Information Protection and Security Act

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, there are three reasons why I intend to support this bill.

First, it has a significant increase in funding for VA health care, approximately $3 billion, even though I believe the VA needs and deserves more. The increase is significant, it is real, and it is important.

Secondly, this bill includes military construction funding. It is vital to support our troops and their families during a time of war. And also it includes military construction funding needed to implement the BRAC proposals.

Thirdly, I am going to support this bill because Chairman Walsh's leadership in this effort was, at every step of the way, professional and bipartisan. This is the kind of leadership I believe Americans would want and expect from Congress when we are dealing with military and defense and veterans issues.

I salute the chairman for that leadership, for his extensive hearings, for listening to all members of his subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee and Members throughout this House, and for having numerous hearings, listening to veterans and other organizations testify and have input on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear on my position. In my opinion, the House budget resolution passed earlier this week would have better served our Nation if it had been less willing to give the just-retired Exxon CEO a $2 million dividend tax cut and had saved that money for deficit reduction and providing more funding for defense, military construction, veterans health care and defense health care, which we have in this bill.

I did not support that budget resolution, which was passed on a partisan basis. And today, very quickly after that resolution's passage, we start to see the impact of it in real terms. In real terms, our subcommittee was allocated $824 million less than President Bush felt we needed in this area for VA funding, defense health care, and military construction.

Had we had a better budget resolution, a bipartisan budget resolution, I do not think we would have had to cut $824 million from the President's request for the important responsibilities under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.

But the reality is that the budget resolution has passed the House, and the House leadership intends to implement those budget rules and numbers, at least for now, and our subcommittee had to deal with those numbers.

I think the subcommittee dealt with the limited budget, in my opinion an inadequate budget, in a responsible way, a bipartisan way, and tried to put the limited dollars in the highest priority needs.

I want to talk about what is good in this bill, given that we had so many fewer dollars than the President had asked for in this area. One, the VA health care increase for about $3 billion, I think that is important. It is a huge turnaround from a year or 2 ago, where I, many Democrats, veterans organizations, were pleading with the Republican leadership and the administration to more adequately fund VA health care, because we felt the administration budget request, particularly last year, would have caused significant and serious cuts in VA health care during a time of war.

This is a great turnaround from that and is supported on a bipartisan basis to increase VA health care spending by $3 billion. I am glad, frankly, that the OMB in particular and the administration have heard the voices of Congress and our Nation's veterans that we are going to adequately fund and significantly increase funding for VA health care.

I do want to point out this is a not a Cadillac budget, if anyone wants to suggest that, for our veterans health care system. Because the fact is and the challenge is that the VA system has seen a net increase of veterans needing VA health care between 150 and 250,000 a year.

The reality is that, even this year, the number of Iraqi war veterans needing VA health care is significantly higher than what we had projected, or the VA had projected, and we need to keep our eye on that.

In addition to the increase in VA health care funding which I commend, I want to pay special focus and tribute to Chairman Walsh's leadership on mental health care. I think it is vital that we provide our veterans who have served in combat, risked their lives, given so much for our country, receive the health care they deserve, whether it is mental health care, or to deal with their physical wounds.

In many cases, Mr. Chairman, mental health care wounds last longer than physical wounds; and I think one of Chairman Walsh's great legacies in Congress will have been to send a clear message to the VA and the Congress that we must make VA mental health care a priority. I salute the chairman for that legacy and that leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we on a bipartisan basis rejected the Administration's proposal to have a $250 enrollment fee for men and women who served in uniform to be considered for VA health care.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Congress believes that our veterans paid their enrollment fee when they put on our country's uniform and agreed to go into harm's way.

We also in a bipartisan manner rejected the Administration's proposal to go from $8 dollars to $15 for a copay for veterans prescription drugs. That may not sound like a big increase for many. But when you are an 80-year-old World War II veteran and you are taking six, seven, or eight drugs a month, that prescription copay increase would have created a lot of harm. I salute the subcommittee and the leadership of the subcommittee for rejecting that proposal.

Finally, and Chairman Walsh mentioned this earlier, I think the entire Congress, as well as this committee, ought to be proud of the quality of military health care services our troops wounded in combat are receiving. I was proud to be on the trip to Germany where we went to the Landstuhl Hospital where our medical personnel are saving lives every day.

Mr. Chairman, it is because of the decisions and the budget funding of Congress that men and women are alive today that would have died in any other previous war. That is a great tribute to the effort and leadership of this Congress on defense health care spending.

Finally, I think it is good that we are having the $6.5 billion increase in military construction funding. I also want to put that in perspective, though. Do not let anyone conclude, Mr. Chairman, that that is a Cadillac budget for military construction. That pays for vitally needed construction to support our troops fighting the war on terrorism and those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also is needed to help implement the Base Realignment and Closing Commission recommendations, which will cost taxpayers additional funding up front but will save billions of dollars in the out years.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say my concerns. My biggest single concern is that, because of the inadequate budget allocation to this subcommittee, again, $824 million less than the President requested, we actually have a bill that underfunds defense health care spending by $735 million less than President Bush said was needed to maintain our quality of care system.

If I felt that the final bill were going to underfund defense health care that drastically, I simply could not vote for this bill. But I hope and I trust that we will work on a bipartisan basis from now to the final passage of the conference report on this bill to find those dollars, because I hope we all agree it would be morally wrong to cut the quality of defense health care for our troops and our military retirees, especially during a time of war.

My second concern is, we have got a huge backlog of cleaning up past military installations that have been closed. I want to urge the administration which, along with the previous administration, frankly, did not recognize the need for these programs.

Thirdly, while we increase VA spending, health care spending by about $3 billion, because of the inadequate allocation for our subcommittee, we had to almost effectively freeze VA health care research. We are going this year from a backlog for veterans having their claims considered by the VA from being an average of 167 days to 185 days.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the VA and I urge Congress to take a look at that. We do not need to be moving backwards, because so often, especially for our older veterans, justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. Chairman, I also wish the same week we gave the retired, just- retired Exxon CEO a $2 million dividend tax cut we do not say that if you are a veteran making 28 or $29,000 a year, you make too much money to deserve VA care if you did not have combat wounds. I think our veterans making $28,000, $29,000, $30,000 have earned the right to receive VA care.

But having expressed those concerns, I have to salute this subcommittee and its leadership for working on a solid, professional, bipartisan basis to take a limited budget, a budget almost $1 billion below the President's request for this area, and putting the money where it was most needed in very, very positive ways.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I didn't earlier salute Chairman Hefley and Mr. Ortiz, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Armed Services Committee that authorizes these programs.

It is not often and certainly not always, many times not often that the authorizers and appropriators work so closely together, and I salute the leadership on both sides of the aisle of the authorizing appropriations committee for doing this in the right way and doing it together. I thank Chairman Hefley for his leadership in that area.

I would like to now recognize Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for 2 minutes.

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

I want to thank Chairman Buyer for not only his kind comments but also even more importantly for his service to our country, his military service to our country in Operation Desert Storm in the first Iraqi war.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up 5 minutes because we had a discussion of this, but I would like to remind all Members what this is about.

Because of what I think was a budget resolution passed on a partisan basis earlier this week, our subcommittee's allocation was $824 million less than President Bush said we needed to pay for VA health care, military construction, and defense health care. As a consequence of our rejecting on a bipartisan basis the administration's gimmick to try to find funding for defense health care, because we rejected the idea of having a 200 percent increase in TRICARE premiums for men and women who served our country for 20 and 30 years, we ended up with $735 million less for defense health care spending than President Bush, the administration, said we need.

My amendment would put back that $735 million and would pay for it by asking those Americans during a time of war who made over $1 million a year to accept a $112,000 tax cut on average rather than a $114,000 tax cut. I think that is a fair request given Americans' principle of shared sacrifice during time of war. Let us ask those making over $1 million a year to give up less than 2 percent of their tax cuts in order to fund defense health care during a time of war at the level the President said was needed.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear about what this point of order would do. So I would like to raise this question of the Chair and perhaps other Members who would comment on this.

As I understand it, and I do think Members of this House on both sides of the aisle need to know what this point of order will do before the decision is made, as I understand it, this point of order will cut $379 million out of Army military construction projects during a time of war.

I want to be clear and ask, Mr. Chairman, if I understand it, this will cut over $100 million out of barracks and training facilities at Fort Drum, New York; it will cut a brigade complex at Fort Lewis, Washington. All of these are Army projects.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear whether this point of order is going to cut over $45 million out of two projects at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Is it going to cut a shooting range at Camp Atterbury in Indiana? Is it going to cut the block-and-brace facility in the vehicle maintenance shop at Fort Campbell, Kentucky in the Blue Grass Depot in Kentucky?

Mr. Chairman, my inquiry regarding this point of order is to have all Members fully understand while we have Army soldiers in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan today, this point of order, if sustained by the Chair, is going to cut over $379 million in Army projects, training, housing, other facilities that help support those troops that are risking their lives today, while we are debating technical points of order on the floor of the House.

Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that the projects I listed, as well as additional Army military construction projects, would be cut by this point of order being made by the gentleman from Texas?

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I had worked with Chairman Walsh on our subcommittee and our Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill today.

I am outraged at what has happened. A lot more important than that, every service man and woman and every veteran in America and every American that loves them and respects them ought to be just as outraged. And it is not just what has just been done by a handful of Republican House Members. I think the American people need to understand what has happened this week. Forty eight hours ago, this House on a totally partisan basis passed a budget resolution that, in my personal opinion, put a higher priority on tax breaks for people making over $1 million a year than it put on adequately funding national defense programs and supporting our military troops. We pleaded with our colleagues to vote against that budget resolution, but the vote was partisan and it passed.

Let me tell you what that resolution did. It gave Lee Raymond, who just retired as CEO of ExxonMobil, who, by the way got a $398 million retirement benefit from ExxonMobil, that budget resolution gave him a $2 million dividend tax cut. We said when that budget resolution passed giving Lee Raymond tax cuts is going to hurt education, health care, job training, and, yes, our national defense programs and our service men and women and our veterans. But others said, no, that is not going to happen. So let me tell you what has happened as a result of that budget resolution.

Our subcommittee, Mr. Walsh's and mine, and other subcommittee funding military quality of life, military construction, VA programs and defense health care, had to accept an $824 million cut below what President Bush said was needed to adequately fund these key national defense programs during a time of war. $824 million cut.

What happened? First, we had to accept that $316 million cut in military construction projects that were requested by the administration to implement the base closing process. That means barracks not built, training ranges not built, military facilities not built.

Well, then what was the second result in our subcommittee based on the budget resolution that Mr. Raymond is still smiling about, but our military people ought to be crying about at this moment? We had to fund military defense programs by $735 million below what President Bush said we needed.

What does that mean? That is not just a budget number. That means we potentially put at risk health care for our troops fighting in Iraq today while we are debating budget points of order here, it puts at risk military health care for our retirees, men and women who have already served in Iraq, already served in Afghanistan, already served in Korea, Vietnam, and World War II. It puts that health care system at risk. So that is a $735 million cut below what the administration said we needed.

Now, to add outrage to outrage, this technical point of order caused by the budget gimmicks that were a direct result of the budget resolution passed 2 days ago will cut $507 million out of vital military construction projects. That may not mean anything to some Members on this floor, but it means a lot to the troops at Fort Drum, New York, who have sacrificed immensely on behalf of the American people in our war on terrorism. It will mean a lot to the people at Camp Pendleton, the Marine camp, Camp Pendleton, when their bachelor enlisted quarters are cut and the light armored reconnaissance battalion facility will be cut.

It will mean a lot, even while Mr. Raymond is smiling, to harm the interests of our troops, our Army troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, at Sunny Point, North Carolina, and Indian Springs, Nevada. And, in Korea. This even cuts $2 million in vital construction projects for servicemen and women stationed in Korea today.

So what does that all mean? Because the budget resolution pushed through by the House leadership, not by the Appropriations Committee or this subcommittee, the House resolution, the budget resolution passed 2 days ago is forcing us to cut $1.5 billion out of vital defense programs even while our troops are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Training facilities, housing facilities, quality of life facilities. It is wrong, and this should not be done. Our military men and women deserve better than this.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I respect my colleague, Mr. Pence, from Indiana. He is a straight shooter. I will have to say in this particular case, in all due respect, you said you are still trying to recover. I hope you will forgive me in saying, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pence, that today I am more worried about our military troops whose lives are at risk all over the world to defend our country, I am more worried about them recovering from this half a billion dollar cut in vital defense programs than I am about any Member of this House, the gentleman or me or anyone else, recovering from this debate.

The gentleman quoted me, and I am glad he did. I think this is a budget gimmick. I think these military construction projects should have been funded in the normal course of the budget process, and that is exactly what my colleague Mr. Obey tried to do, and I voted for the Obey amendment.

But my friend and his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle chose to vote against the Obey amendment, and so then where I am left is to say that I would rather accept a budget gimmick forced by a Republican budget resolution that I adamantly opposed 2 days ago, than to ask men and women at Fort Drum, New York, an installation whose troops have made tremendous sacrifices in the war on terrorism, I would rather not ask them to make an additional sacrifice, even if that requires us to pass a budget gimmick.

So is this a budget gimmick? Yes, it is; but do we desperately need these $507 million, including $379 million going to Army facilities to support our troops in the war on terrorism? Absolutely, we do.

I would repeat what I said earlier: having represented 40,000 troops who have served in Iraq, having co-chaired the bipartisan House Army Caucus, having worked on a bipartisan effort in good faith with Chairman Walsh and the Appropriations Committee to pass this bill today, I think every serviceman and -woman in America ought to be outraged that the result of, in my opinion, a dishonest budget resolution that promised tax cuts to the retired chairman of ExxonMobil, without suggesting the pain that would be caused, I think every serviceman and -woman in America ought to be outraged by that because they were told it was a no-pain process, you have a tax cut, that will increase revenues and nobody has to suffer. Mr. Raymond can get his $2 million tax dividend and nobody has to suffer.

Now we are leveling with the American people. Forty-eight hours later we find out it is not American people that are suffering. It is our troops in Korea and here at home and Iraq and Afghanistan who will suffer because of a budget resolution that did not shoot straight with the American people.

This is a sad day for this country, and it is a particularly sad day for all those men and women who are serving in uniform.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Shadegg, my colleague from Arizona, just said a few seconds ago that these projects were not requested by the administration. If I heard him correctly, that is a patently false statement.

These projects, these $379 million worth of army projects, I believe, were either all requested by the administration and the Pentagon or the vast, vast majority were requested by the administration and the Pentagon as being important projects that needed to be funded this year as part of our Nation's defense effort included in the war against terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand this point of order. Having just cut out $379 million for army military facilities needed by our troops, it is my understanding this point of order would cut $26 million out of Marine Corps facilities at Camp Pendleton in California.

So having gutted army military construction projects, we are now going to hurt those serving in the Marines at Camp Pendleton who are an important part of our war on terrorism. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, in understanding that this point of order, if sustained, would cut marine projects at Camp Pendleton, California?

So in lay terms, I think that answer was yes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like Members to be clear, and I would like to be clear about what this point of order does. Having now cut vital, according to the administration, vital Army and Marine Corps military installations out of the budget, this point of order, as I understand it, would cut approximately $50 million

out of Air Force facilities that the Bush administration and the Pentagon said we needed for the Predator program, which the public might not understand is a vital unmanned aerial vehicle used in our war on terrorism.

Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that the $50 million cut would affect the Predator Air Force program?

I believe the answer is yes.

Mr. Chairman, again, so Members can follow this, my question is: Does this point of order, if sustained, cut our U.S. military operations in Qatar, operations under the Special Operations Command that are directly related to our war on terrorism and the war in Iraq?

Mr. Chairman, is that what this point of order will accomplish?

So the answer is yes.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

If I move at this point to strike the last word, am I allowed 5 minutes to discuss the specific impact of the cuts in our military operations and Qatar and the Middle East which have just been put into effect by the Chair's ruling?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am somewhat bothered by my colleagues' effort not only to gut vital military construction projects at this important time in our country's history, but would even go the extra step to try to cut off the right of Members of this House to tell our military men and women who are fighting that war what has just been done to them.

So now that the Chair has given me that opportunity, despite Members' efforts to cut it off, let me explain exactly what has just happened based on this point of order.

The Special Operations Command and Qatar in the Middle East, again, a vital part of our war in Iraq, will lose $28 million requested by President Bush and the Pentagon for a special operations aircraft operations and maintenance hanger, a hanger needed to basically protect vital Special Operations Command components.

It will also cut $16.5 million out of another Special Operations Command facility and Qatar that was going to provide a hanger for Special Operations rotary wing equipment and facilities and operations. So $54 million has just been cut by this action in the House out of Special Operations facilities that the administration says are needed to carry out our Nation's defense and our war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I try not to take things personally in this process, and I respect the rights of every other Member of the House, but I think the service men and women in Qatar and the servicemen and women at Fort Drum, New York, and our Marines at Camp Pendleton in California, and men and women who served our country in uniform in wars past are going to be deeply offended by what has happened

today. And I would like to reemphasize what has happened today was not just the action of two or three Members who are putting procedural budget points above the interests of our Nation's military, it was done also by the House leadership, which 2 days, ago forced through a budget resolution that promised no pain, promised $70 billion in tax cuts, many of those going to people making over a million dollars a year.

Today we are feeling the pain. It is pain that will hurt those who have already sacrificed the most for our country, those men and women serving in the war on terrorism. It is a shameful process.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Members of this House, I think Members of our Armed Forces, I think our Nation's veterans and the American people have a right to know that what this House just did, having already cut over $300 million out of Army programs, having cut Marine Corps programs and Air Force programs, having cut programs requested by the administration for Special Operations Command facilities and Qatar in the Middle East, the House has just now cut the Army National Guard, and not just the Guard, the training facilities for the Army National Guard, the very Guard that our military leaders say is a vital part of the total Army effort to defend our Nation and fight the war on terrorism.

In this particular case $2 million was just cut out of Camp Roberts in California, an Army National Guard facility. Based on this action, they will not have the infantry squad battle course funded. In addition to that, in Indiana, Camp Atterbury, the Army National Guard will no longer have funded the Live Fire Shoot House. So now, having already cut quality-of-life facilities and barracks and housing for our military and other vital facilities, and training ranges out of our active duty military, now we are gutting Army National Guard training facilities to help prepare our Guards men and women to be able to carry out their military duty and come back home safely to their families.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, again I think the Members and the American people have a right to know that what this House just did was to cut $1.7 million out of the Urban Assault Course Facility at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, for the Army Reserve. So now we can add it up, we have cut the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Army National Guard, and that was not enough, now we have to cut the Army Reserve Urban Assault Course, the very kind of training needed when we send our Army reservists over to Iraq to police the streets of Baghdad.

Mr. Chairman, with every minute of this process, I think I better understand why the American people at this point have such lowest esteem for the United States Congress. In one week, we have given the retired CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Lee Raymond, a $2 million dividend tax cut. And now we have said we cannot afford $507 million in vital military installations. I don't think that reflects the American people's values. Our military men and women deserve better than this.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Out of respect for the chairman, I will yield to him, because I think he should have the last word. I won't take all 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this bill for several reasons: One, because the chairman of this subcommittee worked on a professional and thoroughly bipartisan basis to take what I think was an inadequate budget allocation due to the budget resolution and do the very best with it that he could and we could, and we did that. I think we did a good job of it.

Secondly, despite the fact that I am offended that a half a billion dollars of vital Pentagon requested military construction projects were just taken out of this bill, I think our troops deserve the other projects that are still left in this bill, especially as so many of them are facing wartime. That is why I am going to vote for this bill, and I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with me if they share my views.

I do want to say that to the American people perhaps this has been confusing and seemed like a process, I want to summarize what has happened today.

Because of an inadequate budget resolution which many of us opposed 2 days ago, this House has cut $507 million out of military construction projects the Bush administration said were needed to be funded.

The second thing that has happened today is that because of the budget resolution, and, in my opinion, its over-emphasis on tax cuts and its under-emphasis on putting the defense needs of

our country above those tax cuts, we have a bill that will cut $735 million out of what the administration requested for defense health care programs for active duty military men and women, including those in combat, and for our retirees.

The one place where I would respectfully disagree with my chairman, Mr. Walsh, is that for many of us, this debate wasn't about politics. For many of us, we pleaded genuinely for this House not to vote for a budget resolution that we felt would result in what has just happened today. We predicted it would happen, that we would end up underfunding key vital priorities for our country. We pleaded at the Appropriations Committee in good faith to not adopt a 302(b) appropriation allocation that for our subcommittee for this bill cut $824 million out of the President's request.

I think to talk about the price being paid because of the budget resolution passed earlier this week, it isn't about politics, it is about an honest difference of where our country should go and where we should place our priorities.

Having said that, where I have agreed with the chairman at every step of the way is in his effort to put together a budget for a subcommittee that didn't have enough money in a way that funded the highest possible priorities given those budget constraints. That was a good process, and that was a bipartisan process, and had the technical amendments and debate not been brought up by several colleagues on the chairman's side of the aisle, we wouldn't have had this fight today. We were going to vote for this on a bipartisan basis.

Having said that, I still hope we support this bill. But I think it is time for us to level with the American people. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. And if we are going to vote for budget resolutions, we cannot run from the impact those budget resolutions have on our military men and women, on education, health care, job training, and other programs as well.

Finally, I want to salute the staff, on both the Republican and Democratic side of this subcommittee, an outstanding professional staff, that did an excellent job of taking a tough budget allocation, doing the best with it that I think anybody could have done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time to the chairman out of my respect for him so that he can have the last word.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I am proud to present the Fiscal Year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for consideration of the House.

The Appropriations Committee has dedicated to providing a suitable quality of life for our servicemen and women from recruitment through retirement. I believe this bill is fiscally responsible, while improving the quality of life for our all-volunteer force throughout their military careers and beyond. It also builds upon initiatives begun last year to get the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs to be more cooperative and expand synergies that exist between them.

The bill totals $136.1 billion. It stays within our discretionary allocation of $94.7 billion, which is $824 million below the budget request. But, more importantly, the bill is $8.5 billion over last year's level after adjusting VA medical services for contingency funding.

The increases above last year are in four areas: veterans medical care, active duty military medical care, housing allowances for military families, and the first year of major construction for the new BRAC round recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, the bill continues to improve military health care and recommends $21 billion for fiscal year 2007 for the defense health program. This is a sizeable increase of $1 billion above last year's level and represents more than a 40 percent increase in this budget since fiscal year 2003.

For veterans medical care, the bill recommends $25.4 billion, a $2.9 billion increase, or 12.7 percent, over last year's level. This program has increased $7.6 billion, or 43 percent, since

2004. I do not know what could speak more for the priorities of this House or this Congress or our committee than this commitment to our Nation's veterans.

For military construction, including funding to support the global war on terrorism, the bill provides $16.3 billion. The remainder of the bill funds a variety of defense programs and four related agencies, most of which are funded at the budget request.

I would like to mention that an additional $40 million in funding is recommended for two programs to accelerate environmental clean-up at formerly used defense sites and closed installations dating back to the 1988 BRAC round.

Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to make sure the limited resources we have are spent efficiently and effectively and that programs achieve their mission. We are, after all, at war; and we need to make sure that our current active duty personnel understand that the commitments to our former warfighters are kept. If we keep our promises to our former warfighters. We will keep our promises to those who are fighting today. This bill accomplishes that, while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Lewis, for his vision and leadership and for the allocation that he has provided our subcommittee, probably the most generous of all of the subcommittee allocations.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank sincerely my ranking member and colleague and friend, Mr. Edwards of Texas, for his hard work. He knows these issues cold. He is a good collaborator, a good person to work with. I respect his thoughts, I respect his work ethic, and I think this is a product of both of our vision.

I would also like to thank Mr. Obey, as ranking member of the full committee, for working with us throughout this process. While we may have some differences, I think overall clearly this is a bipartisan bill that expresses the views of this House that our veterans and our active duty service personnel are our highest priority.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.008

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, the chairman of the Readiness and Military Construction Subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hefley, for 3 minutes.

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

What I would like to do is ask, if there is no objection of my colleague from Texas, I have two brief colloquies that I would like to enter into with two of my colleagues.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would yield for the purpose of colloquy 2 minutes to Mr. Wicker of Mississippi, a member of the committee.

If the gentleman will yield for the purpose of colloquy. I thank the gentlemen for bringing this issue to our attention.

Funding in the amount of $10 million was provided in last year's bill, fiscal year 2006, to begin construction of this project. I appreciate the importance of completing this project on time, and the committee will keep the gentleman's concerns in mind as we go to conference with the Senate. I know this is also a priority for the gentleman's Senators from Mississippi.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would yield 30 seconds to my colleague, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, for a brief statement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his concern for veterans and for his leadership on this important area of veterans health care, community outreach clinics; and, yes, in fact, the subcommittee prioritized $25 million for the VA to open up 10 of the highest priority CBOCs in the country, and so the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank her for expressing her concern on this very important issue. This is a priority of the highest order for our subcommittee. We take it very seriously.

As you heard Mr. Edwards say, we have moved on this issue in a number of ways. So I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I agree with her on the need for the increased mental health screening and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. I want to assure her that we will be mindful of this issue as we move this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, while I certainly understand the intent of the gentleman's amendment and the sincerity with which he brings it, we can't accept this offset.

I understand the problem, and the subcommittee has included an increase of $40 million for formerly used defense sites in the 1990 BRAC Round.

Additionally, we have included report language directing the Department of Defense to place a larger emphasis on these sites in future budgets. It is a problem. Clearly, it is a problem. Mr. Farr, Mr. Blumenauer, to their credit, have raised this issue. We are all concerned about it and we are moving on it. But, this is a bad way to go about it, and here is the reason. The gentleman's amendment would cut funds for the implementation of new BRAC rounds by $440 million to get $77 million. And the problem is the rate at which these funds are outlaid. Clearly, if we took the $440 million out of the 2005 BRAC, that would further delay implementation of the BRAC, which would lead to problems just like this in the out years. If we use the $440 million, it gets us $77 million for these FUD sites, but it leaves $363 million on the table that cannot, will not, won't be used by the Department.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time. While the funds may not be spent this year, they will be spent. They are needed to implement this BRAC round. We learned from the last BRAC round that if we delay the initial investment, it costs far more in the long run to implement these BRACs.

I remind the gentleman again that he voted against the measure that would have delayed the implementation of the 2005 BRAC round, which is exactly what this amendment would do. Additionally, any delay in implementing BRAC reduces the savings and the efficiency of the BRAC that it is designated to promote. It may also cause the same types of environmental restoration problems at these current BRAC sites that we are experiencing from these past BRAC rounds. For that reason I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 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 appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment changes the application of existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 39, line 8 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment changes the application of existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2007 on May 18, 2006. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's allocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and it is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 8, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's 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 changes the application of existing law. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended to lie against the entire paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentlemen has asserted this point of order and put the House in this position. The budget resolution which the body adopted this week included a $50 billion bridge fund for the war.

In this bill, we use the $507 million from that fund to pay for urgent war-related military construction projects. This leaves the remaining $49.3 billion for the Defense Subcommittee to allocate to other war-related expenditures. Every single one of these projects directly supports the war on terror. And every single one of them was included in the Defense Authorization Act that the House passed nearly unanimously last week.

These projects support specialized urban warfare training, mobilization of critical assets in the gulf region, and the easing of troop rotations abroad.

Mr. Chairman, what arises here is the Rules Committee did not protect that designation of emergency funding, and I regret that. But I greatly regret that the gentleman from Texas has raised this point of order.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not understand that we are at war? Does he not understand that we have people in harm's way across the entire southern tier of Asia, that are being fired upon as we speak; that these funds are essential to fight the global war on terror, to bring democracy to these scattered points around the world, that these are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are in dire need of this support, of these expenditures?

There is a fiscal point to be made here, a principle to be expressed here. I understand that. But if an emergency situation is not described by a Nation at war, I do not know what determines what an emergency is.

These funds are essential. The battles that our men and women are fighting in Fallujah, in Bayji and Tikrit and Tal Afar and across Afghanistan are supported by the training that they receive here in the United States, the urban warfare training. Their familiarity with the weapons that they use,

the weapons systems that they use, the familiarity with each other, that is essential to unit cohesion.

These funds, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, are essential to our war effort. I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his point of order, support the body of the bill, let us go forward with these essential funds that ensure the quality of life and the health and welfare of our fighting men and women across the globe.

If I understand, there will be other points of order that would further affect the appropriation, generally appropriations for this war on terror.

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the impact of these.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support on this, and for the allocation we received. This is a tremendous blow to our effort to pass this bill that provides for the military quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines who are in harm's way.

Clearly, this builds the bases and the training facilities that they need to fight this incredibly difficult and dangerous war.

Mr. Chairman, I will be quick. The gentleman refers to this as emergency funding. It is not. That is incorrect. The funds are designated pursuant to section 402 of the budget resolution which is for ``contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism,'' not emergency spending.

Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be extended to lie against the entire paragraph.

I would just like to ask the gentleman, those projects that he just mentioned, are those projects in this bill?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to oppose this nor do I intend to raise a point of order, but I want to make it absolutely 100 percent clear that this amendment will have absolutely no impact on this policy. The funds that the gentlelady proposes to limit are not in this bill. The paragraph 4(f) that she cites is not in this bill. This amendment has no impact whatsoever on this bill. For that reason, I have no objection to the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I don't know whether this will be the last word, but I hope it is, because enough has been said.

Mr. Chairman, I have made every effort throughout the process of constructing this bill to reach across the aisle and to do this in a bipartisan way, not only because I believe that is the way we should operate here, but because on a bill of this importance that involves our national security and the health and well-being of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, we need to be bipartisan, and I am afraid because of the tenor of this debate that the vote, in the end, will not be. I don't know. I can't predict the outcome.

I do have to say, I very much regret the process fight that we had on our side of the aisle. I strongly disagree with my colleagues who chose this bill to make their fight over earmark reform. Every earmark in this bill is authorized. That is the process that we follow.

I also deeply regret that Members on the other side of the aisle chose to make this their political fight, to make their political points about tax cuts and revenues and to make it a partisan bill. This is not a partisan bill. It should not be a partisan bill.

So I feel badly that the tenor of the debate was not about the strength of our military and the importance of their mission, but it was about process and politics. In my mind, on this bill, there is no place for either. Our commitment is to our troops, to their lives, to their families and to our veterans, and I hope that both sides, now that the debate is over, will close ranks, stand shoulder to shoulder and send our troops a very, very clear signal that we support them, we support their mission, and that we support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a unanimous vote on this very important subcommittee appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the acknowledgement that he gave to our staff who have worked very, very hard, both sides of the aisle, to make the best bill that we could. I assure my colleague and the Members of the House that as we go forward we will find the resources that we need to make sure that our troops have all of the resources at their hand to be successful in their mission.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier in the debate, 2 days ago, the Republican majority passed a budget resolution which imposed a stringent ceiling on total appropriations for the year. The effect of that was to squeeze more than $1 billion of badly needed money out of this bill.

What the committee has tried to do in response is that the administration in this bill asked for about 307 military construction projects, items like barracks and the like, and the committee essentially took 20 of them and designated those as ``emergency spending'' and that freed up $507 million so that the committee could insert a number of projects which represented their highest priorities. That meant that the bill was effectively, if you are going to look at it in terms of budget accounting, $507 million above the amount allowed by the budget ceiling.

That didn't even take into account the fact that the committee is proceeding on the assumption that a good number of additional fees which the White House wants to impose on veterans might, in fact, go into effect. I don't believe they will. We don't deal with that issue in this amendment, but we do deal with the first issue.

What we are simply suggesting is that we recognize that these projects requested by the White House are necessary, but we believe that they ought to be paid for. So what we suggested in committee and what I am asking on the floor is that we simply limit the size of the tax cut which is scheduled to take place for people who make over $1 million, we are suggesting that we shrink that tax cut from $114,000 on average for a person who makes over $1 million, we are suggesting we shrink that by about $1,400.

That is hardly going to lay a glove on the most wealthy people in this country, but it would enable this bill to proceed with honest accounting, meeting high-priority needs of the military at various bases throughout the country and the world.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is very simple, if you think that we ought to proceed with the military construction priorities laid out by the administration, and if you think that we ought to pay for those, then you would support this amendment.

If you do not, then you would oppose it. I would suggest this is a fiscally responsible way to meet critical military needs, and I would hope that the House would see fit to approve the amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I was here when the Budget Act was passed. And the purpose of that Budget Act was to reconcile spending with taxes to try to reduce the deficit.

So the purpose of the Budget Act is to try to see to it that appropriations, direct spending, and revenues all mesh in such a way as to reduce, to the greatest possible extent, the deficit.

That means that if this House takes an action on the tax side that provides large tax cuts, and if that action then imposes on the Appropriations Committee the requirement for deep cuts, that means that the two are, in fact, integrally connected.

It is hard for me to understand how a supposedly conservative party can take the position that we should proceed under the Budget Act to act in a way that pretends that what we do on the revenue side is irrelevant to what we do on the spending side.

This amendment, in my view, is within the spirit of the original intention of the Budget Act. Unfortunately, I must concede that under the way this House is being run these days, and under the rule under which this bill was brought to the floor, I must concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, if this point of order is upheld, does that mean that the House would be placing a higher value on the ideological accounting contained in the budget resolution than they would be on meeting the critical military needs of the country?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we not personalize this issue. I do not like the fact that these gentlemen are evidently going to be knocking out funding for these important military projects. But I do think it is important to recognize that under the budget resolution which was imposed by the House Republican majority, and under the rule that was voted for by virtually every Republican today, they have that right. That is a parliamentary fact.

So I disagree with the judgment being made by the gentleman. But in all fairness, I think that the responsibility for this debacle lies squarely at the feet of the Speaker and the majority leader and the majority party leadership, because they broke arms for 3 weeks to impose a budget resolution on this House which required the allocation to the subcommittee which wound up being $824 million below the amount proposed by the President.

Because the majority party leadership decided that it was more important to provide $40 billion in tax cuts to people who make $1 million a year, because the majority party leadership decided that it was more important to provide over $60 billion in tax cuts to people in the top 1 percent of our population who make more than $400,000 a year, because the majority party leadership decided that those priorities were preferable to meeting our education needs, our health care needs, our military construction needs, and our science needs, then the Appropriations Committee is stuck with the dirty job of carrying out those mandates. And under the rule that was imposed by the Rules Committee, which is appointed on the majority side by the Speaker of this House, every last one of them, because that rule was voted on by that leadership ordered and dominated committee, that is the reason that these emotions are in order. And to avoid that, that is why I tried to offer the previous amendment which said: Look it, this is a phony accounting gimmick. Let us be honest about it and pay for it by scaling back those tax cuts for the most well off in this society by just a smidgeon.

So I think, if we are going to start passing out responsibility, this is not the responsibility of Mr. Lewis, it is not the responsibility of the gentlemen who are going to be offering the points of order, although I think their judgment is defective, but it is, in fact, the responsibility of the majority party leadership of this House. And it illustrates that Mr. DeLay was absolutely right when he said a few months ago: ``This is what you get when you elect a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives,'' because it means there are no checks and balances in the system. It means that we have no way on stopping the majority party from putting tax cuts for the very wealthy ahead of the needs of our military, ahead of the needs of our kids, ahead of the needs of our workers and our sick in this society. This day illustrates how screwed up the priorities are on that side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Most of our friends on the other side of the aisle did, but after the Congress voted to send our troops to war, the troops did not ask, is this an emergency or is it regular order of business? They just went. They did their duty. Some of them have done it two and three and four times in Iraq.

I do not know why they should be stuck in the middle of a family squabble within the Republican Party in the Congress, a squabble between people who put tax cuts for the most well-off people first versus the people who put budget accounting nicety first versus people who think that there are some economic and social needs faced by the families of those soldiers.

What the committee tried to do is to cut it down the middle, hedge a little bit here, a little bit there. We do not like that on this side of the aisle. So we tried to substitute honest accounting, and the majority party insisted on knocking that amendment out on a point of order.

So at this point, we have to choose between a faulty accounting system or meeting the needs of the families of people who are in Iraq defending the national interests of this country; and while I have great misgivings about the advisability of having gone to war in the first place, I will be doggoned if I am going to stand here and allow somebody else's squabble about whether a budget item is an emergency or not get in the way of providing the school needs, the barracks needs and the other needs of the families in the military, who are not asking questions of their government; they are just doing their duty.

So I congratulate the gentleman for his comments, and I think that this day, I was going to say it is a sad day in the history of the Congress, but it is not because this finally illustrates what we have been trying to demonstrate for 3 years, that what you do on the tax side of the budget, what you give to Mr. Raymond and his friends, is directly related to what you have left on the table that you can give our military families, our school kids and people in this country who need a little help on the health care front. It is about time that people on the majority side of the aisle recognized that connection.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but I think I have said enough. I just would hope that this House would reconsider what they have done this week and use this incident to recognize that that budget resolution is simply insufficient to meet the needs of our military, the needs of our school children and a number of other seriously competing needs.

I would hope, and in fact I fully expect, that the Senate will not pass the budget resolution that has caused this problem.

The irony is that the Republican majority in this House had to pass a let-us-pretend resolution yesterday, which said we are going to move ahead with appropriation bills on the assumption that the full Congress had passed the budget resolution, which it has not done, because Republican moderates in the Senate recognize that the budget resolution that is being enforced on the majority side in this House is too extreme for their taste in the Senate.

Senators such as Senator Specter have already made that quite clear.

So it is ironic that a budget that hasn't even passed the Congress is being used to enforce these kinds of trade-offs. I don't think the American people are going to be very pleased.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I am sorry the gentleman wouldn't yield to me, but if he had, I would have asked them this question: He said ``we'' are engaging in sleight of hand. I just wanted to ask him who that ``we'' was. Because this report was put together by his own party. It was brought to the House floor by his own party. We on this side of the aisle tried to correct that faulty accounting and we were not allowed to do that by the majority party either.

So I just want to make certain that people understand that in this case the ``we'' is ``thee.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am somewhat amused by the fact that the last two times Mr. Edwards has tried to fully explain to the House what the impact of the point of order was that those who are responsible for the points of order tried to urge the Chair to cut off Mr. Edwards so that he could not, in fact, explain it. Let me simply say if I were offering these points of order, I would want to have as little discussion about them as possible also. I would not want to have them fully aired either.

Let me just make the point. I find it interesting that we have Members of this House objecting on bookkeeping fine points to what the committee has been trying to do to provide these facilities and services to our military, and they stand in high dudgeon about the fact that the budget resolution is being exceeded.

Yet I do not recall them objecting when the President has submitted to the Congress almost $400 billion in expenditures for Iraq, none of which has been submitted in the regular appropriations order. All of those requests have come in the form of supplemental appropriations, off budget, if you will.

So I find it interesting that we can fight an entire war, spend $400 billion in an off budget, hide-the-cost-from-the-public fashion, and yet when it comes to meeting these small construction needs, and as the gentleman points out, this is not in the United States, this is in the Middle East itself. My understanding is that one of the items affects the special ops unit, and yet the gentlemen feel that their ideological commitment to their precious budget resolution, which they cannot even sell to their compatriots in the United States Senate, ought to be the be all and end all above every other economic or social or moral consideration. I find that, indeed, very interesting and very revealing.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Doesn't this whole thing illustrate that there are some people here who are much more concerned about the technical niceties of the procedures of this House than they are on the human implications of what it is we do here?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as I was sitting here, it struck me that the gentleman from Texas resembles a poor imitation of Vice President Cheney because, like Vice President Cheney, he is shooting at the wrong target. The first rule of thumb is that if you are going to shoot somebody or something, you make sure you are shooting the right person.

What the gentleman just said to us is almost unbelievable. I mean, it sounded to me like I was in a sophomore high school class rather than in the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. We are told that because he was peaked about a hydroponic tomato project in a bill last year that somehow he was determined to take it out on the military by yanking out military construction projects that were asked for not by me, not by Mr. Walsh or anyone else, but by the President of the United States.

I do not have any projects in this bill. I have a district that has very little to do with military except with respect to the Guard, and almost all of them are stuck in Iraq. So I can speak objectively with respect to projects. But it does seem quaint to me that if the gentleman did not like something that happened in another bill in another year in the deep, dark, distant past that instead he is going to shoot the future by yanking out money that the President of the United States thought it was important enough to ask for. I think that says something about the judgment of the persons making these motions today.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I will only take 1 minute. I just want to respond to something the distinguished majority leader said. He indicated that what had occurred on the House floor today was a process fight.

That is not what it was at all. It was a priorities fight. We saw this unraveling today because the majority party insisted on sticking by a budget resolution which puts super-sized tax cuts for the most comfortable in this society ahead of every other consideration.

We may not see arguments quite as dramatic and as chaotic as we did today on this bill, but as appropriation bills move through this House, we will see similar conflicting priorities, because the budget which has caused the problem is a budget which does not put the needs of military families first, it does not put the needs of education first, it does not put the need to invest in critical programs that strengthen the economy of the country in the future first. Instead, it continues to insist that we provide over $40 billion in tax cuts to persons who make over $1 million a year. That is a priorities fight. It is not a technical process fight. I think we need to keep that in mind.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak. I appreciate Mr. Edwards' leadership, that of Chairman Walsh, and my good friend, Sam Farr, for taking the attention to the problem of the toxic and explosive legacy of 225 years of military operations in the United States. We are not talking about problems overseas, we are talking about communities in every single State in the Union.

Mr. Farr's experience with Fort Ord over, I don't know, over 15 years now, has demonstrated the scope and scale of the promise, if we do it right, there are tremendous opportunities. Many of these bases are jewels that can be returned to productive use.

His experience has also shown how complicated they can be; that if we don't have the right plan, we don't invest the resources, it can drag on and on and on. Sadly, we have over 3,000 sites around the country that still are a part of this toxic legacy.

I do appreciate what the subcommittee has done. You have a difficult job. I wouldn't want to have to balance those equities. But I am here today arguing for more attention and more resources to deal with accelerating the problem in the past and the promises of the past.

I am going to offer an amendment in a few minutes that would transfer from the 2005 BRAC account money that will be used to deal with the first four rounds and those communities that are waiting.

Now, there are going to be some who will say, well, you are offsetting a much bigger number than the mere $77 million. And that is because the 5.3 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion that is technically set aside for 2005 is not going to be spent. The payout rate is something like 5 percent for this next year. You are not going to use it. It is a phony number. You can safely transfer resources to help people who have already suffered closure and who have not been dealt with fairly by this Congress. You can look at Mather Air Force Base in California, closed in the first round, and their cleanup isn't slated to be completed until 2072. That is unconscionable.

I would respectfully request that Congress no longer be missing in action when it comes to cleaning up the bombs, the munitions, the fuel depot, the multiple problems that have been left by communities, for communities to deal with, and impede the recycling. On base closures under BRAC, the unexploded bombs and chemical contamination prevents 140,000 acres on closed and realigned bases from being transferred right now to local communities for redevelopment.

The last point I would make is that it goes far beyond this subcommittee. Again, I appreciate their attention and the work they have done, but we have to have the appropriations committee and the authorizing committees to get serious about this. We have an up and down cycle where we put some money in and then the money goes away. We transfer it in areas when all of a sudden there is a huge problem that gets the attention, like Spring Valley in Washington, DC. on the campus of the American University. That is where we tested and developed chemical weapons during World War I.

We have had three cleanups to try and solve that problem. The more that we focus on this, the more that we invest on an ongoing basis, the more that we develop the techniques, the technology, it is not just going to save people around the country from this problem, but that same technology that will help us figure out whether it is a hub cap or a 105 millimeter shell will be able to be used to protect our soldiers in Iraq. That is how I lost my first constituent, was a land mine.

Now, I would suggest that, if we get serious about this, we will not only accelerate the technology and the research that will make our communities safer and healthier here at home, but it will protect lives of our service people

overseas and will also deal with the vast amounts of munitions and land mines that are scattered all around the world that kill innocent victims every day.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk go ahead to read the numbers, because I think that we want to get one point clear from the outset. It looks like there is a big cut of $440 million in order to be able to spend $77,500,000. The point is, it is the same number.

There is a vast increase in the amount of money that has been set aside, a $3.6 billion increase, for the

2005 base closure account. But we are not going to spend that money. The payout rate is only 5 percent. That is why you have to reduce it, under our arcane budget rules, by over $400 million to get $77 million back. The point is the tax dollars are exactly the same; and, additionally, the point, is where are we going to spend it?

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment with my colleague Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida because we are trying to focus on the serious problem of the toxic legacy of military operations in this country. I have a map behind me where we have identified 3,398 sites around the country already. There are more that we are discovering.

The particular area we want to focus on today is that we are not spending adequate resources to deal with the bases that have already been closed. We have 140,000 acres that cannot be transferred because they haven't been adequately cleaned up from the previous BRAC closings. And this isn't just a case of, well, don't worry about it, put up some barbed wire and it will go away. These are problems that continue over time.

Unexploded ordnance has killed dozens of people. I have interesting little materials here. These are promotional materials that the Department of Defense gives to our soldiers to try and recognize it. This is a problem that threatens the health and well-being of our men and women in service right now on our bases.

One of my favorites is Larry the Lizard. This is being distributed in Southern California, coloring books, to tell children not to pick these things up. Now, if it is your son, your niece, your granddaughter, your little brother, maybe you feel better that there is a Larry the Lizard coloring book. But wouldn't you feel better if we stepped up and met our obligation and actually picked up those bombs, those unexploded munitions? I think you would. I know I would.

I think it is time that Congress no longer be missing in action on the issue of military cleanup. We don't know at this point whether there are 10 million acres or 40 million acres with unexploded ordnance.

Now, I appreciate, and I have expressed my admiration for this subcommittee's sinking their teeth into it and trying to do something, like my colleague, Mr. Farr, for his tireless championing of this cause. But this amendment today, this little amendment, shifting the same amount of money that will be spent from the most recent round of base closures with $5.3 billion to increase the small amount of money that has been allocated to deal with prior facilities is a step in the right direction.

It would be a tragedy if we are going to continue to stretch this out over time. Our first obligation ought to be to those people who have suffered this experience before. Mather Air Force Base in California isn't slated to be cleaned up until 2072 under the current rate of expenditure. They were closed in the first round. That is unconscionable.

At the rate we are going, it is a 200- to 300-year problem, and every delay means that we do not return the land to productive use. It means that people's lives are in jeopardy. We are coming up to fire season, and we are probably going to have to pull firefighters out of some of the forests where there had been training and there is a danger of the bombs exploding.

We are spending enough money on national defense that we can prioritize dealing with this toxic legacy that will make families safer at home and people around the world. Because, bear in mind, the sooner we develop this technology and refine the techniques, not only will it help us clean up here at home, that technology will be available to make our soldiers safe overseas as well.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to understand this because I think it is very important. My understanding is the reason the offset of $440 million is required is because they are not going to spend more than $77 million this next year; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I want to just make one point, apropos the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee.

The $5.3 billion that he is talking about, which will not be spent rapidly, is for all of base realignment and closure activity. That is for reconstruction, that is for building, that is for a whole range of things. It is not just the critical cleanup of the explosives. It is not where there is the critical danger.

So there is a whole range of things in there that I think any objective person on this floor would say is much less of a priority to save lives than what the gentlewoman from Florida pointed out. Our amendment focuses on putting the money where it is going to do the most--the clean up that is essential, that has been delayed and delayed and delayed.

I understand the Chair's concern that we don't want to delay the 2005 BRAC. Bear in mind, the amendment that we are offering deals with the people long before that, who have been waiting and waiting and waiting. I would suggest there is no fiscal impact that is going to hurt over the long haul. The financial incentives that he references will be available if we have the economy of scale for the ones that are more dangerous and are more delayed.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment. But before I do that, I want to really compliment Chairman Walsh. He did everything possible, with the bad figure he was given, to work out this account and to put some more money into it. But I think that the problem is so severe that we need this time to discuss it.

In essence, what Mr. Blumenauer has showed you with his map is that there are about 10 of these sites in every congressional district in the United States. It just averages out to that.

And what are they? Well, they are called UXOs, unexploded ordnances. Those are very serious things. Ordnances were developed to harm people, seriously harm people.

They are also called Former Used Defense sites. And those could just be toxic wastes or other things. It is where the defense, back in the early wars and on the coastal areas, particularly Pacific coast, you had lookout areas and stuff like that. And there is a bunch of stuff in the ground, and that has to be cleaned up.

And then you also have military munitions response, MMR sites across this country.

Mr. Blumenauer is a true leader in being able to point out that this is sort of a huge Superfund, a Love Canal that might be in every congressional district. And I know it is just a matter of time before local newspapers who are starting to look at these maps and wondering where these things exist, and we in Congress are going to be hit right between the eyes and saying why didn't you do something about it if you knew it existed? And we know it has existed because it is a fact.

The geography is there. The sites are there. They have been on a list for a long time. And they cause problems. And of the ones that they are talking about, UXOs are the most serious problems of all. I know, in my own district, people have lost limbs from picking up boxes that they didn't know were explosive. Young kids, that they didn't know that there was an explosive device in it and dropped the box and blew off their arms and legs. So not enough attention is being paid to sort out these messes left behind by the services.

In fact, in our hearing, I am a member of the committee, in our hearing on April 5, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Keith Easton, testified that it would take approximately $350 million just to clean up the former military base, Fort Ord in California, a base in my district, which was closed in 1991. Yet, the Army has only requested $45 million for clean up activities covered by the 1990 BRAC account, of which $6.6 million would be allocated for Fort Ord. That means $6.6 million out of what is needed is $350 million. We are going to have to adjust some monies around here. And the priority in his amendment is let's do what we know has been caused by former base closures before we try to clean up all of the new ones, those that just closed this year.

So clearly, there is a disconnect between what our cleanup obligations are, and what are services budget has been made. And this cannot continue.

So I applaud Mr. Blumenauer in bringing this amendment. Nonetheless, billions of cleanup obligations are still pending and must be addressed. So if we don't deal with it today and don't get it adopted, we are going to be back here next year, and a lot of the Members in this House are going to understand that these sites are in their district and they are going to want to support this amendment. So I say this is either going to be done now or it can be later, but we have got to get to it.

I applaud Mr. Walsh for the effort he has made in trying to beef up the account, but I don't think it is enough.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $1.82 billion for veterans, particularly in the health care field. It is in 10 separate areas: mental health and prosthesis, patient workload backlog, research for prosthesis, nursing home beds for long-term care, priority 8 veterans health care for those veterans who earn as little as $27,000 a year, improving the VA casework backlog that currently takes more than 6 months, money for VA hospital construction, medical administration, the VA IG's office, and unproven efficiencies.

Now, why should you be supporting this amendment? Well, Mr. Chairman, next week we will all be going home for Memorial Day recess. And on Memorial Day, we will all, as Members of Congress, get up and tell our veterans all the things we are doing for them. You ought to tell them about this amendment because this amendment does what veterans have asked us to do.

The figures that I have proposed here are the independent budget recommendations for mental health, prosthesis, medical and prosthetic research accounts, and staffing levels to improve timely care. The independent budget was brought to the committee, and I want to applaud the chairman for allowing four veterans organizations to bring this, including AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. They provided our committee with a budget of what they thought needed to be done. And their budget estimates, according to the committee, were more on mark than the administration's figures last year.

So when you go home to the vets next week, you have a chance to tell them you supported the Farr amendment to add $300 million for mental health and $300 million for prosthetics. You can tell them that you have voted to add $119 million for additional staffing for increased patient workload. You can tell them that you voted for $48 million to pay for inflation in the medical and prosthesis research account.

This amendment is also because the adequate funding for vets has not been made by this bill. So we are helping this bill by adding also for the veterans nursing home beds. The current law requires that we provide 13,391 beds. We only have enough money for 11,100 beds. That is almost 3,000 beds below the level authorized in 1998. So we add $471 million for nursing home care to bring nursing home beds back into compliance with the law.

This amendment would also allow 214,000 priority 8 veterans. Who are priority 8 veterans? Those are veterans who make as little as $27,000 a year. You could claim poverty for the earned income tax credit at that salary, and all we are saying is we are going to make them eligible for the VA health care.

Every Member in this body should support this amendment because every Member has veterans who have been shut out of the VA's health system.

This amendment also pays for the backlog. It adds $73 million to provide increased funding for general operations expenses to help reduce the claims in processing. Every Member has district offices that are working on veterans' cases, 74,000 vets who are waiting more than 6 months to have their claims processed and much longer in some cases. As of last week, that number increased by over 21,000 to 95,000 vets who are waiting just for an answer.

This amendment also restores money for three high-priority projects, hospital construction. Three hospital construction projects in Denver, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; and Columbia, Missouri, were cut in the base bill to provide allowances for other accounts. Congressman Beauprez of Colorado sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee earlier this month supporting the Colorado project.

Where does this money come from? We do this by an offset. Mr. Chairman, since the Republican leadership enacted the tax cuts in 2001, we have learned from all the reports and all the

papers that the rich have gotten richer. Our progressive tax system is becoming less progressive. Time and again the majority has prioritized the needs of people making more than $1 million a year ahead of the key investments such as health care for our veterans. As a result, our veterans will continue to wait too long for care. Many will not get the mental health assistance they need. Prosthetic research and services will be underfunded, and so-called ``wealthy'' lower priority veterans, those making as little as $27,000 a year, will continue to be denied access.

This is going to be ruled out of order, and I hope the Members will insist that we get this funding.

Point of Order