Providing for 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.

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 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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.004

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to enter into a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from California.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the House will consider a military quality of life-VA appropriations bill. As a result of the subcommittee realignment adopted earlier this year by the Appropriations Committee, military construction, Defense Department health programs and all veterans' programs are now contained in this one appropriations bill.

I want to commend Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards for the bill that they have crafted. Both gentlemen are well known for their skill at reaching out and working in a bipartisan manner and this bill reflects that collaboration as well as their deep commitment to our uniformed men and women and their families, both those in current service and those who have honored our Nation with past service.

Regrettably, while H.R. 2528 is a significant improvement over the President's shameful budget for veterans' health care, even this bill will not get the job done for the men and women who are depending on the Department

of Veterans Affairs to meet their health care needs. I appreciate that this bill is $1 billion more than the President suggested for veterans' medical services, but a significant portion of that increase is offset by cutting the very personnel and equipment necessary for the VA to carry out its mission and provide timely, and quality, service to our veterans. Further, the increases in this bill are simply not enough to keep up with inflation and the rapidly growing number of veterans needing services from the VA.

Mr. Speaker, more than 20 percent of soldiers who have left active duty after service in Iraq or Afghanistan have sought health care services from the VA, and with no end of combat in sight, I am sure that that number will continue to rise. Recent studies show that the mental and psychological impact of war is taking its toll on our newest generation of veterans. Through February 11, 2005, according to a study performed by the VA, over 17,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been diagnosed with mental disorders. The New England Journal of Medicine reported last July that nearly one in five soldiers is leaving the war with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems.

How can we ensure the successful treatment and rehabilitation of these veterans when we know that the system in place is already insufficient to meet current needs?

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not meet the needs of our veterans, old or new, because it simply does not provide the resources for the transition from soldier to veteran. It does not provide the resources needed to update and modernize crumbling facilities. It does not provide the funds to adequately staff and equip veterans' health care problems. You can spin it all you want, but those are the facts.

This is an important question of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and the Members of this House should have a chance to debate and vote on these priorities.

Last night in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) presented a very simple amendment to provide an additional $2.6 billion for veterans' health care. To pay for this increase, the amendment proposed reducing the tax cut for people making over $1 million this year in taxable income from $140,000 to $129,000.

But the Republicans on the Rules Committee said ``no,'' Mr. Speaker. They voted not to allow the amendment to be debated on the floor today. They voted to deny every Member of this House from expressing what their priorities would be if given a chance to vote on the matter: a slightly smaller tax cut for millionaires? Or $2.6 billion for our veterans? That is the choice. A smaller tax cut for millionaires, or to make sure our veterans get the health care that they need and that they deserve and have earned.

Mr. Speaker, it was even suggested in the Rules Committee last night that millionaires need this tax cut more than our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan need the services provided by the veterans' health system. I could not disagree more. If this rule passes, the Members of this House will be denied their right to debate and vote on whether or not it is a priority for them to adequately fund the VA and health care for America's veterans.

At the end of this debate today, Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider and vote on the Obey amendment to increase funding for veterans' health services.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority on this floor voted to deny adequate health care to our National Guard and Reserves. It was shameful what happened on the floor last night. Today, they have a chance to redeem themselves by voting ``no'' on the previous question and allowing the Obey amendment to be voted on on this floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just respond to the gentleman. He talks about how the Republican majority has increased the amount of money that we are spending on veterans' issues. But the bottom line is, we are at war and there are more and more veterans coming back. And so you can spin this all you want, but what you are providing in this bill is not nearly enough to take care of the needs of our veterans. That is a fact.

It is not just me saying it. The American Legion sent a letter to the Congress saying the same thing, that VA medical care is approximately $2.5 billion short for fiscal year 2006. They write, As Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom veterans continue to seek timely access to the VA health care delivery system, older veterans should not be kicked to the curb to make room for the newest generation of wartime veterans.

The coalition of Amvets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars have endorsed the Obey amendment because, they wrote, the Obey amendment would provide the funding needed to meet fixed costs and to care for returning veterans as well as provide the resources the VA needs to meet shortfalls that are affecting veterans today.

We are asking you to support this amendment and to provide the dollars needed to care for servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as all veterans who rely upon the VA to provide their health care.

Almost every veterans organization in this country is saying that what we are doing here today is not enough. You can say that you have increased it a little bit, but the bottom line is that we are at war. We are in Afghanistan and we are in Iraq, and more and more veterans are coming back, and we do not have the resources in this bill to adequately take care of their needs.

Let us be clear. Let us not try to spin to the American people that somehow we are doing our job here. The Republican leadership has made a choice. They would rather spend the money to provide more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires than adequately fund the VA budget. I think at a time of war that that is just absolutely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say just to the gentleman from California who referred to the vote we had yesterday to provide more health care benefits to our Guard and Reserves, he may not think that an important thing to do, but those of us on this side do, especially when we are relying on them more and more to be the soldiers on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I also want to point out that currently about 50,000 of our veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 months for veterans health care, and that problem will only gets worse with the growing number of returning soldiers from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. And as of May, 2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs had treated more than 85,000 of the 360,675 veterans from these deployments. In 2006 the Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans, double the number in 1995. And overall, the medical care inflation rate for 2004 was close to double the inflation rate.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, the point here is if we are going to send our young men and women overseas to fight wars, then I think we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to make sure they have the health care and the support when they return home that they not only deserve but they have earned.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

No, Mr. Speaker. But I am in awe of those who serve this country.

No, I have not.

No, Mr. Speaker. But I support these men and women who are serving our country, and they deserve health care, which it is a disgrace what the Republican majority did.

Mr. Speaker, it was shameful what happened on the House floor, and they have an opportunity to redeem themselves today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I should say to the gentleman I respect his service as well. I just wish he would join with us in providing the adequate allocation for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is inadequate to meet the health care needs of our veterans, plain and simple. Every veterans group in America has recognized that fact. They have all written to all of us. So we can spin this all we want, that somehow this is this incredible bill that is going to take care of all the health care needs of our veterans, but the bottom line is, it is better than what the President requested, but it is not enough. And we have an opportunity to fix it.

To the gentleman from California who earlier questioned my patriotism and pointed out I did not serve in the military, let me say to him that I am in awe of those men and women who have served in our military. I am grateful for what they have done.

I have two children, and there is not a day that I do not wake up and thank God they live in the freest country in the world. And it is precisely because of the veterans who have served our country over the years that they have that privilege. And it is precisely because of my gratitude to the men and women who serve in our military that I feel so passionately about making sure that we do the right thing here today and we adequately fund our veterans' health care budget.

That is what this debate is all about, and that is whether you are a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I would like to think we could come together on this one issue and make sure that the veterans get what they deserve and have earned. We are at war, and yet, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out earlier and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, we are not making any sacrifices.

What the Obey amendment would do is simply shave a little bit off of the tax cuts that millionaires are getting and put it towards the veterans budget to make sure we get what we need.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a straight party line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add an additional $2.6 billion for VA health care and pay for it by slightly reducing the size of the tax cut for those persons who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of receiving a tax cut of $140,000, they would get $129,000, a reduction of $11,000 for millionaires. I will tell you that I cannot believe anybody in this country would object to that. I think if you did a poll right now, overwhelmingly the American people would say, that makes sense in this time of war. I am sure that the Donald Trumps and the Bill Gates of this country could afford to reduce their tax cut by $11,000 so that our troops can have the best health care possible when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This amendment will correct one of most serious shortfalls in this bill, quality health care for our Nation's veterans. It is absolutely critical that this funding be increased to meet the growing needs of our country's veterans.

This Nation made a promise to those serving in the military that they would receive quality health care in return for their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment and care available.

We can fix this today. We can fix this today if we allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the military quality of life-VA appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment to help our Nation's soldiers and our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in awe of our Nation's veterans. A few hours from now, Members of this body will get on planes and go to their districts and prepare to attend various Memorial Day events throughout the country, and I know all of us will pay tribute to our veterans. We will thank them, we will pay tribute by using the most wonderful words that we can express to be able to say ``thank you'' adequately.

But, Mr. Speaker, words are not enough. We have enough words in this House. They are not enough. Yesterday, the Republican majority turned their backs on so many veterans by defeating the motion by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to provide more health care benefits to our members of the Guard and Reserve. It was shameful. But today you have a chance to redeem yourself. Today, you have a chance to stand up and do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, we need to support our veterans. We need to make sure they have what they need. We need to support them not just with words, but with action.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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 unexploded 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 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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

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. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 298 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 298 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2006. The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.

It authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the very first Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriation bill. This important subcommittee was formed to take an all-inclusive look at the programs related to the quality of life for the brave servicemen and -women who currently serve America in the Armed Forces, their families and those men and women who sacrificed so much for our freedom in the past.

I also believe the bill before us achieves this important goal in a fiscally responsible manner. The new subcommittee held 14 hearings this year covering a wide range of issues pertaining to their new jurisdiction, and I believe their product is a strong one.

The underlying bill totals $121.8 billion of which $85.2 billion is discretionary and $36.6 billion is mandatory. The discretionary funding level represents a $1 billion increase above the President's request and $5.9 billion above last year's enacted level. The bill funds the Department of Veterans Affairs at $68.1 billion, $2.3 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, and $635 million above the 2006 budget request.

Particularly important is the $21 billion for veterans medical services, $1.6 billion above the 2005 enacted level and a billion dollars more than the budget request. This is an 8.5 percent increase over last year's level, and an 18.2 percent increase in medical services from fiscal year 2004.

Perhaps most importantly, and what I heard the most about from the veterans back home in northwest Georgia, is that this bill does not contain any new fees for veterans medical services or prescription drugs. The bill restores funding for long-term care to the level it was in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation legislation, and the bill directs the Secretary to work with the National Association of State Veterans Homes to generate an agreeable policy to make the program function more effectively for the veterans and for the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, there are two State veterans homes in Georgia that are hugely important to many aging citizens and their families, and I am personally grateful for this measure.

Additionally, the bill includes language directing the Department to spend more than $2.2 billion on specialty mental health care in fiscal year 2006, an important issue that many Members of Congress brought to the attention of the chairman. The subcommittee also included report language directing the VA to double the funding available for mental health research.

For the Department of Defense, the bill provides a total of $53.5 billion, and within this total is funding for military construction, for family housing construction and maintenance, basic allowance for housing payments, facilities maintenance, modernization, and environmental restoration.

Also included in this bill is $20 billion for the Defense health program. This is an increase of $1.8 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, and it is $192.3 million above the 2006 Presidential budget request.

This amount will sufficiently allow for ongoing preparation of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines while caring also for their families at home.

Finally, the subcommittee has allowed for greatly enhanced interaction between the Department of Defense and the VA to explore joint ventures that can enhance a continuity of services provided between the two departments.

Mr. Speaker, in a tough budget year such as this, we have a responsibility to make sure that scarce resources are allocated in the most effective and efficient manner possible. This bill achieves that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Subcommittee Chairman Walsh, Ranking Subcommittee Member Edwards and, of course, Chairman Lewis for their vision and hard work on this bill. I look forward to this debate, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In regard to the gentleman's comments about mental health care for our veterans, for the first time ever, the President proposed and Congress provided a dedicated pool of resources, actually $2.2 billion, to provide specialty mental health care to veterans, particularly those who are returning from the combat area, as so many are now.

In order to better serve combat veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs is directed to do a comprehensive study on post-traumatic stress disorder, focusing on improving mental health, mental health research, mental health care and access to information. In addition, in encouraging better cooperation and care of veterans and active military personnel, VA and the Department of Defense are directed to develop a plan to improve seamless transition on internal and external obstacles to transition and recommendations that would continue to enhance the continuity of care.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to total spending on VA medical care, let us just go back to 1999 and come forward to 2005 over the last 6 years. In 1999, VA medical care appropriations were $17.8 billion. In fiscal year 2005, that number was $29.9 billion. The increases over those 6 years:

1999 to 2000, 9.2 percent;

2000 to 2001, 11.3 percent;

2001 to 2002, a lean year, as we all know, because of the economy and 9/11; nevertheless, a 4.6 percent increase;

2002 to 2003, 11.9, an almost 12 percent increase;

2003 to 2004, another 11.4 percent increase;

2004 to 2005, a 6.2 percent increase.

The commitment is there. Absolutely the numbers show it. I do not see how anybody could refute that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In regard to the comment about the waiting time for our veterans to receive care, we had several years ago, and I want to respond, of course, to the gentlewoman from California about her concerns, but there was a waiting time of greater than 6 months for up to 350,000 veterans. I think most of those were in Category, priority level, 7 and 8. But because of increased funding and policy change, that number was reduced to 36,000.

We do not want to have, Mr. Speaker, any of our veterans having to wait 6 months or more. But to cut that down from hundreds of thousands to 36,000, I think, is significant progress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of its importance to the men and women who have and who continue to serve and protect America.

Mr. Speaker, our service men and women sacrifice so much for the safety and security of this Nation, and we have the responsibility to ensure that they have everything that they need, not only to succeed in their duties, but also to enjoy the quality of life that they deserve.

This bill represents the culmination of a lot of hard work and a lot of cooperation to not only completely support our service men and women but to also do so in the most helpful and fiscally responsible way. With a total amount of $121.8 billion, this bill includes an overall increase of $5.8 billion in discretionary spending from last year. Specifically, the Department of Veterans Affairs will receive $2.3 billion more than the previous year. The VA medical care increase from 2005 to 2006, I gave the number earlier for the previous 5 years, another 8.5 percent increase. They will receive, they the VA medical services, an increase of $1.6 billion. And again, I emphasize that there will be no new fees for either veterans medical services or for prescription drugs.

Today represent a victory for our service men and women in all stages of service from recruitment to retirement. And I appreciate all of my colleagues who have spoken on behalf of the rule and in support of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards); and the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for leading the way and ensuring the necessary funds to provide for the quality of life of our service men and women.

I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying bill for the sake of those who spend their lives defending ours.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.