that even as we look at the good work that this committee 
did, to see the opportunity to be able to debate the Obey amendment 
because the $2.6 billion is needed.
  I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas about the 
concerns that I have raised. One, we know the trauma that many of these 
returning soldiers will face in mental health. That is one of the 
aspects of service of the veterans hospital. We know the fact that 
there is a need, even though the CARE Commission is now looking at 
closing eight hospitals, that we need to keep the hospitals open, and 
then, of course, we need to protect the families and give them good 
health care.
  I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman that if we were able 
to add an extra $2.6 billion, a mere drop in the bucket, to this 
particular funding, and, by the way, that only gives the rich a 
$129,000 tax break versus $140,000, but would we be able to answer the 
concerns of America's veterans whom he has heard from around the 
Nation?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am proud of the work the 
subcommittee did on a bipartisan basis to take limited dollars and use 
them wisely and focus them on high priorities. But, clearly, the reason 
I supported the Obey amendment and am sorry it was not allowed by the 
Committee on Rules is because it would allow a significant increase in 
resources and provide mental health care services and funding for the 
operations of our hospitals. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
her great leadership over the years in standing up and fighting for our 
men and women who have served our country in uniform.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will 
simply thank the gentleman for his comments and say I know that the 
hospitals are vital to our veterans and I hope that we can continue the 
fight for them and I look forward to working with him and the chairman.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, my good friend, someone who has worked very closely 
with us throughout this process.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the quality of his 
work, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). We 
have had the opportunity to work over the years in the Committee on 
Armed Services, and we continue to work with them.
  I came down here to tell them I am proud of them. They put together a 
pretty good product. They are operating under new procedures. I am 
really pleased with regard to the leadership of taking the personnel 
and housing and coupling it with veterans. I want to work with the 
gentlemen and the gentlewoman on their committees and their staff 
because the only way we can get the seamless transition is through 
working together.
  And we are going to end this procurement of I will buy my own systems 
and VA buys their own systems and then they are incompatible and we 
have got duplicity and multiplicity and, guess what, it is now up to us 
to end this.
  And we are going to make this seamless transition work. We are going 
to give the right platforms with regard to IT. I want to thank them for 
making that cut in IT. A lot of people are going to say, Why did they 
do that? We are about to set the correct platform under the right form 
of leadership. And what I would like to work with the gentlemen on is 
that we are going to hopefully take the chief information officer 
within the VA and we are going to give them line and budget authority. 
We are going to end the stovepipes and the wasting of hundreds of 
millions of dollars, because we need to modernize this system. So I 
want to work with them as we proceed.
  Despite this recent comment about $1 billion being a drop in the 
bucket, they plussed-up health care $1 billion. That is real money. One 
billion dollars in my congressional district, and I cannot speak for 
yours, but in my congressional district, I take all of the income tax 
receipts of my constituents and it is $990 million. So $1 billion 
represents the labor of every constituent who works in my congressional 
district.
  So they work together and plus this up $1 billion over the 
President's mark; and as a matter of fact, they exceeded the mark that 
we gave to the budget views and estimates. So I stand here and 
congratulate the bipartisan work; 1.64 billion is meaningful, Mr. 
Chairman.
  With regard to their focus on PTSD and following the President's 
recommendation of the $100 million, I thank them. We are going to be 
holding a hearing coming up; so to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop) and his concerns, hopefully he can contact us and we can also 
address his ideas. I am pleased about the COLA adjustment. We are going 
to move in June to do the authorization on the COLA.
  And I also want to pause for a moment and thank them with regard to 
the second pilot on revenue enhancement. This is boring stuff that a 
lot of people do not like to talk about, but it is the operations of 
these health systems. And we are not getting it right at the beginning, 
and we are not getting coding right. We are not getting the number 
right even on collections. So we have this project out in the visit in 
Ohio, and now we are opening up a second front, a competitive pilot. 
This is going to be the right thing as we move to improve revenue 
enhancement.
  So I want to thank them, and I want to thank their staff for their 
fine work. I know I focused my entire remarks on the veterans side, but 
let me thank them also for what they do for the men and women and the 
families in taking care of their housing on these bases. It is 
extremely important and very valued. And they are doing some real 
grinding, and sometimes it does not get all of the attention, and I 
know what they are doing on the inside. So on behalf of the men and 
women in uniform, I thank them and God bless them.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  To respond to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, my mentor and one of the real heroes in this world 
is former Congressman Olin E. Teague, who once held the position that 
the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Buyer) now holds. Mr. Teague was a 
distinguished combat veteran of World War II, served in Congress 32 
years, played a leadership role on writing the modern G.I. bill. And I 
thank the chairman for his leadership on veterans issues, and I think 
his point regarding the importance of the Committee on Appropriations 
and authorizing committee regarding veterans working together is 
terribly important, and I thank him for bringing that point to the 
floor of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas, my friend and colleague, for yielding me this time.
  I would like to bring to the subcommittee's attention and to all of 
the Members of the House an issue that falls under the jurisdiction of 
the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee,

[[Page 11415]]

and that is the Department of Defense's security standards for 
buildings. I do not think that these standards really meet the test of 
scrutiny when applied to cost effectiveness nor to mission 
accomplishment. The Department of Defense has issued standards without 
checking with the Congress, without having any hearings and I think 
without fully assessing what the cost and operational impact will be.
  These building security standards preclude the Department of Defense 
from leasing any office space in a metropolitan area because they 
require a setback of anywhere from 82 feet to 148 feet from the street. 
Under these newly issued requirements, buildings cannot have 
underground or rooftop parking. They cannot have retail activity on the 
ground floor. They basically cannot be accessible to the public or have 
reasonable traffic and parking plans in operation.
  We have been working in Northern Virginia in concert with the 
Pentagon for years to get the Department of Defense employees to their 
work in a cost-efficient manner and to be able to meet the Pentagon's 
needs.

                              {time}  1230

  Now they say none of your buildings qualify. Well, I am not going to 
go into this just for my own self-serving purposes, but I do think that 
when DOD issues a mandatory requirement affecting tens of thousands of 
people that its consequences ought to be fully considered. In this 
case, it is a mandate that has been imposed unilaterally, resulting in 
the displacement of over 23,000 Defense Department personnel in 
Northern Virginia. It is going to affect additional thousands of people 
around the country.
  But beyond that, it is going to require hundreds of millions of 
dollars to build new buildings with this enormous setback from the 
street, and no one else is going to want to use these buildings. The 
cost premium of building these buildings that meet the prescriptive DOD 
standards is so excessive that no other activity is going to be able to 
afford the cost of these buildings. So we are talking about hundreds of 
millions of dollars spent excessively to build buildings that will soon 
become outmoded by technology and common sense.
  The General Services Administration has come up with an alternative, 
what is called a performance-based standard, as opposed to DOD's 
prescriptive-based standard, that provides just as much security, but 
they use traffic management, they harden the building, make the windows 
shatterproof, and move the most sensitive activities to the interior 
space. They use technology, they use a lot of common sense and 
judgment, and they accomplish the same purpose and still they can 
locate buildings in metropolitan areas at much less expense. They just 
built a building in New York that meets all of the building security 
standards, much less expensive than DOD wants but just as secure from 
terrorist attack.
  So what I am suggesting is that this subcommittee look at this 
matter, look at the cost implications, consider whether there may be 
better ways of accomplishing the same security objectives. This DOD 
requirement is based upon protecting ourselves from a truck bomb 
carrying an arbitrary figure of 200 pounds of TNT, whereas a truck can 
carry 1,000 pounds of TNT. Furthermore, there are so many other ways a 
building could be attacked that these security standards don't address.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would be happy yield to my friend, to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
bringing this to us. This certainly would have an impact on all 
metropolitan areas where land values are high. So I would be happy to 
work with the gentleman as we go forward with this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would the 
gentleman consider some report language, requiring some feedback from 
the Defense Department on cost implications and alternative ways of 
accomplishing the same security objectives?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
certainly cannot commit to language I haven't seen, but as I said, I 
would be happy to continue to work with the gentleman as we go towards 
conference.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend very much and 
look forward to fixing this situation in a fiscally efficient and 
operationally effective manner.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues Chairman 
Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards for including two provisions very 
important to me and so many Americans in this legislation.
  This bill preserves the organization of our Defense Cancer Research 
Programs, which have served our Nation so well and have helped drive 
breakthroughs in breast, prostate and ovarian cancer research. 
Consolidation of these programs would have disrupted and delayed the 
granting of research awards, siphoned scarce resources away from 
research endeavors to support administrative functions. And I am 
pleased my colleagues, with the help of Mr. Murtha, were able to 
maintain the distinct nature of these cancer research programs.
  I am especially pleased by the funding level for ovarian cancer 
research. Ovarian cancer is the fourth deadliest cancer for women. This 
year, approximately 22,220 women will be diagnosed and an estimated 
16,210 will lose their lives to the disease. One in 57 women will get 
ovarian cancer, a disease with a 5-year survival rate of only 24 
percent when caught in advanced stages. As an ovarian cancer survivor, 
I can tell you first-hand how important early detection is critical.
  Despite progress made, we still do not fully understand the risks 
factors, symptoms and causes of ovarian cancer. Unlike other diseases 
and conditions, there is no screening test for ovarian cancer--there is 
no equivalent to the mammogram. And as such, more than 80 percent of 
women are diagnosed late stages when prognosis is the worst, and the 
overall rates of ovarian cancer mortality remain unchanged year after 
year.
  Appropriately, the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program is focusing 
its efforts on developing science and scientists to help us achieve the 
breakthroughs desperately needed in the field of ovarian cancer. 
Sustaining the current structure of the program and providing 
sufficient resources will help speed the day that we have a valid and 
reliable early detection tool for ovarian cancer reducing and 
preventing suffering from ovarian cancer for our nation's wives, 
mothers, aunts, nieces, daughters, and friends.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes $2.2 billion in funding for 
veterans' mental health needs--and I want to thank my colleague, Mr. 
Edwards, for ensuring that it did. Many of us have long been concerned 
with the growing mental health needs of our returning soldiers, 
marines, sailors and airmen. That is why I offered an amendment to add 
additional funding to the Supplemental for veterans mental health 
needs.
  Today, more than one-quarter of Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans who seek care at the VA do so for 
mental health reasons. And according to the New England Journal of 
Medicine, 16 percent of surveyed Marines and 17 percent of Army 
soldiers meet screening criteria for major depression, generalized 
anxiety, or PTSD. These rates are similar to those of service men and 
women in the Vietnam and Gulf Wars. And I understand from some in the 
veterans community that these numbers may even understate the severity 
of the problem.
  While this bill will help provide the VA with some of the tools to 
meet the needs of our brave servicemembers, I do believe we have a 
moral obligation to do more. In particular, I am concerned that the 
overall VA budget is not sufficient to meet the needs of troops 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The American Legion and other 
veterans groups have said that this bill falls short by as much as $2.5 
billion in veterans health care funding. Indeed, in my own district, 
veterans tell me that they are waiting up to 9 months for some surgical 
procedures. And our veterans deserve better than that.
  Mr. Chairman, ensuring that we are funding cancer research and 
providing services to our veterans are two of the most important 
responsibilities we have with this bill. And I am pleased the House was 
able to come together in a bipartisan way to see that we did. That is 
why I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this appropriations bill, 
although with some reservations. I am pleased that the reorganization 
of the appropriations bills has brought about a more logical and 
supportable Veterans Affairs appropriations product.

[[Page 11416]]

  I do retain strong concerns over some of the funds appropriated under 
the Military Construction and North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Security Investment Program sections of this bill.
  Although I recognize the need for legitimate funds for military 
construction, I do remain concerned that the funds appropriated herein 
will be used to fund the construction of U.S. military installations 
overseas. At a time when we are closing dozens of military 
installations in the United States--installations that actually 
contribute to the defense of the United States--under the auspices of 
saving money, it is unconscionable to be spending money for the defense 
of foreign countries.
  I also strongly object to the appropriation of U.S.taxpayer funds 
for, as the bill states, ``the acquisition and construction of military 
facilities and installations (including international military 
headquarters) and for related expenses for the collective defense of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Area.'' NATO is a relic of the Cold War and 
most certainly has no purpose some fifteen years after the fall of the 
Soviet Union. As we saw in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, having 
outlived its usefulness as a defensive alliance, the Organization has 
become an arm of aggressive militarism and interventionism. NATO 
deserves not a dime of American taxpayer's money, nor should the United 
States remain a member.
  In conclusion, though I support this appropriations bill, I remain 
concerned about the construction of military bases overseas and the 
dangerous interventionist foreign policy that drives this construction.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 
2528 the Military Quality of Life-Veterans Affairs Appropriations. 
Unfortunately, in rising to speak on this spending legislation, I have 
to tell our Nation' s veterans that they can not expect the level of 
medical care that they deserve from this appropriation's measure. The 
sad truth is that our veteran's have been getting the short end of the 
stick, and unfortunately they will receive no relief from H.R. 2528.
  Being from the City of Houston, which is the home to the Michael E. 
DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center where more than 137,000 
veterans are provided their primary healthcare, I know how vitally 
important it is to provide our veterans with the care they were 
promised. Now is the time for the U.S. government to again fulfill our 
moral obligation to those who have fought for freedom and democracy. 
However, as outrageous as it may seem, this body will not be 
considering the Obey Amendment that would have increased this bill's 
appropriation for veterans' medical care by a total of $2.6 billion. 
The Obey Amendment would have paid for this vitally important medical 
care by simply reducing the size of the tax cut for those making over 
one million dollars, those millionaires would have received a tax cut 
of $129,000 this year, instead of $140,000. Is this what our Nation has 
come to? Where we chose to give millionaires a few thousand dollars 
more in tax cuts instead of funding proper medical care for our 
veterans, who left their families and risked their lives abroad to keep 
our Nation free, does this seem just in any way? Its truly a shame that 
the Appropriations Committee in a completely partisan vote decided to 
reject the Obey Amendment and its truly disgraceful that the Rules 
Committee did not allow this pertinent Amendment to come before this 
body for full consideration.
  The sad secret of Veterans Affairs and medical care for our veterans 
is that with the rising cost of health care these days, the modest 
increases in funding for veterans' medical care in this legislation are 
not even enough to maintain the current level of care, which in itself 
is insufficient. Our veterans need and deserve proper VA benefits 
because they depend so heavily upon them. According to the Veteran's 
Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. 
Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such 
programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. 
Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no 
place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the 
country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will 
be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without 
these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient 
visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their 
only source of medical care. This is a shameful situation and one that 
again is not properly addressed in this appropriation bill.
  While I am greatly disappointed that this legislation does not fully 
address the crisis in veterans medical care, I am pleased to find that 
the Appropriations Committee rejected the administration's proposal to 
restrict payments to State veterans' homes for long-term care, and 
provides sufficient funding within this account to continue the current 
policy. I am also pleased the Appropriations Committee directed the VA 
to work with the National Association of State Veterans Homes and other 
stakeholders to develop and implement solutions that will give veterans 
the best options for quality long-term care at the most reasonable cost 
to the taxpayer. I can only hope that this legislation offers our 
veterans more options in getting quality long-term care instead of 
less.
  We must protect the rights of our veterans because they went abroad 
and protected our Nation when they were called to duty. I find it 
unfortunate that this legislation only goes halfway towards solving the 
veterans medical care crisis that exists, the sad fact is that it could 
do so much more. I can only pray that all members of Congress will give 
the same effort in fighting for our veterans that they did fighting for 
us.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, as a Senior Member of the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I oppose this appropriations bill because the amount 
included for veterans' healthcare is woefully inadequate. An additional 
$2.6 billion, the amount called for in the Obey amendment which was not 
accepted, is desperately needed for the coming fiscal year because the 
number of veterans is growing and the quantity of health care per 
veteran is growing.
  As many of our servicemembers return from Iraq and Afghanistan 
without legs and arms and with many and varied physical and mental 
heath care needs, as many of our veterans live longer and need long-
term care, a grateful nation should be prepared to provide for them. 
Shamefully, this appropriations bill does not keep that promise, and I 
cannot support it.
  Finally, the new appropriations structure irresponsibly pits active 
military needs against veterans needs. Our great Nation can support 
both!
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
Amendment. This amendment provides badly needed funding for veterans 
health care, and represents the minimum necessary to maintain the 
current level of services.
  While the increase in veterans health care funding in the underlying 
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Appropriations bill is welcome, 
it is also inadequate. The underlying bill fails to maintain the level 
of health care provided to our veterans at time when demand for those 
services is on the rise. The Obey Amendment corrects this by providing 
an additional $2.6 billion to ensure that all our veterans receive the 
health care they have earned and that they deserve.
  I am disappointed that the President has failed to provide leadership 
on this issue. His request for less than a 1 percent increase for VA 
health care services was completely inadequate to meet the needs of our 
veterans. Furthermore, for the third straight year, the President 
proposed doubling prescription drug co-pays to $15 and charging a $250 
enrollment fee to many of our veterans. Fortunately, the Appropriations 
Committee has rejected placing this unfair burden on our Nation's 
veterans and did not impose these new fees.
  I urge the Majority to allow a vote on the Obey Amendment and let the 
House complete the work of writing a bill that honors our veterans by 
providing the necessary health care resources. This is the very least 
we can do for the men and women who have given so much in the service 
of our country.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill and 
would like to commend the gentleman from New York--Mr. Walsh--and the 
gentleman from Texas Mr. Edwards--(and their very able staff) for their 
good work on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us will spend this weekend doing exactly what 
we should be doing--returning home to our communities to pay solemn 
tribute to those brave men and women who have paid the ultimate price 
in service of our Nation.
  We are painfully mindful that we are a Nation at war. Our young 
fighting men and women are in action around the world, serving with 
distinction and dedication. To honor them, we should pass this 
legislation which provides important assistance to our American 
heroes--past and present--our veterans and our current warfighters.
  This legislation: Significantly increases funding devoted to military 
housing and health care. Increases total funding for the VA by 3.5 
percent; Boosts Veterans Medical Services $1 billion above the budget 
request and $1.64 billion over last year's levels: (Over the last 2 
years, funding for Veterans medical care has increased by 18 percent.)
  Appropriates $20 billion for the Defense Health Program--a 9.9 
percent increase over fiscal 2005. Proposes a 10-percent increase in

[[Page 11417]]

the basic allowance for military housing; Hikes total military 
construction 4.2 increase above last year's levels.
   Mr. Chairman, our troops--active, reserve and Guard--are enduring 
extraordinary mental and physical stress during long tours of duty 
battling an insurgency engaged in intense guerilla warfare. Clearly, 
these troops will have special needs, including mental health needs, 
when they rotate from the combat zone. I am proud that this bill goes 
to extraordinary lengths to fund treatment of Post Traumatic Stress 
Syndrome, and doubles funding for mental health research.
  We know from experience that the mental health and physical health of 
our troops are closely linked, and mental health disorders can 
exacerbate or even induce physical disorders. Returning service men and 
women need to be treated for both through integrated physical and 
mental health care and this bill recognizes that fact on many important 
levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out what is NOT in this 
bill, namely higher copays at veterans health care facilities and new 
annual surcharges for certain categories of veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation at war. And our young fighting men and 
women have real needs. Our veterans have real needs.
  I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for providing for those 
needs and urge support for the bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, when the Appropriations Committee realigned 
its subcommittees earlier this year, one of the larger challenges fell 
to the measure we are considering today--the Military Quality of Life 
and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The bill provides benefits, 
housing, and health care for our military troops and their families; 
and ensures that our veterans--who have given so much for our Nation--
continue to receive pensions, readjustment benefits, loans, and medical 
care. I am pleased to rise in full support of the bill the 
appropriators have crafted.


                        Military Quality of Life

  In structure, H.R. 2528 adds considerably to the previous Military 
Construction bill by including the Department of Veterans Affairs; the 
Defense Health Program; the military personnel base allowance and 
housing accounts; the military facilities, sustainment, restoration, 
and modernization accounts; the military environmental restoration 
accounts; and a number of small related agencies.
  The bill is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 
95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, 
which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 28th. It stays 
within the 302(b) allocation to the subcommittee, as provided by the 
full Appropriations Committee pursuant to the budget resolution. 
Consequently, it does not violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act, 
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of the 302(b)s.
  [I should note that the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has recast 
the 2005 enacted levels into the new subcommittee structure for this 
year's appropriations bills, so we can make year-to-year comparisons. 
Also, please be aware that CBO's figures, which I am using, employ base 
figures and categories that may differ slightly from those published by 
the Appropriations Committee.]
  H.R. 2528 provides $53.5 billion to the Department of Defense [DoD]. 
Of that amount, $20 billion is for the Defense Health Program, which 
provides top-notch medical care to our service members and their 
families at little or no cost to them. This amount represents a slight 
increase over the President's request and an increase of $1.8 billion 
over the 2005 enacted level. This bill also funds the military 
construction and family housing accounts used by DoD to provide our 
service members and their families quality housing. The funds made 
available in this bill for base allowance and housing--$13.3 billion--
also ensure that those serving our country are able to afford to live 
in quality housing whether on or offbase. This represent an increase of 
$1.2 billion over the 2005 enacted level.
  H.R. 2528 provides $31.5 billion in discretionary funds for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Most of this amount--$28.8 billion 
of it--is for the Veterans Health Administration, which provides 
medical care to our Nation's veterans, medical research, medical 
facilities, and medical administration. The largest component is 
medical care, which is funded at $21.0 billion, an increase of $745 
million over the President's request and an increase of $1.1 billion, 
or 6 percent, over the 2005 enacted level. The bill does not include a 
medical care enrollment fee or an increase in prescription drug 
copayments. H.R. 2528 provides total discretionary funding for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs of $33.7 billion, an increase of $637 
million above the President's request and an increase of $2.9 billion, 
or 9.5 percent, above the 2005 enacted level.
  H.R. 2528 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is 
exempt from budget limits. The bill contains no rescission of 
previously enacted discretionary BA.


                                  Iowa

  I would also like to acknowledge a specific provision that benefits 
the National Guard in my State. The measure includes $431,000 for 
planning and design of a field maintenance shop at Readiness Center in 
Iowa City.


                    The Budget Resolution/Conclusion

  As I have noted before, the budget resolution provides a total 
allocation for discretionary appropriations of $843 billion in fiscal 
year 2006. This relatively tight spending level requires significant 
effort by the Appropriations Committee to set priorities and make 
choices. As we continue the appropriations season, I commend Chairman 
Lewis and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for meeting 
the needs of the American public within the framework established by 
the budget resolution.
  In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2528.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this side, so 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2528

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated for military quality of 
     life functions of the Department of Defense, military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                      Military Construction, Army

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as 
     currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army 
     Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for 
     the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and 
     operation of facilities in support of the functions of the 
     Commander in Chief, $1,602,552,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2010: Provided, That of this amount, not to 
     exceed $168,804,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, architect and engineer services, and host nation 
     support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary 
     for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Melancon

  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Melancon:
       Page 2, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.
       Page 10, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $169,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $23,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.

  Mr. MELANCON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, as I begin my remarks, let me say that in 
my first 2 days as a newly sworn-in Congressman, I had the unfortunate 
experience of attending seven funerals for

[[Page 11418]]

young men within a 20-mile radius of my home.
  I bring this war-related veterans service amendment to you today. 
This amendment provides an additional $53 million in urgently needed 
funding for items critical for veterans returning from the war. The 
increased money for vets is paid for by cutting back this year's 
funding for the next round of the BRAC by 9 percent.
  The amendment will provide $8 million for combat-related trauma care. 
The VA is currently operating four polytrauma centers for research, 
education and clinical activities on complex multitrauma associated 
with combat injuries. The important work of these centers needs to be 
expanded and demands dedicated funding.
  Six million dollars is provided for hardware and software to support 
telemedicine initiatives to allow the polytrauma centers to support 
wounded troops once they return to their homes. Long-term follow-up is 
particularly problematic for Reservists and National Guardsmen who 
return to their communities without the support of nearby military 
bases.
  Nine million dollars is added for medical and prosthetic research, 
which is needed to support current spending levels for VA research. 
Last year, this was funded at $402, but the bill only includes $393, a 
$9 million cut. Unlike NIH, VA research is uniquely focused on 
veterans' health issues. It investigates new prosthetic devices, 
infectious disease, the effects of various environmental hazards, 
postdeployment mental health and war-related illnesses. Veterans 
returning from the global war on terrorism will all benefit from this 
research. It should not be cut.
  Provide retroactively $23 million for war orphans: Surviving spouses 
with minor children are eligible for Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation to assist the families with immediate and transitional 
needs after the death of a spouse. Right now, only servicemember 
families whose spouses die after November 30, 2004, receive this $250 
per month benefit for 2 years. This amendment will help approximately 
4,100 spouses with children whose servicemember spouse died during the 
war on terrorism between September 11, 2001, and November 30, 2004.
  This will also provide $7 million for 100 additional staff who 
process claims for compensation and pension benefits. Veterans coming 
home from the war deserve quick response to their claims, but as of May 
21, 2005, over half a million claims for compensation and pension 
benefits were pending at VA regional offices. This includes 342,811 
claims by veterans who are seeking a disability rating.
  I propose a BRAC offset. The administration requested $1.88 billion 
for fiscal year 2006 for the new round of BRAC. While the 
administration was formulating this request, the DOD consistently was 
stating that there was about a 20 to 24 percent excess capacity in 
military installations. Then, on May 12, just 2 weeks ago, Secretary 
Rumsfeld reported at a press conference that the new BRAC list would 
only cut between 5 and 11 percent of excess capacity.
  The 2005 BRAC round will actually require less than half of the 
closure and realignment activities originally projected. The 
administration's budget request reflects much more money than will be 
needed to be spent for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2006.
  The bill already cuts $310 million from the BRAC request, and the 
program would not suffer with an additional $169 million cut. This is 
well under the $180 million in additional cuts that was approved by the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  While it is important to begin funding the implementation of the new 
BRAC round, this money is the first installment in a process that will 
take several years. By contrast, money for veterans' health is urgently 
needed, especially in the critical areas funded in this amendment. We 
need to take care of our servicemen and -women returning from the war 
as they come home.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the gentleman to the 
Congress. We are very proud and happy that he is here, and I hate to 
oppose the very first amendment that he is offering, but I think it is 
the responsible thing to do.
  We believe this bill is a balanced bill that addresses all of the 
needs of the Nation in a fair manner. This amendment would cut $169 
million from the funding required to carry out the BRAC recommendation. 
This cut would slow down the cleanup and disposal of closed bases for 
this round, and also the realignment of bases, and will therefore 
negatively impact the economies of those communities by stalling the 
reuse and development of that land.
  Now, the gentleman is from Louisiana. As we are all aware, there were 
a number of closures and realignments in the State of Louisiana, 
particularly around Baton Rouge and New Orleans, if this amendment were 
to pass, the redevelopment of those bases and properties, and I am sure 
land values are quite high in New Orleans and people would like to 
redevelop those properties, that would stall. It would be delayed. It 
would cause confusion. And I suspect that others Members of the 
Louisiana delegation may not want to support this because it will 
definitely affect their communities.
  I would also offer that at this point we are talking about a list of 
proposed closures. We do not know exactly which bases will be closed or 
realigned until the process is over.
  We do know one thing, though, that this $169 million that the 
gentleman would like to take out of BRAC will not get you, dollar for 
dollar, the money that you would like to see spent in veterans' health 
care.
  Because of our budget rules, this money that is in the BRAC fund, the 
$169 million that the gentleman would like to cut from BRAC, will only 
get $30 million. It would only free up $30 million in 2006 for the 
purposes that the gentleman has described.
  The reason is because, again, under our budget rules, this money in 
BRAC spends out or outlays at a rate of only 15 percent. So, in effect, 
this is penny wise and pound foolish, because you lose almost $170 
million in the BRAC funding to get $30 million in veterans' health. 
That money would be much better spent in BRAC, because you will get the 
full benefit of $170 million.
  The bill that we presented does much to improve VA health care by 
adding $1 billion to the budget request. This results in an 8.5 percent 
increase over last year and over a 40 percent increase since the year 
2001. So as I have said before to Members who appeared before the 
hearing, members of the veterans community, the House has the power of 
the purse. We establish our priorities by how we allocate funds, how we 
appropriate funds. And other than Defense health, no area, no budget 
within the Federal budget, has increased the way veterans' health care 
has. This would be an 18.2 percent increase in 2 years in veterans' 
health care.
  So this would do great harm to the BRAC and it would do little to 
impact on veterans' health care. This comes at a high cost to BRAC, 
especially when one considers the large increases that we have already 
provided in veterans' health care programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the Members oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the 
welcome to the floor of the House, to the Chamber. It is an honor to be 
here.
  I, too, regret that the gentleman has to oppose my amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I simply want to say that 
I congratulate the gentleman for offering this amendment. I would say 
that I greatly respect the chairman of the

[[Page 11419]]

subcommittee, but I disagree with the implication of one thing that he 
said. He is evidently suggesting that because of a difference in outlay 
rates between these two accounts, that we would not get the full amount 
in the amendment, or that the full amount in the amendment would not be 
immediately made available for the purposes of the amendment.
  I would simply point out that whether it is $79 million being 
redirected or $53 million being redirected, it is still better than 
nothing.

                              {time}  1245

  I would also say that BRAC is going to go on for a long, long time. 
We have no idea how much money we are going to need for BRAC, and this 
Congress will be adjusting what it provides for BRAC many times over, 
the next 7 or 8 or 9 years. But the fact is that the troops coming home 
now need these services now. I do not think that anyone believes that 
either the budget amount or the amount in the committee is fully 
sufficient, given the needs of the troops.
  So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) 
will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2007, for overhead cover systems to support 
     force protection activities in Iraq: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds may be 
     obligated or expended to carry out planning and design and 
     military construction projects not otherwise authorized by 
     law.

              Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, 
     facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps 
     as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the 
     Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal 
     services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, 
     $1,109,177,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $36,029,000 
     shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect 
     and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the 
     Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations 
     are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Air 
     Force as currently authorized by law, $1,171,338,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That of 
     this amount, not to exceed $91,733,000 shall be available for 
     study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services, 
     as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that additional obligations are necessary for such 
     purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons 
     therefor.

                  Military Construction, Defense-wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, installations, 
     facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of 
     the Department of Defense (other than the military 
     departments), as currently authorized by law, $976,664,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That 
     such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such 
     appropriations of the Department of Defense available for 
     military construction or family housing as the Secretary may 
     designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation 
     or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $107,285,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

               Military Construction, Army National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, 
     $410,624,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, 
     $225,727,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 
     1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military 
     Construction Authorization Acts, $138,425,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010.

                  Military Construction, Naval Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the reserve components of the Navy and 
     Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization 
     Acts, $45,226,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010.

                Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by 
     chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military 
     Construction Authorization Acts, $110,847,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010.

                   North Atlantic Treaty Organization

                      Security Investment Program

       For the United States share of the cost of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for 
     the acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
     installations (including international military headquarters) 
     and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of 
     title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction 
     Authorization Acts, $206,858,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Family Housing Construction, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, 
     $549,636,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

             Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation 
     and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, $803,993,000.

           Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, 
     addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized 
     by law, $218,942,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010.

    Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment, 
     leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, 
     and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $588,660,000.

                 Family Housing Construction, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, 
     $1,236,220,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

          Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, 
     minor construction, principal and interest charges, and 
     insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $755,319,000.

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  First of all, I want to take a moment to commend the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) and the committee

[[Page 11420]]

for bringing this important pending bill to the floor and providing 
resources to our military and those who serve in our military. I thank 
him for his leadership in the United States House of Representatives 
and for his service to our Nation.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to add $1.3 million to the Army 
National Guard construction account in order to complete the design of 
a joint National Guard Reserve Center in Daytona Beach, Florida. Last 
year, through the good work of this appropriations subcommittee, the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction appropriated $789,000 in fiscal 
year 2005 funding to begin the design, and that funding is now being 
depleted.
  Mr. Chairman, this project is the Florida National Guard's number one 
priority in the 2012 to 2013, 5-year plan and will be included in the 
President's budget for the 2007 budget.
  I am concerned that possibly cutting the funding or not providing the 
funding for this project now may negatively impact on the Florida 
National Guard's ability to move forward with this important project 
that is now some nearly 8 years behind schedule.
  I would ask the gentleman from New York whether he can commit to 
working with me during the conference on this bill to ensure that 
funding or adequate attention and language is in the final bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida 
for his hard work and his dedication to getting this base back on 
track, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Florida as 
we go forward.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh).
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy to discuss a 
funding matter concerning the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives 
program.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to bring attention to a significant 
funding problem that, if it is not solved, could halt the destruction 
of dangerous chemical weapons stockpiles in Richmond, Kentucky and 
Pueblo, Colorado.
  Within the last 2 months, there have been significant changes in the 
status of what is known as the ACWA program which manages the Blue 
Grass Ammunition Demilitarization Facility at the Blue Grass Army Depot 
in Kentucky and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Pueblo, Colorado.
  Due to recent Department of Defense decisions, the President's fiscal 
year 2006 budget no longer reflects the funding requirements needed for 
the Blue Grass site.
  If the United States is to meet the 100 percent extended destruction 
deadline of April 2012 set by the Chemical Weapons Convention, a total 
of $31 million in funding needs to be allocated to the Military Quality 
of Life Chemical Demilitarization Construction account.
  This $31 million would come in the form of a zero-sum adjustment to 
the President's budget, as he had included a $33 million request for 
ACWA under the RDT&E account.
  I recognize that this bill does not have jurisdiction over the RDT&E 
account, which complicates the transfer of these funds. However, I 
request that when the House and Senate conferees meet to reconcile the 
two versions of this bill, that they consider adding these vital 
military construction funds to the ACWA program.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHANDLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I am aware that the Department of Defense wants to revise the budget 
request for this program. I am also aware that the Department does not 
want to submit a budget amendment. The gentleman from Kentucky is 
correct, the jurisdiction complicates the transfer of funds from RDT&E 
to the Chemical Demilitarization Construction account, and the timing 
of this request is also a complicating factor. However, I assure the 
gentleman from Kentucky that this issue will be kept in mind during the 
conference consideration of this bill.
  Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from New York for his recognition of both the funding needs of the ACWA 
program and the need to dispose of these dangerous weapons that 
threaten the safety of communities in Richmond, Kentucky and Pueblo, 
Colorado.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide

       For expenses of family housing for the activities and 
     agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the 
     military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing, 
     and minor construction, as authorized by law, $46,391,000.

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in 
a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be 
pleased to engage in a colloquy with my friend, from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York is aware, 
over 75 million Americans suffer serious pain, and over 50 million of 
these endure serious pain with a duration of 6 months or more. Many of 
these Americans are being treated in facilities within the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. Currently, available treatment mechanisms do not 
cure the pain and usually involve medications that are hardly more 
effective than a placebo, while introducing the risk of serious side 
effects. Recent clinical findings are causing widespread concern that 
pain killers available through prescription and over the counter are 
placing users at additional risk.
  As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that must find 
funding to pay for these medications, the gentleman from New York has 
an important role in directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
use their medical dollars wisely.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of those facts and of the 
significant cost to society in the form of dollars and the quality of 
life.
  I am also recently aware that research being done in the gentleman's 
district may lead to significant changes in how we treat pain and 
offers the promise of reducing the side effects. This research in the 
area of photon mediated treatment for pain, in effect using light and 
its associated heat, offers enough hope that I would suggest it as an 
area of further research within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his remarks and look forward to working with him as he moves this 
bill forward and into conference. I would hope that the conference 
statement of managers would include a suggestion to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs that they consider doing research in this area.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman and pledge to do all I can to work with the other 
body to put some language on this subject in the statement of managers 
when we get to conference.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage with the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) in a brief colloquy, if he would be so kind, on the 
subject of cleanup at closed bases.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to 
enter into a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the attention of the House 
a

[[Page 11421]]

problem that desperately needs attention, which is cleanup at our 
closed military bases. I realize that in today's tight budget 
situation, we have difficult choices to make, but I think it is 
critical that the Members of this body realize that the issue of 
cleanup at military bases, both the active bases and the closed bases, 
but especially at those that are closed, is literally a time bomb.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has 
tried to accommodate the cleanup needs of closed bases. Through the 
gentleman's efforts, this bill provides $377 million in BRAC money for 
previous rounds of closed bases. Most of this will go to cleanup, but 
that is far from enough to complete the cleanup and transfer this land 
to others so that economic growth can occur.
  To my colleagues I say, if we are serious about BRAC, we have to get 
serious about cleanup. DOD officials claim that earlier rounds of BRAC 
have saved about $7 billion a year, but that is false savings when the 
Defense Science Board Task Force on UXO, unexploded ordnances, in 
February of 2004, put the cost of unexploded ordnance cleanup between 
$26 billion and $52 billion.
  Just this past January, the GAO reported that $3.6 billion remains to 
be cleaned up at closed bases, and identified the base in my district, 
closed base Fort Ord, as having yet another $322 million in cleanup 
costs before the land can be transferred. This is on top of the $327 
million that has already been spent on the cleanup at Fort Ord.

                              {time}  1300

  The scope of this problem is large, and Fort Ord is not the only 
problem. The same GAO report shows that Kelly Air Force Base in Texas 
still has about $209 million in cleanup costs outstanding. Seneca Army 
Depot in New York has $72 million in cleanup costs remaining. Savanna 
Depot in Illinois has $55 million, and the naval air station in South 
Weymouth, Massachusetts, has $39 million. The five bases cited carry a 
$697 million cleanup price tag, yet the bill is only able to provide 
$377 million for that purpose, less than half.
  If, 10 years after the last BRAC round, we are still struggling to 
remove these bases from the Pentagon's inventory, but cannot because of 
cleanup problems, how are we going to cope with a round that was just 
announced a week ago?
  BRAC has become all about disposal of military property. We have 
forgotten about the part of BRAC that is supposed to be about 
conversion of military property.
  Disposal must contain a more aggressive component of cleanup so that 
conversion and, therefore, economic recovery can take place more 
quickly and more effectively.
  I would suggest one option for us to consider is to rescind the 
MILCON money in this bill currently slated for bases that are on the 
closure list, and reallocate it to the BRAC cleanup. Closing bases do 
not need new construction, but they will need cleanup.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr), who is a respected and active member of the subcommittee and 
knows these issues very well. Certainly, the gentleman has made us all 
more sensitive to the problems of unexploded ordnance and hazardous 
wastes at closed bases, and I commend the gentleman for that.
  While I do not dispute the gentleman's logic, I cannot endorse his 
suggestion at this time.
  As we all know, the Secretary of Defense released his BRAC 
recommendations to the BRAC Commission on May 13. At this time, they 
are just that, recommendations to the Commission. It is the Commission 
who will present the final report to the President later this year.
  However, I will commit to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr), that we will be following this process closely, and as we 
move to conference on this bill, I will work with him to adjust the 
funding available for cleanup of bases closed in previous BRAC rounds.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his 
commitment to address this matter in conference and eagerly look 
forward to working with the gentleman on it.
  I thank the chairman for engaging in this colloquy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund

       For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 
     Fund, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section 
     2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative 
     means of acquiring and improving military family housing and 
     supporting facilities.

               Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note), $377,827,000, to remain available until expended.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Page 9, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $351,000,000)''.
       Page 10, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $351,000,000)''.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciated what we just heard a 
moment ago from the chairman and my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr). And I appreciate the gentleman's long 
involvement with this issue and sensitizing us to it.
  I am deeply concerned that the parameters that the gentleman from 
California outlined are such that we are going to have to take a 
serious step back and do something this Congress. I mentioned earlier, 
I know that the new subcommittee's configuration gave it broad scope 
with lots to do. But it is time for us to take a step back and give 
proper focus to the problem of military cleanup on bases that have been 
realigned and closed.
  My amendment would simply say, before we start the fifth round of 
base closure, the fifth round, that we ought to take some of that money 
that has been designated for the fifth round and instead keep faith 
with the 17 communities that are waiting, now since 1988, to have their 
problems solved.
  We are all aware of the trauma that can take place in communities 
when bases close, how they lose jobs. They are upset. But to compound 
it by leaving people with a toxic white elephant is absolutely 
unacceptable.
  I have before me here a list of the 1988 BRAC installations and the 
estimated date of the cleanup. At the top of the list, in no particular 
order, in Sacramento, California. They are going to have to wait till 
the year 2072 to be able to fully clean this up.
  As we go down the list, it is absolutely unacceptable. It is one of 
the reasons that we find such apprehension regarding the BRAC process, 
although there is the promise of redevelopment. There are opportunities 
that we have seen, for example, in Lowry Air Force Base in Denver. 
Where it is done right, bases can be cleaned up, it can add economic 
vitality to communities. The sorry fact is that we have not kept faith 
with the communities that have suffered base closure.
  I strongly urge that each and every Member of Congress take a step 
back. To the best of my knowledge, we have not voted specifically to 
put money in the cleanup process in at least the 9 years that I have 
been in Congress, and I have not been able to identify a specific vote 
before that.
  The fact is that Congress is missing in action. There are people in 
the Department of Defense who are skilled, eager and interested to go. 
There is a significant private sector range of activities, businesses 
that are ready to do their job in base cleanup.
  What is missing is that Congress has never made it a funding 
priority. And at the top, at the Pentagon, despite having some great 
people through the

[[Page 11422]]

last two administrations who understand this problem, it has never been 
a top priority of the Pentagon, until we come around again talking 
about base closures.
  I am strongly suggesting that we step forward, that we allocate this 
$351 million, put it here, so that we are keeping faith with these 
people. The fact is that if we were to approve this amendment, it would 
still be only a third of what is necessary, less than a third of what 
is necessary to deal with prior base closures. And frankly, that is 
just the tip of the iceberg because there are 2,307 formerly used 
defense sites in every State of the Union that are littered with 
unexploded ordnance and military toxins.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment 
forward. I appreciate the opportunity of working with this subcommittee 
in the future, but I want to make clear that it is time for Congress to 
no longer be missing in action and to take this small step to keep 
faith with these people who have been waiting for 17 years for the 
Pentagon and Congress to do the cleanup job that faces them.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer's) amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I know the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) brings a tremendous amount of history to this 
issue and expresses the concerns that all of us feel for communities 
that have this long-term problem. So I accept his genuineness and his 
attention to this. And pressure is a good thing.
  Let me state that we have just discussed this with my colleague on 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and we 
intend to work on this when we get to conference with the Senate.
  I would just point out that the Navy recently sold the former Marine 
Corps Air Station at El Toro in California for $650 million, which was 
a much higher price than was anticipated. Since all land sale revenues 
must come back into the priority BRAC account, there will be some 
additional funds available in fiscal year 2006 for environmental 
cleanup.
  This amendment is probably not necessary. DOD has indicated that by 
the year 2008 it will have either completed the cleanup or put into 
place all the remedial systems it needs for cleanup at all but two 
installations. Once in place, the cleanup will take time, and more 
funds will not necessarily speed up the process.
  These are areas, for example, where you have a range, firing range, 
where mortars or small arms or other weaponry was fired and remains 
unexploded in the ground. It will take time to find that. It is a very 
dangerous process. I am sure it is a very tedious, stressful process, 
but it has to be done right, so it does take time.
  I would also note that by taking money out of the 2005 BRAC account, 
the gentleman would actually compound the very problem he is trying to 
correct for the upcoming BRAC. It will slow down the cleanup and 
disposal of closed bases for this round and will, therefore, negatively 
impact the economies of those communities by stalling reuse 
development.
  We do intend to deal with this issue in conference. And we will look 
at what funds may reasonably be added to the prior BRAC account to 
accelerate environmental cleanup. We need to make sure that more funds 
will actually translate into more effect. Since I do not know, at this 
time, what that plus-up could be, I am afraid that I must oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise and associate myself with the 
remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and 
strongly support his amendment. Let me also add and thank the very 
thoughtful colloquy that was conducted by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) and the distinguished chairman from New York (Mr. Walsh). 
Clearly, his involvement and assistance is much needed and greatly 
appreciated.
  But as a State and, I daresay, for the Northeast as an entire region 
that has been targeted, when you look at statistically what is going on 
here in the 17 communities, as the gentleman noted, that are in dire 
shape, and you look at the length of time as we project out, you now 
understand why communities have such enormous apprehension about this. 
Or as Peter Finley Dunne would say, ``Trust everyone, but cut the 
cards.'' And in the case of the BRAC hearings, we feel that we need a 
new deal.
  I further would just say in listening to the distinguished Chair, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and again, I applaud him 
personally for his efforts, while there will be more money available 
for cleanup from the sale of the El Toro Marine Air Station, the amount 
needed is over $3.6 billion. Even with these new funds, we are less 
than one-third of the way there in terms of the funding. One-third of 
the way there, and we are adding on all these new communities.
  And in looking at what the BRAC findings initially have projected, 
and especially looking at the State of Connecticut in terms of the 
cleanup, how drastically underestimated they have been in those areas 
as well. So these are very disturbing, and that is why I again thank 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for raising this very 
important and thoughtful amendment, a common-sense approach, that 
before we proceed to a fifth round, that we make sure that we address 
these very important issues that impact all of our communities.
  If we are going to have trust in this process, as the gentleman has 
appropriately pointed out, then Congress cannot abrogate its 
responsibility. It has to assume that responsibility and assure these 
communities that are going to be impacted, if we are to proceed in a 
strategic and very important, common-sense approach to this issue.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to discuss it in a 
broad sense. I am also very supportive of our chairman, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh). I am on the committee. But this is an 
opportunity for us to focus in on the need for base cleanup.
  And it is an easy expression to say base ``cleanup,'' the word, but 
the process is elaborate because there are all kinds of cleanup. 
Essentially, the cleanup that most people know that would be in any 
city where you had a motor pool, where you had garages and fuel spent, 
all bases have that. Those are common kinds of industrial types of 
cleanup.
  You have areas that most communities do not have, which are firing 
ranges. Most of that is lead cleanup. Those are not necessarily 
unexploded ordnances because you fire in for targets. You have cleanup 
because big bases have their own places that they dumped, in many 
cases, the old days they just dumped the fuel, poured it on the ground, 
but they also had solid waste sites. And as the rains came the 
leachates through the solid waste site get into the groundwater. So we 
have now ground water contamination. That is another cleanup.
  And lastly and most elaborately, you have one cleanup that only the 
Federal Government does and only people that have been trained by the 
Federal Government, even though they may be in the private sector, are 
authorized to do. We do all the unexploded ordnance cleanup; nobody 
else in the world does that. And that cleanup is very specific because, 
as the chairman said, it is dangerous. It is unexploded ordnances that 
are in the ground and oftentimes buried. And it is slow.
  But the fact of the matter is that if these were private lands, the 
private sector would have to clean it up. That is the law. And we know 
about Superfund law and things like that. When it is the government 
they can take more time and do it at their own pace, and particularly 
the military, because their mission is to go fight military battles.

                              {time}  1315

  The last thing that you want to do is spend a lot of money just 
trying to clean up the ground which is left behind. And on that ground, 
are some

[[Page 11423]]

buildings that, I might add, are old buildings that have lead paint and 
asbestos in them which have to have certain protocols for getting rid 
of the lead paint and asbestos.
  So unless this attention is given, what people do is they put this 
stuff on the back burner and say, that is expensive. Let us go at it 
slowly. We will not have to appropriate enough money to it. You have 
communities now coming and begging to the military saying, why do you 
not just give us the money. This is called a buy-out. I am working on 
this in my own district to see if you can buy a buy-out so that the 
government can put up the money and the community will accept the 
responsibility for getting it done. They may be able to get it done 
faster. They think they can.
  So these are the kinds of issues that I think it is important that we 
focus on. I really applaud the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
for not only bringing this amendment to the floor, but he has been 
doing this for years by trying to tweak the conscience of Congress to 
say these things are about cleanup. It is a responsibility that the 
private sector knows they have to do, and we in the public sector ought 
to be doing the same and particularly the military.
  I might add, it is not all criticism of the military. Recently, since 
the environmental laws have come along, I found that the military has 
been a very good steward of these laws. In fact, now on all our ranges 
and all the things that the military does, they have reports of where 
every shell goes. They keep those reports. They know where the 
contamination is. They try to do cleanup as they go along, and they try 
to minimize any kind of adverse impacts on the environment. I applaud 
the military for that.
  We have to be good stewards and good citizens of our communities 
where our military bases are and take the responsibility for cleaning 
up these extraordinary amounts of messes, particularly at a time when 
you want to use that land for economic recovery. And you cannot even 
get on the land; you cannot walk on it. They put a fence around it. 
That is the worst thing that can ever happen to a community and to 
closed bases.
  I applaud this effort to bring attention to all of the Members of 
Congress that we have got a real problem here, and that we have got to 
focus some attention and figure out the resources that we need to get 
the job done. I applaud the chairman for his work and conscientiousness 
in trying to see that we might be able to go some money in conference 
to address this problem.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment 
that would shift funding for the 2005 BRAC round into accounts that 
would be used to finish the cleanup of all the installations closed in 
previous rounds, all of which, by the way, occurred over 10 years ago.
  The Department of Defense is currently conducting a review of the 
military's overseas facility structure as well as the upcoming 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR. These are important and very 
telling studies that have not yet been completed that will give us in 
Congress a much clearer picture of our military's future landscape and 
needs; and meanwhile, we should take the time to finish the job we 
started in the late 80s.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday morning I flew home to Marietta, Georgia, in 
my district, where I had the pleasure of meeting one of the nine BRAC 
commissioners as he toured Naval Air Station Atlanta in the 11th 
district. While we were there, a comment was made that the commander of 
the facility would like to have rolled the 40-plus planes, Humvees, and 
Cobra helicopters out on the tarmac for review, but they were all 
deployed in the war on terror.
  Mr. Chairman, the DOD has recommended that these assets be realigned 
elsewhere; yet I am concerned that proper due diligence has not been 
paid to consider the overall force structure needs of the military, the 
very purpose of the QDR that will not be completed for months.
  If BRAC is to occur, I believe that it can be carried out in a much 
more effective manner once we have a better idea about what the future 
holds. So for that reason, I believe that we should allocate our scarce 
resources to completing the cleanup necessary for those communities 
already impacted by BRAC to reclaim the land and put it to good use.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the Blumenauer amendment.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, on June 22, 2004, I came to the floor of this 
house in support of the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Blumenauer) 
amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Appropriations bill relative 
to unexploded ordnance (UXO). I rise again today in support of my 
colleague's UXO amendment.
  My home state of Hawaii is the perfect example of how and why funds 
for the cleanup of UXO are very much needed. Several years ago, the 
Department of Defense (DOD) identified over fifty DOD-registered 
locations in my state that have not been cleaned up. These sites 
continue to present significant and ongoing public safety risks.
  One of these locations is the Waikoloa/Waimea Formerly Used Defense 
Site (FUDS) on my Island of Hawaii. The site includes over 137,000 
acres and all or parts of the communities of Waikoloa and Waimea 
(Kamuela). The U.S. Navy acquired the area in 1943 through licensing 
agreements for use as a military training camp and artillery range. 
U.S. Marine Corps maneuvers and intensive live-fire training included 
hand grenades, 4.2-inch mortar, and 37 millimeter (mm), 75mm, 105mm, 
and 155mm high explosive shells.
  The first ordnance cleanup activity occurred in 1946. In 1954, 
military ordnance disposal units began to identify and dispose of 
thousands of munitions. The United States Army Corps of Engineers 
determined the site was eligible for the Defense Environmental 
Restoration Program Formerly Used Defense Site in 1992.
  An engineering evaluation/cost analysis, completed in January 2002, 
designated the entire property as a potential ordnance health and 
safety risk. Eleven areas within property (48,000 acres) were 
determined to have the highest risk, including all of the Waikoloa 
Village and the developing urban area from Kawaihae to Waimea. In that 
analysis, the United States Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the 
cost to complete the cleanup for the entire site is $653 million.
  Mr. Chairman, our military plays a vital role in our society and 
throughout the world. My state of Hawaii is the location for the 
regional headquarters of each of the service branches as well as the 
Pacific Command. Hawaii proudly continues to play a vital role in 
America's military, commercial, and diplomatic relations with countries 
in the Pacific Rim and beyond.
  However, I strongly believe that the military must also follow 
practices espoused by parents, teachers, and camp counselors alike: 
Leave any place you have visited cleaner than when you arrived. Along 
these lines, the United States Army Corps of Engineers is ready and 
willing to be better engaged in the cleanup process. Congress must now 
take the first step of appropriating sufficient funds for this 
important action.
  I again wish to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
for his continued diligent work on this important issue. I look forward 
to working with him in the future and urge my colleagues to support 
this important, vital amendment for communities throughout our country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Page 9, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.

[[Page 11424]]

       Page 10, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention not to unduly delay 
this effort. I will withdraw this amendment at the end, but I want to 
finish the thought because I deeply appreciate what my colleagues have 
mentioned referencing the unexploded ordnance issue.
  I want to agree with what the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
said, the Department of Defense is making tremendous progress dealing 
with cleanup of unexploded ordnance.
  This is a representative sample of the problem. I will tell you that 
this picture could have been taken at any of dozens of sites around the 
country. What is most distressing is that we do not know the full 
extent of all of the unexploded ordnance that is our responsibility.
  A couple of years ago, I led a tour with my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), to the campus 
of American University where the toxic residue of World War I was still 
being cleaned up after three efforts. The child care center was closed 
down. An athletic field was denied access to athletes, and over the 
fence, the back yard of the $10 million little bungalow of the Korean 
ambassador was all dug up because they were trying to complete what 
they hoped might be the final cleanup of this site within the 
boundaries of the District of Columbia. There are 2,307 sites around 
the country were formally used sites.
  It is true that these amendments, as the chairman says, may take a 
little money away from the fifth round. It may slow it. I would be 
prepared to argue that in good faith that it is not going to slow it, 
but frankly, if we cannot keep faith with the people 18 years ago, 
maybe we should slow it down before we go to the districts in Georgia 
and Connecticut and elsewhere around the country. But, in fact, I do 
not think that will be the case.
  This program has been plagued by an on-again off-again effort. We 
have not geared it up. We have not turned loose the expertise in the 
military and in the private sector, people who could solve these 
problems if we had a guaranteed stream of funding.
  If we did the research, we would find that more people would be in 
the business, the cost of the bids would go down, we would develop the 
technology, and not only would we remove unexploded ordnance that is in 
every State of the Union, but we would develop technology that would 
make our fighting men and women safer in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would 
make civilians safer in Southeast Asia and in Africa and the Balkans.
  This is our responsibility, and we have been missing in action too 
long as a Congress.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks about the complexity of 
being able to survey large areas. It takes time. But there is new 
technology that can speed it up. I have been working with another 
subcommittee to get funding for what is called Wide Area Assessment. 
The Defense Science Board says if we would spend a billion dollars over 
the next 5 years, we could probably identify 8 million acres or more 
that was not contaminated. We could return it to be wildlife or 
redeveloped, or it could even be used for other military purposes. It 
is an example of where, if we do our job, we will save money, we will 
save lives, we will advance technology, and it will move forward.
  I deeply appreciate the time that has been taken this afternoon for 
this discussion. I appreciate the chairman and ranking member for their 
engagement in this, for providing feedback to me and my staff and 
others, for the assurances that in conference we will try to move some 
of this money around, that the El Toro money that could be used for 
additional naval cleanup. All this is great, but it is a drop in the 
bucket of the overall problem. It is less than half of our obligation 
just for things that we have already closed.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am going to withdraw this amendment. I 
appreciate being able to make the point. I look forward to working with 
the gentleman, but I would hope that our colleagues will take this 
seriously because it can have vast implications for military readiness, 
for the environment, and keeping faith with our communities who expect 
that we will do our job. Today I hope we will take a step in doing just 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Realignment 
     and Closure Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) 
     of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note), $1,570,466,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Basic Allowance for Housing, Army

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Army on 
     active duty, $3,945,392,000.

                   Basic Allowance for Housing, Navy

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Navy on 
     active duty, $3,592,905,000.

               Basic Allowance for Housing, Marine Corps

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Marine 
     Corps on active duty, $1,179,071,000.

                 Basic Allowance for Housing, Air Force

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Air 
     Force on active duty, $3,240,113,000.

            Basic Allowance for Housing, Army National Guard

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Army 
     National Guard on active duty, $453,690,000.

            Basic Allowance for Housing, Air National Guard

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Air 
     National Guard on active duty, $248,317,000.

               Basic Allowance for Housing, Army Reserve

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty, $310,566,000.

               Basic Allowance for Housing, Naval Reserve

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Naval 
     Reserve on active duty, $191,338,000.

           Basic Allowance for Housing, Marine Corps Reserve

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty, $40,609,000.

             Basic Allowance for Housing, Air Force Reserve

       For basic allowance for housing, for members of the Air 
     Force Reserve on active duty, $71,286,000.

      Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Army

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Army, $1,850,518,000.

      Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Navy

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Navy, $1,344,971,000.

  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Marine Corps

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Marine Corps, $553,960,000.

    Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Air Force

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Air Force, $1,845,701,000.

  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Defense-wide

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Department of Defense, $115,400,000.

 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Army National 
                                 Guard

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Army National Guard, $391,544,000.

  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Air National 
                                 Guard

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Air National Guard, $184,791,000.

  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Army Reserve

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Army Reserve, $204,370,000.

  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Naval Reserve

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Naval Reserve, $67,788,000.

  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Marine Corps 
                                Reserve

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Marine Corps Reserve, $10,105,000.

[[Page 11425]]



   Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization, Air Force 
                                Reserve

       For expenses for facilities sustainment, restoration and 
     modernization of the Air Force Reserve, $55,764,000.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $407,865,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $305,275,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $406,461,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $28,167,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For the Department of the Army, $221,921,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law, $19,983,912,000, of which $19,184,537,000 
     shall be for operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed 2 percent shall remain available until September 30, 
     2007, and of which up to $10,212,427,000 may be available for 
     contracts entered into under the TRICARE program; of which 
     $355,119,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, shall be for procurement; and of which 
     $444,256,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2007, shall be for research, development, test 
     and evaluation: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the amount made available under this 
     heading for research, development, test and evaluation, not 
     less than $7,500,000 shall be available for HIV prevention 
     educational activities undertaken in connection with U.S. 
     military training, exercises, and humanitarian assistance 
     activities conducted primarily in African nations.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee 
     contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed 
     $25,000, to be performed within the United States, except 
     Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the 
     Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
       Sec. 102. Funds appropriated in this title for construction 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles.
       Sec. 103. Funds appropriated in this title for construction 
     may be used for advances to the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Department of Transportation, for the 
     construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized 
     therein are certified as important to the national defense by 
     the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United 
     States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
       Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in 
     excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army 
     Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering 
     Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value 
     by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney 
     General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where 
     the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public 
     interest.
       Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site 
     preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing, 
     except housing for which funds have been made available in 
     annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
       Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this title 
     for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate 
     any activity from one base or installation to another, 
     without prior notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction 
     project or activity for which American steel producers, 
     fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the 
     opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for military construction or family housing during 
     the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property 
     taxes in any foreign nation.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without 
     prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts 
     estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects 
     to be accomplished in Japan, in any NATO member country, or 
     in countries bordering the Arabian Sea, unless such contracts 
     are awarded to United States firms or United States firms in 
     joint venture with host nation firms.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this title 
     for military construction in the United States territories 
     and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in 
     countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any 
     contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to 
     a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall not 
     be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest 
     responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor 
     exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a 
     foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided 
     further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards 
     for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the 
     lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a 
     Marshallese contractor.
       Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the 
     appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including 
     the Committees on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of 
     any proposed military exercise involving United States 
     personnel 30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended 
     for construction, either temporary or permanent, are 
     anticipated to exceed $100,000.

[[Page 11426]]

       Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made 
     available in this title which are limited for obligation 
     during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the 
     last 2 months of the fiscal year.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction in prior years shall be available for 
     construction authorized for each such military department by 
     the authorizations enacted into law during the current 
     session of Congress.
       Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing 
     projects that are being completed with funds otherwise 
     expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may 
     be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, 
     inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those 
     projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency 
     for the construction of military projects may be obligated 
     for a military construction project or contract, or for any 
     portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the 
     end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which 
     funds for such project were appropriated if the funds 
     obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from funds 
     available for military construction projects; and (2) do not 
     exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any 
     amount by which the cost of such project is increased 
     pursuant to law.
        Sec. 118. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with 
     an annual report by February 15, containing details of the 
     specific actions proposed to be taken by the Department of 
     Defense during the current fiscal year to encourage other 
     member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
     Japan, Korea, and United States allies bordering the Arabian 
     Sea to assume a greater share of the common defense burden of 
     such nations and the United States.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 119. In addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to 
     the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by 
     section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note) 
     pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be 
     transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1) 
     of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for 
     the same purposes and the same time period as that account.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 120. Subject to 30 days prior notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, such 
     additional amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of 
     Defense may be transferred to: (1) the Department of Defense 
     Family Housing Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated for 
     construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same purposes and for the 
     same period of time as amounts appropriated directly to the 
     Fund; or (2) the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
     Housing Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated for 
     construction of military unaccompanied housing in ``Military 
     Construction'' accounts, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same period of 
     time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund: Provided, 
     That appropriations made available to the Funds shall be 
     available to cover the costs, as defined in section 502(5) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans or loan 
     guarantees issued by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, 
     United States Code, pertaining to alternative means of 
     acquiring and improving military family housing, military 
     unaccompanied housing, and supporting facilities.
       Sec. 121. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be obligated for Partnership for Peace Programs in the 
     New Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
       Sec. 122. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any 
     solicitation for a contract with the private sector for 
     military family housing the Secretary of the military 
     department concerned shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the notice 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice 
     of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental 
     payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private 
     party under the contract involved in the event of--
       (A) the closure or realignment of the installation for 
     which housing is provided under the contract;
       (B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such 
     installation; or
       (C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at 
     such installation.
       (2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the 
     nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and 
     likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal 
     Government with respect to the guarantee.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 123. In addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be 
     transferred from the account established by section 
     2906(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
     1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund established by 
     section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
     Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to pay for expenses 
     associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program. Any 
     amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to 
     which transferred.
       Sec. 124. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of 
     law, funds made available in this title for operation and 
     maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source 
     of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing 
     units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided, 
     That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for 
     the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer 
     quarters without 30 days prior notification to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, except that an 
     after-the-fact notification shall be submitted if the 
     limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated with 
     environmental remediation that could not be reasonably 
     anticipated at the time of the budget submission: Provided 
     further, That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is 
     to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance 
     expenditures for each individual general or flag officer 
     quarters for the prior fiscal year.
       Sec. 125. None of the funds made available in this title 
     under the heading ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     Security Investment Program'', and no funds appropriated for 
     any fiscal year before fiscal year 2006 for that program that 
     remain available for obligation, may be obligated or expended 
     for the conduct of studies of missile defense.
       Sec. 126. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any other 
     official of the Department of Defense is requested by the 
     subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans 
     Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives or the 
     subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, 
     and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate to respond to a question or inquiry submitted by 
     the chairman or another member of that subcommittee pursuant 
     to a subcommittee hearing or other activity, the Secretary 
     (or other official) shall respond to the request, in writing, 
     within 21 days of the date on which the request is 
     transmitted to the Secretary (or other official).
       Sec. 127. Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement 
     Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of 
     title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be 
     available until expended for the purposes specified in 
     subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred 
     pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 128. During the 5-year period after appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military 
     construction and family housing operation and maintenance and 
     construction have expired for obligation, upon a 
     determination that such appropriations will not be necessary 
     for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized 
     adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred 
     during the period of availability of such appropriations, 
     unobligated balances of such appropriations may be 
     transferred into the appropriation, ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Construction, Defense,'' to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same time period and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 129. None of the funds appropriated in this title 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) or TRICARE shall be available 
     for the reimbursement of any health care provider for 
     inpatient mental health service for care received when a 
     patient is referred to a provider of inpatient mental health 
     care or residential treatment care by a medical or health 
     care professional having an economic interest in the facility 
     to which the patient is referred: Provided, That this 
     limitation does not apply in the case of inpatient mental 
     health services provided under the program for persons with 
     disabilities under subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 
     10, United States Code, provided as partial hospital care, or 
     provided pursuant to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of 
     Defense because of medical or psychological circumstances of 
     the patient that are confirmed by a health professional who 
     is not a Federal employee after a review, pursuant to rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary, which takes into account the 
     appropriate level of care for the patient, the intensity of 
     services required by the patient, and the availability of 
     that care.
       Sec. 130. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry out a 
     program to distribute surplus dental and medical equipment of 
     the Department of Defense, at no cost to the Department of 
     Defense, to Indian Health Service facilities and to 
     federally-qualified health centers (within the meaning

[[Page 11427]]

     of section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B))).
       Sec. 131. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to carry out a military construction project, 
     land acquisition, or family housing project for a military 
     installation approved for closure in 2005 under the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 
     XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note), and the 
     Secretary of Defense may not transfer funds appropriated for 
     such a military construction project, land acquisition, or 
     family housing project to another account or use such funds 
     for another purpose or project without the approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 132. None of the funds in this title for operation, 
     maintenance, or repair of housing for general officers and 
     flag officers in the National Capital Region may be used 
     until the Department of Defense submits the report required 
     by section 2802(c) of the Military Construction Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       Compensation and Pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 
     61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other 
     officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and 
     certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of title 
     IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 540 
     et seq.) and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 735; 76 Stat. 1198), 
     $33,412,879,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $23,491,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to 
     ``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical services'' for 
     necessary expenses in implementing the provisions of chapters 
     51, 53, and 55 of title 38, United States Code), the funding 
     source for which is specifically provided as the 
     ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: Provided 
     further, That such sums as may be earned on an actual 
     qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to ``Medical 
     facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding of 
     individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided 
     to pensioners as authorized.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 31, line 1, relating to VA compensation and pensions, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $26,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, relating to VA medical services, insert 
     after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $1,500,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 9, relating to VA medical administration, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $500,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 1, relating to VA medical facilities, insert 
     after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $300,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 8, relating to VA medical and prosthetic 
     research, insert after the dollar amount the following: 
     ``(increased by $67,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 20, relating to VA general operating expense, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $11,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 16, relating to major construction projects, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $150,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 11, relating to minor construction projects, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $51,000,000)''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 409. In the case of taxpayers with an adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000 for taxable year 2006, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     (Public Law 107-16) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-27) shall be 
     reduced by 8.125 percent.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply explain the amendment.
  As I discussed earlier, under existing law given the tax cuts that 
the Congress has passed this year, persons making a million dollars or 
more will on average get a tax cuts of $140,000. Meanwhile, we have a 
significant squeeze on veterans funding.
  Very briefly, my amendment would simply scale back the size of those 
tax cuts from $140,000 to $129,000. It would use the $2.6 billion saved 
by that action to add funding to a number of accounts for veterans 
health care. It would add $1.5 billion more for medical services for 
returning veterans. It would add $500 million more for increased 
medical administrative costs. It would add $300 million to keep the VA 
medical facilities up and running by refurbishing them. It would add 
$67 million for VA medical and prosthetic research; $201 million to 
build medical clinics and long-term care facilities; and $37 million 
for general administrative costs to assist veterans in receiving the 
prompt attention they deserve.
  As has been indicated, the rule that was adopted precludes this 
amendment from being, or I should put it this way, the rule that is 
offered makes this amendment subject to a point of order. That means 
that it cannot be considered unless a point of order is not lodged 
against it.
  I would hope that the majority would not lodge a point of order 
against it so that we might adjust so very slightly the tax cut for 
those who are already the most fortunate people in our society 
economically, and allow this money to be added for veterans health 
care.
  I do not want to take any more of the House's time. I would simply 
urge an ``aye'' vote in the event that a point of order is not lodged 
against the amendment.

                              {time}  1330


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law. The amendment does indeed change the application of existing law.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has served for many, many years with 
distinction on the Committee on Appropriations. He knows full well the 
powers of the Committee on Appropriations. This is not one of them. The 
ability to manipulate and change the Tax Code is not within our 
jurisdiction.
  So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I insist on the point of order and I ask 
for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Budget Act, when it was passed 
several decades ago, was to force Congress to make trade-offs between 
different spending programs and between revenues and spending. The 
problem is that the way the Budget Act is being used these days, 
instead of forcing the Congress to face those trade-offs, the process 
is being segmented, thereby enabling the House to avoid facing those 
trade-offs.
  I think that is unfortunate because it prevents the House from making 
value judgments that would put veterans' health care, for instance, 
higher in our value structure than a $140,000 tax cut for somebody 
making $1 million.
  I cannot deny that under the rules of the House, as they are being 
pursued under the Budget Act, this amendment is not in order. And so, 
Mr. Chairman, I regretfully concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 11428]]



                         Readjustment Benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61), 
     $3,214,246,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That expenses for rehabilitiation program services and 
     assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under 
     section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than 
     under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5), and (11) of that section, 
     shall be charged to this account.

                   Veterans Insurance and Indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 
     487, $45,907,000, to remain available until expended.

         Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund Program Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be neccessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. chapter 37: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That during fiscal year 2005, within the resources 
     available, not to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for 
     direct loans are authorized for specially adapted housing 
     loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carrry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $153,575,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

            Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $53,000, as authorized by 
     chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That these funds under this 
     heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for the 
     principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $4,242,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $305,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

          Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, 
     United States Code, $580,000, which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``General operating 
     expenses'': Provided, That no new loans in excess of 
     $30,000,000 may be made in fiscal year 2006.

  Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless Veterans Program 
                                Account

       For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed 
     transitional housing loan program authorized by subchapter VI 
     of chapter 37, of title 38, United States Code, not to exceed 
     $750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this Act for 
     ``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical administration'' 
     may be expended.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                            Medical Services

       For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by 
     law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to 
     beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United 
     States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including 
     medical supplies and equipment and salaries and expenses of 
     health-care employees hired under title 38, United States 
     Code, and aid to State homes as authorized by section 1741 of 
     title 38, United States Code; $20,995,141,000, plus 
     reimbursements, of which not less than $2,200,000,000 shall 
     be expended for specialty mental health care: Provided, That 
     of the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $1,100,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a 
     priority for treatment for veterans who are service-connected 
     disabled, lower income, or have special needs: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding 
     for the provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in 
     enrollment priority groups 1 through 6: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of 
     prescription drugs from Veterans Health Administration 
     facilities to enrolled veterans with privately written 
     prescriptions based on requirements established by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That the implementation of the 
     program described in the previous proviso shall incur no 
     additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs: 
     Provided further, That for the Department of Defense/
     Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Sharing Incentive 
     Fund, as authorized by section 721 of Public Law 107-314, a 
     minimum of $15,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for the purposes authorized by section 8111 of title 38, 
     United States Code.


                         Medical Administration

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the 
     medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, 
     supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; 
     administrative expenses in support of capital policy 
     activities; information technology hardware and software; 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 
     5901-5902 of title 5, United States Code; administrative and 
     legal expenses of the Department for collecting and 
     recovering amounts owed the Department as authorized under 
     chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq.); 
     $4,134,874,000, plus reimbursements, of which $250,000,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2007.


                           Medical Facilities

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and 
     other necessary facilities for the Veterans Health 
     Administration; for administrative expenses in support of 
     planning, design, project management, real property 
     acquisition and disposition, construction and renovation of 
     any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department; for oversight, engineering and architectural 
     activities not charged to project costs; for repairing, 
     altering, improving or providing facilities in the several 
     hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the Department, 
     not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire 
     of temporary employees and purchase of materials; for leases 
     of facilities; and for laundry and food services, 
     $3,297,669,000, plus reimbursements, of which $250,000,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2007.


                    Medical and Prosthetic Research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 
     chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007, $393,000,000, plus 
     reimbursements.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     administrative expenses in support of Department-wide capital 
     planning, management and policy activities, uniforms or 
     allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services, and the 
     Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail, 
     $1,411,827,000: Provided, That expenses for services and 
     assistance authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and 
     (11) of section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, that 
     the Secretary determines are necessary to enable entitled 
     veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible, to become 
     employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment; or 
     (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily living, shall be 
     charged to this account: Provided further, That the Veterans 
     Benefits Administration shall be funded at not less than 
     $1,086,938,000: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $70,000,000 shall 
     be available for obligation until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided further, That from the funds made available under 
     this heading, the Veterans Benefits Administration may 
     purchase up to two passenger motor vehicles for use in 
     operations of that Administration in Manila, Philippines.


                    national cemetery administration

       For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery 
     Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise 
     provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; 
     cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one 
     passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $156,447,000: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, not to 
     exceed $7,800,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2007.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $70,174,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007.

                      Construction, Major Projects

       For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of 
     the facilities including parking projects under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections 
     316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 
     of title 38, United States Code, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, maintenance or 
     guarantee period services costs associated with equipment 
     guarantees provided under the project, services of claims 
     analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system 
     construction costs, and site acquisition, where the estimated 
     cost of a project is more than the amount set forth in 
     section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United States Code, or 
     where funds

[[Page 11429]]

     for a project were made available in a previous major project 
     appropriation, $607,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $532,010,000 shall be for Capital Asset 
     Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) activities; and of 
     which $8,091,000 shall be to make reimbursements as provided 
     in section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     612) for claims paid for contract disputes: Provided, That 
     except for advance planning activities, including needs 
     assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments, 
     and other capital asset management related activities, such 
     as portfolio development and management activities, and 
     investment strategy studies funded through the advance 
     planning fund and the planning and design activities funded 
     through the design fund and CARES funds, including needs 
     assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments, 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     used for any project which has not been approved by the 
     Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That 
     funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 2006, 
     for each approved project (except those for CARES activities 
     referenced above) shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of 
     a construction documents contract by September 30, 2006; and 
     (2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September 
     30, 2007: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall promptly report in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate any 
     approved major construction project in which obligations are 
     not incurred within the time limitations established above.

                      Construction, Minor Projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities including parking projects under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which 
     may lead to capital investments, architectural and 
     engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period 
     services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided 
     under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite 
     utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and 
     site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in 
     sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, 
     8122, and 8162 of title 38, United States Code, where the 
     estimated cost of a project is equal to or less than the 
     amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United 
     States Code, $208,937,000, to remain available until 
     expended, along with unobligated balances of previous 
     ``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are 
     hereby made available for any project where the estimated 
     cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such 
     section, of which $160,000,000 shall be for Capital Asset 
     Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) activities: 
     Provided, That funds in this account shall be available for: 
     (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical facilities under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department which are 
     necessary because of loss or damage caused by any natural 
     disaster or catastrophe; and (2) temporary measures necessary 
     to prevent or to minimize further loss by such causes.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

       For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State 
     nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, 
     modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and 
     domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to 
     veterans as authorized by sections 8131-8137 of title 38, 
     United States Code, $25,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

        GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES

       For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or 
     improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by section 
     2408 of title 38, United States Code, $32,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2006 for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to 
     any other of the mentioned appropriations.
       Sec. 202. Appropriations available in this title for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for services 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land 
     or both; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized 
     by sections 5901-5902 of such title.
       Sec. 203. No appropriations in this title (except the 
     appropriations for ``Construction, major projects'', and 
     ``Construction, minor projects'') shall be available for the 
     purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any 
     new hospital or home.
       Sec. 204. No appropriations in this title shall be 
     available for hospitalization or examination of any persons 
     (except beneficiaries entitled under the laws bestowing such 
     benefits to veterans, and persons receiving such treatment 
     under sections 7901-7904 of title 5, United States Code or 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless 
     reimbursement of cost is made to the ``Medical services'' 
     account at such rates as may be fixed by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       Sec. 205. Appropriations available in this title for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for 
     payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be 
     recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts 
     within the last quarter of fiscal year 2005.
       Sec. 206. Appropriations available in this title shall be 
     available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding 
     prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections 
     3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts 
     they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
       Sec. 207. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2006, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance 
     Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating 
     expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the 
     insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided, 
     That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus 
     earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year 
     2006 that are available for dividends in that program after 
     claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves 
     have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of 
     administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of 
     surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement 
     shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost 
     of administration for fiscal year 2006 which is properly 
     allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to 
     the provision of any total disability income insurance 
     included in such insurance program.
       Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs shall continue the Franchise 
     Fund pilot program authorized to be established by section 
     403 of Public Law 103-356 until October 1, 2006: Provided, 
     That the Franchise Fund, established by title I of Public Law 
     104-204 to finance the operations of the Franchise Fund pilot 
     program, shall continue until October 1, 2006.
       Sec. 209. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds 
     to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by that account 
     during a prior fiscal year for providing enhanced-use lease 
     services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which 
     the proceeds are received.
       Sec. 210. Funds available in this title or funds for 
     salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be 
     available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management 
     and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint 
     Adjudication for all services provided at rates which will 
     recover actual costs but not exceed $29,758,000 for the 
     Office of Resolution Management and $3,059,000 for the Office 
     of Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication: 
     Provided, That payments may be made in advance for services 
     to be furnished based on estimated costs: Provided further, 
     That amounts received shall be credited to ``General 
     operating expenses'' for use by the office that provided the 
     service.
       Sec. 211. No appropriations in this title shall be 
     available to enter into any new lease of real property if the 
     estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 unless the 
     Secretary submits a report which the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Congress approve within 30 days 
     following the date on which the report is received.
       Sec. 212. No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or 
     medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of 
     title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected 
     disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title, 
     unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current, 
     accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes 
     of section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the Secretary 
     may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the 
     United States, the reasonable charges for such care or 
     services from any person who does not make such disclosure as 
     required: Provided further, That any amounts so recovered for 
     care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be 
     obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which 
     amounts are received.
       Sec. 213. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act, or any other Act, 
     may be used to implement sections 2 and 5 of Public Law 107-
     287 and section 303 of Public Law 108-422.
       Sec. 214. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, at 
     the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, proceeds 
     or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing activities 
     (including disposal) may be deposited into the 
     ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor 
     projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including 
     site acquisition and disposition), alterations and 
     improvements of any medical facility under

[[Page 11430]]

     the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs. Such sums as realized are in addition to the amount 
     provided for in ``Construction, major projects'' and 
     ``Construction, minor projects''.
       Sec. 215. Amounts made available under ``Medical services'' 
     are available--
       (1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and 
     equipment; and
       (2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other 
     expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries 
     receiving care in the Department.
       Sec. 216. That such sums as may be deposited to the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical 
     services'', to remain available until expended for the 
     purposes of this account.
       Sec. 217. Amounts made available for fiscal year 2006 under 
     the ``Medical services'', ``Medical administration'', and 
     ``Medical facilities'' accounts may be transferred between 
     the accounts to the extent necessary to implement the 
     restructuring of the Veterans Health Administration accounts 
     after notice of the amount and purpose of the transfer is 
     provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives and a period of 30 days has 
     elapsed: Provided, That the limitation on transfers is 20 
     percent in fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 218. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2006 for the 
     Veterans Benefits Administration made available under the 
     heading ``General operating expenses'' may be transferred to 
     the ``Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund Program Account'' 
     for the purpose of providing funds for the nationwide 
     property management contract if the administrative costs of 
     such contract exceed $8,800,000 in the budget year.
       Sec. 219. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) shall allow 
     veterans eligible under existing VA Medical Care requirements 
     and who reside in Alaska to obtain medical care services from 
     medical facilities supported by the Indian Health Services or 
     tribal organizations. The Secretary shall: (1) limit the 
     application of this provision to rural Alaskan veterans in 
     areas where an existing VA facility or VA-contracted service 
     is unavailable; (2) require participating veterans and 
     facilities to comply with all appropriate rules and 
     regulations, as established by the Secretary; (3) require 
     this provision to be consistent with CARES; and (4) result in 
     no additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs or 
     the Indian Health Service.
       Sec. 220. That such sums as may be deposited to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to 
     section 8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be 
     transferred to the ``Construction, major projects'' and 
     ``Construction, minor projects'' accounts, to remain 
     available until expended for the purposes of these accounts.
       Sec. 221. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in this Act, or any other Act, may be used 
     by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement a national 
     standardized contract for diabetes monitoring systems.

                               TITLE III

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $7,500 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and insurance 
     of official motor vehicles in foreign countries, when 
     required by law of such countries, $35,750,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                 foreign currency fluctuations account

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, $15,250,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for purposes authorized by section 
     2109 of title 36, United States Code.

           United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by 
     sections 7251-7298 of title 38, United States Code, 
     $18,295,000, of which $1,260,000 shall be available for the 
     purpose of providing financial assistance as described, and 
     in accordance with the process and reporting procedures set 
     forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-229.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $29,550,000, to remain 
     available until expended. In addition, such sums as may be 
     necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement, 
     to be derived from the Lease of Department of Defense Real 
     Property for Defense Agencies account.

                      Armed Forces Retirement Home

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
     Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Gulfport, to 
     be paid from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement 
     Home Trust Fund, $58,281,000, of which $1,248,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for construction and 
     renovation of the physical plants at the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home--Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement 
     Home--Gulfport.

                                TITLE IV

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 402. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used, directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 403. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2006 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 404. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 405. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other 
     than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
     Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
       Sec. 406. All departments and agencies funded under this 
     Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing 
     statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of 
     ``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of 
     their business practices and public service activities.
       Sec. 407. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any 
     other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 408. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and 
     notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the 
     Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans 
     Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, 
     and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate.

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 54, line 13, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record and open to any amendment at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 4__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to implement the results of 
     the 2005 round of base closures and realignments until the 
     completion of all environmental remediation associated with 
     the closure of military installations approved for closure in 
     the 1995 round of base closures and realignments.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this 
amendment, but what I wanted to have in the Record before I do the 
withdrawal is the fact that in many of the prior base closures there 
are still environmental issues that have not been addressed,

[[Page 11431]]

that have not been remedied; and we really need to take a look at that 
as we go through the next round to make sure that the dollars we have 
allocated and the closures we have put in place under BRAC have been 
taken care of.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to ensure the movement of this legislation 
through the house, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to close or realign any military installation 
     approved for closure or realignment in 2005 before the 
     Secretary of Defense makes the information available upon 
     which the Secretary's closure and realignment recommendations 
     were based, as required by section 2903(c)(4) of the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (title XXIX of 
     Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and 
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, which would 
require that all information used by the Secretary of Defense to 
implement its current base closing recommendations be released to 
Congress, the public, and the BRAC Commission before any actions on 
base closings can take place.
  Mr. Chairman, first things first. Why are we proposing base closures 
during a time of war? This BRAC round should be delayed until the 
following actions can be completed: recommendations of the review of 
overseas military structures are implemented by the Secretary of 
Defense, a substantial number of American troops returned from Iraq, 
the House and the Senate Committee on Armed Services receive the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Maritime Security Strategy is 
implemented, and the Homeland Defense and Civil Support Directive is 
implemented.
  In addition, all information used by the Secretary to determine base 
closings should be released to the Congress and the American public. It 
is important these be addressed before implementing the BRAC process 
because once a base is closed, it can never be reopened.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 11th Congressional District and in northeast 
Ohio, over 1,100 jobs will be lost due to the BRAC process. These job 
losses will have a tremendous economic impact on the City of Cleveland, 
which has been named the most impoverished city in the country. Now is 
simply not the time for BRAC, in Cleveland or around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize the importance of the BRAC process; however, 
I feel that all information should be released in order for communities 
to prepare adequate defense tactics for future hearings. Now is simply 
not the time for BRAC.
  I commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. 
Herseth) and Senator Thune for introducing legislation to address this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio has changed the 
language to comply with the existing legislation, so I have no 
objection to it, and I withdraw my reservation of the point of order.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to rise in support of the 
Jones amendment. I think the gentlewoman is right on point here. I know 
for my base, in this case Fort Monmouth, we have not received a lot of 
the data, most of the data upon which the Pentagon's recommendations 
were made. I think that was quite clear if you listen to the hearings 
that were held last week by the BRAC. Many of the commissioners at that 
time indicated they did not have the background data upon which the 
Pentagon's recommendations were made.
  I think this is just another indication of the fact that we have not 
been able to proceed with this BRAC round in the way we have in the 
past. I have actually been through three other BRAC rounds since I have 
been in the Congress; and just from the questioning that occurred last 
week at the BRAC hearings from the commissioners, it was clear this is 
not the time to have a BRAC round.
  We are in the middle of a war, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Many 
of the commissioners asked questions about the war and the military 
value because they frankly felt that in a general sense questions had 
not been answered by the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was not able to 
answer the questions properly about how this BRAC round was supposed to 
proceed in the context of an ongoing war.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I am so pleased that 
Senator Snowe is offering a similar piece of legislation in the Senate 
with regard to data information on specific projects. I thank all of my 
colleagues for coming to the floor to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time in the name of the people of the 11th 
Congressional District of Ohio.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jones amendment today because 
it gives this House another opportunity to slow the process down. We 
did not take that opportunity last night in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), despite the 
compelling testimony offered by a number of Members about the fact that 
we still have a lot of information outlying that should come to us 
within the upcoming months, within the year, including the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, that would actually help the BRAC commissioners to 
evaluate the DOD's recommendations for those installations that they 
have submitted on a list for recommendations of closure and 
realignment.
  But the Jones amendment says, okay, if we are not going to do that, 
if we are not going to postpone the BRAC rounds to get all of the 
information from the overseas base closures, from the QDR, getting 
troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, dealing with the maritime 
issues, dealing with homeland defense and civil support directives, 
then let us at least say in fairness and for a process that should be 
open and transparent as opposed to emulating litigation discovery 
processes here, give us the information as Members of Congress, the 
task force and the communities, the commissioners now that are supposed 
to be evaluating these recommendations.
  How can we expect them to do that in a process that is supposed to be 
open and transparent, when piecemeal by piecemeal the Department of 
Defense is releasing this information as opposed to releasing it in a 
more comprehensive way, as was done in the last BRAC round in 1995?
  Let me give an example. Last night right before we voted on the 
Bradley amendment, we received word, the offices for South Dakota here 
and over in the Senate and in the community of Rapid City, that the 
Department of Defense had just released some additional information.
  Here we thought we have what we need to start assessing and 
evaluating these recommendations. Most of this information had already 
been released. We have less than 10 percent of what we need. Less than 
10 percent of what we need, just a couple of weeks out from our 
regional hearing to begin evaluating what drove the Department of 
Defense's evaluation to rank Ellsworth Air Force Base the way they did, 
and how they applied the criteria.

[[Page 11432]]

  We cannot make our case, and there are people in Rapid City, South 
Dakota, with the task force in support of Ellsworth Air Force Base that 
have been working for years in anticipation of this day, and we are not 
willing to slow this process down enough to get adequate and 
comprehensive information from the Department of Defense?
  It is clear that either they were so under the gun to meet the 
deadline of May 13 that they did not adequately plan or have enough 
time to determine what it was that was going to have to be classified 
or declassified before releasing the information, either in the 
aggregate or installation by installation.
  If the reason for that is primarily for national security reasons 
because we are at war, that justifies slowing this process down at 
least a little bit so the Department of Defense is forced to release 
this information that we have had in past BRAC rounds so it is in 
fairness to the communities and really faithful to the BRAC process 
which is to be open and transparent and allow communities to make their 
best case before the commissioners prior to the site reviews, prior to 
the regional hearings.
  I encourage my colleagues, while Members may have had reservations 
last night, to postpone the BRAC round awaiting all of the other 
information. Can we not at least slow it down enough to ensure that the 
Department of Defense is accountable to each and every one of us and 
our constituents and our military installations to get that information 
to ensure a fair, open, and transparent process? I hope Members will 
agree and support the Jones amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just wanted to comment on what the gentlewoman from South Dakota 
(Ms. Herseth) said. In the last BRAC round in 1995, we had all of the 
information to back up the Pentagon's recommendations within a few 
days. It is almost 2 weeks now since the base closure list came out. I 
think it was the Friday before last.
  As the gentlewoman mentioned, we are still lacking most of the 
background information for these recommendations.
  For example, in the case of Fort Monmouth, which is represented by me 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the recommendation says 
that to close Fort Monmouth and move it would cost $822 million and 
that over the next 6 years, annually, there would be a savings of about 
$143 million.
  We do not have the background information that the Pentagon used to 
make those kinds of number-crunching decisions. The number-crunchers 
have not given us that kind of information. How are we supposed to 
prepare for a site visit next week, or regional hearings in early July, 
without having that information?
  It is simply inappropriate, and it certainly has not been the case in 
the past. I have been through three previous BRAC rounds, and that was 
never the case. That is why the Jones amendment is so important. And 
particularly when the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) references 
military value, this is all about military value.
  In the case of Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, we are an electronics and 
communications command for the Army. We basically back up the soldier 
in the field with equipment that is electronic or related 
communications. Our point that we have been trying to make is if you 
close Fort Monmouth over the next few years, that commander in the 
field who might need some communications or electronics equipment in 
the next few days or the next few weeks will not have access to it 
because Fort Monmouth is in the process of moving and people will not 
be available to do what is necessary for the soldier in the field.
  How can the Pentagon make recommendations and not take that into 
mind? We have no indication of how they address that issue because we 
do not have the backup data. That is why this amendment is important. I 
urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to elaborate very briefly on the 
preceding remarks. We are talking about a time when men and women are 
risking their lives in the field, facing roadside bombs and mortar fire 
from insurgents. They need help and support from back here in the 
United States, from our bases, from places such as, as my colleague 
from New Jersey was talking about, Fort Monmouth, for example.
  We are not looking so much for the data on what is the implication of 
base closing and realignment on local economies. We are looking for the 
data on how the Pentagon intends to provide for the needs of the men 
and women in the field today, tomorrow and next year, how they will 
make up for any loss of capability that results from realignment and 
transfer of personnel.
  In order to have a conscientious evaluation of what is being proposed 
here, we need the data. It is as simple as that. I applaud the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for offering this amendment and 
demanding that we get the information that we need to do our job.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of 
     the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of 
     American businesses.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, in this legislation, the Military Quality 
of Life and VA appropriations, much of the work, especially for 
construction and maintenance, are governed by rules and regulations. A 
good example of the problem this can create occurred in Wichita, 
Kansas, not too long ago when OSHA targeted the Wichita area building 
and construction industry.
  Through the threat of citations and fines, they literally shut down 
all of the work going on in the area of home building. What I did was 
go back to the Wichita area and I met with OSHA and the area home 
builders, and I found out they both had the same goal. That goal was to 
see that the workplace was safe. So by bringing them together, they 
worked out an agreement that they would work together, instead of 
assessing fines and citations, and create a better work environment, a 
safe work environment, and they were successful.
  Only recently have I found that the OSHA department here in 
Washington wants to renege on that agreement and can no longer sustain 
the concept of working together to have a safe workplace. Instead, they 
are going to continue on an adversarial relationship. That brings me to 
the point that I want to stress with this amendment, and that is if we 
would work together, the Federal Government and the private sector, we 
could be much more successful in achieving the goals that both want.
  Mr. Chairman, less regulation and working together means granting the 
freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams. It also provides the 
space for businesses to thrive and create more jobs. Regulations 
promulgated by the Federal Government often become a creeping ivy of 
regulations that strangle enterprise. The unrealistic and impractical 
environment that OSHA mandates create are literally driving our 
industries and small businesses and our health care system to a 
grinding halt.
  How can we expect our economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy 
prevents businesses from starting and expanding. It is estimated today 
that the total regulatory burden is about $850 billion a year. That is 
$850 billion that could go toward creating more jobs instead of 
stifling growth.
  As we approve spending allocations on this bill and other bills, we 
need to

[[Page 11433]]

remind regulators about the importance of their actions with that 
funding.
  Regulations can help create jobs or strangle them. Each and every 
Federal agency should take into consideration the effect of proposed 
policies on competitiveness of United States business. Each agency 
should be held accountable for those effects.
  Other countries are preparing for tomorrow's economy. Countries like 
Ireland are reducing regulations, working hand in hand with businesses. 
They have lowered their taxes, and they have changed their educational 
system to prepare their workers to be part of a technical economy.

                              {time}  1400

  We are working in the opposite direction.
  My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we are going to be a third-rate 
economy within 10 to 20 years if we do not change the environment that 
helps us keep and create jobs. That means having some common-sense 
regulations that work with our industries instead of against them.
  Mr. Chairman, I have complete confidence that Chairman Walsh is going 
to be working together with us to make a better America, a more 
competitive America and to prepare us for the economy, because we all 
know that if we do not, we are going to have a third-rate economy.
  With that hope in mind, I am going to respectfully withdraw my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. This is 
my last opportunity to express some remarks on the Military Quality of 
Life Appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment with the 
amount of funding in this bill for our Nation's veterans. As we enter 
the Memorial Day weekend, I am concerned that the funding levels for 
veterans' health will not allow us to keep up with the current demand 
for services, let alone meet the needs of the thousands of new veterans 
who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Eighteen young soldiers have been killed in south Texas, which is 
where I was born and raised and that I represent, and many, many more 
have been injured. One of my constituents, Sergeant Nieves Rodriguez, 
Jr., is lying in a bed at Walter Reed Hospital right now. He has lost 
an arm and the doctors are fighting to save his leg. He is going to 
need months of therapy, expensive prosthetics and years of follow-up 
care. He is only one of thousands in similar situations.
  Proponents of this legislation claim it increases veterans' health 
funding by $1 billion, but in fact, funds are just being shifted from 
other veterans' accounts. The real increase is a mere $700 million, not 
enough to meet inflation and mandated salary increases. I would have 
supported the Obey amendment that would add $2.6 billion for veterans' 
health care, but the amendment was not made in order.
  Mr. Chairman, this funding would have allowed us to care for our 
returning veterans and meet current shortfalls. Although I will support 
the final bill, I urge the committee to find a way to increase funding 
for veterans' health.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we draw to a close, I again want to take this time 
to congratulate, salute and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his leadership in this, the first product of the new 
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on 
Appropriations. It has been a professional process, a thorough process, 
a respectful one and a bipartisan one, exactly the manner in which I 
think the people of this country would want us to deal with the 
important business of providing quality of life, training and other 
programs and facilities for our servicemen and -women, military 
retirees and veterans.
  I want to thank the minority staff, Bob Bonner and Tom Forhan, for 
their leadership. I want to thank the professional staff on the 
majority side, led by the very able Carol Murphy, with a tremendous 
staff, for their great work. All of this would not have been possible 
today and the good work that is in this bill would not have been 
possible today without the genuine cooperation and great leadership of 
the chairman, and I thank him.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague 
from Texas regarding our staff. They have done a remarkable job. This 
is a brand-new structure. The leadership of the committee, the 
chairman, Chief Clerk Frank Cushing, helped us to organize the staff 
and they gave us the best people they could give us. I am very proud of 
the work product that they have provided us with and the support that 
they have given us along the way.
  Again, I credit the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has been 
a pleasure to work with. His knowledge of the military has helped me a 
great deal to get up to speed on these issues. I have a lot more to 
learn, but I look forward to working with him as we complete this bill 
after House passage and the conference with the Senate.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Melancon

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 214, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert

[[Page 11434]]


     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--214

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Doyle
     Emerson
     Filner
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald

                              {time}  1432

  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, GINGREY, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, and SIMMONS, and 
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WYNN, FRANK of Massachusetts, PETERSON of Minnesota, DICKS, 
HALL, REYES, PASTOR, BISHOP of Georgia, SABO, DOGGETT, Ms. WOOLSEY, and 
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 224, on the Melancon 
Amendment, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 254, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--254

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes

[[Page 11435]]


     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cox
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Filner
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald

                              {time}  1441

  Mr. HALL and Mr. SCHIFF changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 225, on the Blumenauer 
Amendment, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Quality of Life and 
     Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with an amendment with the 
recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gillmor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2528) making 
appropriations for military quality of life functions of the Department 
of Defense, military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
for other purposes, had directed him to report the bill back to the 
House with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be 
agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 298, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 425, 
nays 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               YEAS--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Stark
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Doyle
     Emerson
     Filner
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald

                              {time}  1501

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 226 on H.R. 2528, I was in 
my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 11436]]



                          ____________________