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

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

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for the quorum call be rescinded.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

[[Page S11102]]

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

Amendment No. 2686

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S11103]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S11104]]

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

U.S. Senate,

Hart Senate Office Building,

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

[[Page S11105]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S11106]]

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

YEAS--66

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

[[Page S11107]]

Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--25

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

NOT VOTING--9

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

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

Moody Opens Doors to New Housing

(By Tech. Sgt. Parker Gyokeres)

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

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

Amendment No. 2661

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

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

[[Page S11108]]

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2658

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2660

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2677

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2679

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S11109]]

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

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

Amendment No. 2680

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

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

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2681

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2669

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 2682

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S11110]]

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

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

Amendment No. 2688

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fort Monmouth

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

[[Page S11111]]

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

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

Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget Authority...................  .........  .........          0
Outlays............................  .........  .........        -20
House-passed bill:
Budget Authority...................        185       -185          0
Outlays............................         43        126        169
President's Request:
Budget Authority...................       -515      4,517      4,002
Outlays............................         38      2,579      2,617
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page S11112]]

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

____________________