To study the needs of Wounded Women Warriors.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me offer my appreciation to the full Committee on Appropriations, both the chairman and ranking member, and to this subcommittee. I've seen enormous commitment to bipartisanship between Mr. Edwards and, of course, Mr. Wicker. But my good colleague and friend from Texas has outdone himself, and this particular veterans appropriation, the Military Construction Veterans Affairs appropriation, signifies nothing but joy for Americans and veterans all across this country.

Might I just cite the fact that this bill moves above the President's budget in medical services, making it $28.9 billion; moves above the President's request on homeless vets, $130 million; moves above the President's request on medical facilities, $4.1 billion; and moves above it on extended care facilities, $165 million.

Many of us have risen to the floor today to talk about post-traumatic stress. I just wanted to remind my colleagues of the kind of horror and nightmare that many of our soldiers and returning soldiers and veterans live with, suffering from PTSD. It is simply to acknowledge the fact that over and over again you relive the tragedy of the experience, whether it's small arms fire, whether it's IEDs, whether it's seeing your comrade fall in battle in front of you, whether it's seeing his body implode, you know that you're reliving it, and the number one basis of PTSD is military and combat exposure.

Just for the record, let me acknowledge that 94 percent of the soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small arms fire; 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured or killed. This is a major issue and it is a major part of the lives of our soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply was to do this: It was to provide more medical centers in places like rural areas or small cities to be able to be utilized for PTSD. I know Chairman Edwards knows this issue because it was his leadership that generated the change of the Waco veterans hospital into a mental health facility. I want that to continue to stand, and I want to thank him for the increased dollars he's put in for PTSD.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have a veterans advisory committee that's indicated that we need centers around the Nation, smaller centers maybe in small hospitals, that would respond to veterans and returning soldiers, maybe even to the extent of reimbursing them by being in those particular centers.

Let me close by simply saying that this bill is comprehensive. I look forward to working with the chairman on more permanent housing for the disabled, as we work toward more PTSD facilities, even though we have a great amount of resources here, more adjusted housing, if you will, for those who are coming back so they're not living alone.

I want to take special privilege to acknowledge the DeGeorge in my community for my homeless vets, a facility for homeless vets, DeGeorge at Union Station and U.S. Vets. All of them confront veterans and returning soldiers with PTSD. If we expand these facilities so that rural and small cities and even inner city areas, which is what my amendment is focused on, everybody would have the opportunity to be able to access help with PTSD.

I would ask my colleagues to consider as we move toward conference to be able to work on this issue in an expanded way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of the bill and in favor of my amendment. I also rise to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Edwards, the chairman of the Appropriations I subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Military Construction, and the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Filner, for all they have done and continue to do to make real President Lincoln's admonition that ``we care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.''

In particular, I wish to commend Chairman Edwards, for the leadership, commitment, and foresight he has demonstrated on the issue of PTSD and the overall mental health of our nation's veterans. On February 28, 2007, he announced that $3 million has been made available for the Waco VA PTSD program in 2006 which is now available so that researchers at Fort Hood, Texas A&M, Baylor, the Temple VA, and the Waco VA hospital work towards realizing their goal of making the Waco VA, in conjunction with Ft. Hood and the Temple VA, a world-class PTSD and mental health care research center.

Like Mr. Edwards and Mr. Filner, I am committed to improving the lives of thousands of veterans who have risked their lives for our nation, and I believe my amendment plays a crucial role in ensuring that veterans suffering from PTSD receive the medical treatment they desperately need.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2642, the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2008. As a Member of Congress from Texas, a state which has sustained more casualties in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq than all but one other, I am pleased to offer this amendment. This amendment is intended to address the urgent need for more post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment and counseling facilities servicing veterans living in some of the more distressed areas of our country.

Mr. Chairman, according to Webster's, dignity is ``the quality or condition of being esteemed, honored or worthy.'' We can never do enough to honor our wounded veterans. Studies have shown that 30 percent of troops deployed to Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, when wounded troops return home the treatment they receive is more befitting a second class citizen than a hero. This is a shame and a great stain on our nation.

How these problems could be overlooked or neglected by this Administration is unfathomable. The very leaders that these brave young men and women rely on let them down. The message that incidents like Walter Reed Medical Center sends to our troops is that we do not care enough. But that is not the message we wish to send. The Veterans Administration and Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2008, H.R. 2642, will go long away toward correcting this misapprehension. All members of the House are indebted to our colleague, Mr. Edwards of Texas, for his masterful leadership in shepherding this landmark legislation to the House floor. For the 25,380, 2,401 from Texas, brave men and women who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, help is on the way. And the 3,519, 298 from Texas, heroes who have given the last full measure of devotion will always be in our hearts and prayers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in post- traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Chairman, PTSD is one of the most prevalent and devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women fighting in far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.

For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an lED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday.

But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb, especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close, lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult. PTSD symptoms seem to be worse if the event that triggered them was deliberately initiated by another person, as in a mugging or a kidnapping. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks. Flashbacks may consist of images, sounds, smells, or feelings, and are often triggered by ordinary occurrences, such as a door slamming or a car backfiring on the street. A person having q flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Mr. Chairman, the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.

The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most continuous combat operations since Vietnam. Only one comprehensive study has examined the mental health impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that was performed by Charles W. Hoge, MD. This study looked at the experience of soldiers in the war zone and symptoms of psychological distress. Soldiers in Iraq are at risk for being killed or wounded themselves, are likely to have witnessed the suffering of others, and may have participated in killing or wounding others as part of combat operations. All of these activities have a demonstrated association with the development of PTSD. Hoge's study indicated that 94 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small-arms fire. In addition, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured or killed, 68 percent reported seeing dead or seriously injured Americans, and 51 percent reported handling or uncovering human remains. The majority, 77 percent, of soldiers deployed to Iraq reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy, 48 percent reported being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant, and 28 percent reported being responsible for the death of a noncombatant.

My amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human. They carry their experiences with them. Ask a Vietnam Veteran about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad. My amendment ensures that no soldier is left behind. By directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in PTSD that are located in underserved urban areas, and conducting a concurrent study on increasing access to PTSD treatment at these facilities those soldiers will never feel forgotten or taken for granted. These soldiers can be certain that Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a successful one.

As the war in Iraq continues to drag on, and with our country continuing to send military personnel to Afghanistan, the military has been overwhelmed with returning soldiers suffering from mental health problems. Earlier this month, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, stated ``as the war has gone on, PTSD and other psychological effects of war have increased. The number of mental health workers that was adequate for a peacetime military is not adequate for a nation that's been at war.''

Mr. Chairman, according to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20 percent of Army soldiers have demonstrated signs of post-traumatic stress. Symptoms of this serious disorder include nightmares, flashbacks, emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of appetite, memory loss, clinical depression, and anxiety. One year after returning from combat, approximately 35 percent of soldiers are seeking some kind of mental health treatment. Among soldiers still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, many incidents of abuse, including killings and rapes by U.S. soldiers, have been attributed to ethics lapses caused by the strain of combat.

Mr. Chairman, last Thursday, the Department of Defense released a report that stated ``current efforts fall significantly short'' in providing help for troops. Further, this report found that the psychological health needs of America's military service members, their families and their survivors pose a daunting and growing challenge to the Department of Defense.

I urge adoption of my amendment. And I thank the Chairman for his fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the debate by thanking Chairman Edwards for all the hard work he's put into preparing this legislation. I congratulate him on his first bill as chairman of Military Construction-VA, and I appreciate his kind words made just a few moments ago. Mr. Edwards has continued the excellent bipartisan relationship that this subcommittee has enjoyed for years. The chairman held many, many hearings this spring, perhaps more hearings on the VA accounts than any previous subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue.

Mr. Edwards has previously thanked our staff for their diligent work to prepare this bill and has mentioned them by name. I will thank them once again by name. They include Liz Dawson, Dena Baron, Jamie Swafford and Susan Sweat on the minority staff, and Carol Murphy, Walter Hearne, Tim Peterson, Donna Shabaz, Mary Arnold and John Conger on the majority staff. They have worked very hard on this measure, but their work is just beginning.

As most of us know by now, there's much left to do in conference on this bill. For the first time in the history of the subcommittee, for the first time since 1958, the military construction portion contains no specific recommendation for projects. While I remain disappointed that no projects were included in this appropriation, I am pleased that last night we reached an agreement that will restore the transparency and openness begun by the Republican majority in the last Congress with regard to earmarks in the remaining appropriations bills.

I want to make sure my colleagues understand that there is very little to the military construction portion of this bill. Unlike some appropriations bills, such as the Homeland bill we passed earlier today which include funding for specific agencies, offices and programs in addition to projects, the MILCON appropriation consists almost entirely of projects.

Pursuant to yesterday's agreement, specific detailed funding amounts for the following programs will have to wait until conference: Base Realignment and Closure needs; initiatives to restation 70,000 troops and their families from Europe and Korea to the United States; projects necessary for increasing the active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000; relocating Marines from Okinawa to Japan; consolidating U.S. forces south of Seoul, South Korea; establishing enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti; new runways, control towers, National Guard readiness centers, and projects in the Middle East or Afghanistan where we have soldiers in harm's way. All of these specific details will have to wait until conference, Mr. Chairman.

In addition, we know that quality-of-life issues are a priority for our military; yet, no specific initiatives such as modernization of unaccompanied housing, construction of new medical facilities or much- needed child development centers, which we continuously heard in our hearings was the primary quality-of-life issue for our soldiers and their families, none of these are included in this bill.

Specific projects and earmarks will no doubt be included in the Senate version of this bill, and I hope Chairman Edwards and Chairman Obey will work with Mr. Lewis and me to make sure that House Members' initiatives will receive equal consideration at the conference level and are not disadvantaged by our airdropping of these projects into the conference. I would point out that the bill is different from other appropriations bills in that military construction projects have an added layer of examination, having already undergone scrutiny by the Department of Defense.

It is my hope that our colleagues will not offer amendments today that may decrease the military construction accounts. Though this bill today does not detail how these accounts will be used, the accounts will provide for many important military projects that our troops need.

Now, with regard to the VA portions of the bill, the VA is receiving the largest increase in the Department's history, an increase of $6.7 billion over the last fiscal year level. All of us in this body are deeply grateful for the sacrifices and service our veterans have provided this Nation, and this generous increase is appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle. We do have concerns about the VA's ability to absorb so large a funding increase in one fiscal year. We are determined to work with VA officials in this effort as part of our oversight responsibilities.

The bulk of the increase is going to boost medical services, medical facilities and construction for the VA. The bill increases the VA's discretionary funding by more than 18 percent over the fiscal year 2007 level. It is important to remember that the increase in this bill is in addition to the $1.8 billion this Congress just provided to the VA in the supplemental. When considered together, the supplemental funding and the funding in this bill amount to a 23 percent increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs' discretionary accounts.

Chairman Edwards has indicated that we will be conducting oversight hearings later in the year, and I'm glad to know that. Hearings will be needed to ensure that the funding we have provided actually gets to the veterans and does not languish in an administrative account. Mr. Chairman, we all want to make sure our veterans receive the care they deserve, but we will have to be diligent in our oversight in order to get this funding where it is intended, to our veterans.

The President has indicated he will sign this bill even though it exceeds his budget request by some $4 billion. However, he has stated that offsets for these increases should be found in other appropriations bills. I agree with him, and I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with us and find these savings elsewhere.

I think it is important to point out that, though we have some concerns on our side of the aisle about the feasibility for this large 1-year increase, it has been in large part Republicans that have a track record of meeting veterans' needs. During the period of Republican majority from 1995 to 2007, VA funding increased by 96 percent from $38.2 billion to $74.5 billion. I would point out that in the final decade of the last Democratic majority, veterans funding increased by less than half as much, about 42 percent, Mr. Chairman.

Similarly, Republicans led the way to increase spending per veteran by over $1,800 when we held the majority, while the Democrats managed to increase per-veteran spending by $411 during a similar period of their majority. It was also a Republican Congress that passed the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, which expanded eligibility for millions more veterans to access VA health care.

I point out these things to make sure my colleagues understand the historical record on veterans' issues. And in truth, Mr. Chairman, funding for our veterans has always been a bipartisan issue.

I support the bill on the floor today. It continues in the bipartisan tradition. It's not a perfect bill in my opinion, but our subcommittee has a good work product, and I'm proud of the combined efforts of Republicans and Democrats to continue the longstanding tradition of support and commitment for the men and women who have served our great country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Indiana, the former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Young).

Before I yield to my friend from Indiana, I too want to join my colleagues in commending my friend from Florida, Bill Young, and his wife, Beverly, for constantly, consistently visiting our veterans, our wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda and at veterans facilities, and for day in and day out and week in and week out and year in and year out, being as supportive of our Nation's veterans as any couple probably in the entire United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much times remains.

Clearly we are nearing the end of this general debate, and I would at this point yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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

Just in closing, the Speaker of the House just said what a happy day this is for her. It is a happy day for me and for Members on this side of the aisle also, Mr. Chairman.

Why on a bipartisan issue do we have to sound so partisan sometimes in supporting the bill?

The Speaker mentioned that veterans funding had been so neglected for the past few years. I will again point out to Members of the House, Mr. Chairman, that during the period of Republican majority, in working with our friends across the aisle and funding VA, we increased funding by 96 percent during that period, from $38.2 billion annually to $74.5 billion. And during the final decades of the Democratic majority, the increase was only half that much.

The Speaker mentioned the concurrent receipt issue. Of course it was during the speakership of Speaker Hastert that the House of Representatives enacted concurrent receipt legislation. And as a matter of fact, the previous speaker, Mr. Buyer, was the author and prime mover behind that legislation, and he deserves credit.

The point is this is a bipartisan issue. There is bipartisan support. I expect after discussion of a few amendments, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a near unanimous vote in favor of this bill. I will certainly be voting for it, as will the leadership of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding.

I would simply join my chairman in his offer to continue working with Mr. Hayes with regard to this effort. Certainly, no one has been a stronger advocate for the men and women at Fort Bragg, and also Pope Air Force Base and the families in that surrounding area, than has Robin Hayes of North Carolina.

I appreciate the sense of the amendment. I suspect that it will not pass

today, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to work with Chairman Edwards to see if we can accommodate the gentleman from North Carolina's needs as we move forward in the process.

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

Mr. Chairman, for a different perspective, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), but I would express to all of my colleagues, though, that we are receiving calls from people who have made airline plans and are hoping to get back to their districts and to their homes for Father's Day. Mindful of that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the subcommittee for their work in providing an increase over the President's request for funding base cleanup. And particularly what we're talking about here are the legacy locations, places that have been closed in previous BRAC cycles, 1995, 1993, 1991, 1988. However, as we consider this appropriations act, I am concerned that we continue to dramatically underfund our commitment to communities impacted by these past BRAC rounds.

These communities are ones that have been penalized twice. They are penalized when the base is closed, and second, they are penalized because they are unable to make use of the land left behind because of hazardous contamination caused by unexploded ordnance.

According to the most recent Defense Environmental Programs' annual report, there is an estimated $3.5 billion backlog for environmental cleanup of these bases. This represents over 140,000 acres of land that remain unusable by local communities for economic development across this country.

At the current levels, Mr. Chairman, we are facing people who went through the trauma of base closure in 1988, for instance, in Sacramento; they are going to wait over 60 years to be cleaned up.

I appreciate the words of the subcommittee Chair and ranking member

in terms of what they are trying to do with the difficult issues regarding BRAC, and I appreciate there is a very generous number that have been established, maybe not completely adequate, to try and deal with the people who were just whacked in the last round of closure. But, for heaven's sake, we need to keep our commitments to the communities that have worked in good faith, that had their bases closed 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago, and still are awaiting our meeting, our commitment to them.

I strongly urge support of the amendment that I have introduced with Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what my friend from Florida said, and I have no interest in robbing Peter to pay Paul. But let's take it down to a very specific example that you are familiar with in Jacksonville. You had a base closed, Cecil Naval Air Station, in a prior round. Under the current schedule, this facility is not scheduled to be cleaned up until 2026, another 19 years.

Now, you are right, we have put a significant amount of money into the 2005 round of BRAC closures. We put $5 billion in the supplemental. And you have put in this bill which I appreciate, almost $8.2 billion. But where I take modest exception with the gentleman is that you can't spend it. The payout rate is about 10 percent. I am seeking to transfer 2 percent away from areas that you can't spend this year or next year or the year after that.

But I will distribute a list of people who have been waiting in some cases since 1988. They have plans ready to go. They are ready to clean up. If you talk to the companies that are the ordnance contractors, they are ready to go. They will clean this up. But we have got to stop the fits and the starts, where we don't follow through on our commitments.

With all due respect, if I had a facility in the 2005 BRAC cycle, I would like this Congress to start meeting its commitments from 1988 and 1990 and 1992 and 1995, because if we don't, subsequent Congresses are going to play the

same game. Because you can't spend this $13 billion, it will be dragged on and dragged out, and it will ultimately be diverted. Then we will be here, or some of you will be here, 10 years from now, and people will be wondering why the 2005 round of BRAC is waiting, like Mather Air Force Base, for 60 years, or why people in El Toro are waiting for 30 years.

With all due respect, I would hope that the subcommittee would build on its good work, but look at the payout rate for the $13 billion you have for 2005, which we estimate maybe will be spent, 10 percent.

Join with me in shifting a modest 2 percent of that money, so that we can keep our commitments to people who have been waiting since 1988, since 1990, 1993 and 1995.

I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, and I appreciate Mr. Edwards, you have been encouraging and helping the work that I have done in the past on this with Mr. Farr. And it is important that you put $50 million in above the administrations request but I hope we can work to keep the commitment to the people.

I think I have 1\1/2\ minutes left?

Mr. Chairman, my Republican cosponsor is stuck in traffic, and I wanted Ginny to have a chance to speak on this. Evidently, she is not going to make it.

Mr. Chairman, I do think this is very important in terms of our keeping our commitments. I appreciate the work that the subcommittee is doing in this broad range of areas, but I would hope that you would work with us, because you cannot spend the $13.5 billion. The adoption of this amendment will have no effect on BRAC cleanup for the 2005 round for years to come, if at all.

But failure, failure for Congress to keep our commitments to these legacy BRAC programs, not only does it penalize these people who have been waiting in line for, in some cases, 19 years, but it makes it more likely, frankly, that people who are in the 2005 cycle are going to end up having Congress do to them what pass Congresses have done to the legacy BRAC.

I appreciate the work of the subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you, and echo my friend from California that it would be the worst of all possible worlds if somehow the next amendment, taking money away from these critical bases, was somehow diverted for another use. But I hope that we spare ourselves that problem by adopting the amendment before us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am really bitterly disappointed that we would have somebody come before us to break the commitment that we have to the previous BRAC- round cleanups, communities across the country who are going to wait up to 60 years to have their bases cleaned up, to take that funding and further reduce it. I think this is a very cruel cut.

If you wanted to do something, you've got $13 billion in the 2005 BRAC account that is only going to be spent a maximum of 10 percent. Why in heaven's name would we reach back and penalize people who have been waiting in some cases since 1988 to have the Federal Government keep its commitment to base closure and cleanup. I think this is cruel. I think it is unjustified. I think that it is unfair to make these communities that have dealt with unexploded ordnances and military toxins and have land that is not available for reuse and penalize them for a small amount of veterans health.

I respectfully request that we reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill for FY 08. My amendment would devote $2 million dollars from the Department Administration General Operations Expenses Account, of the nearly $1.6 billion appropriated in this bill, to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. The intent of my amendment is that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans would establish a commission to evaluate and make recommendations for improvements to the VA system so that it can better meet health care needs of women veterans.

In 1978, I purchased a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado to enroll at the Air Force Academy. I was in the third class that accepted women into our service academies. I am the only woman veteran serving in the Congress. Women face different obstacles than men when trying to receive care from the VA. To start with, many women who have served in the military don't call themselves ``veterans'' and many women don't think of the VA as ``their'' system.

A larger number of women are serving in military and in the future we will see a higher number of women veterans. One in seven Americans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman.

My goal in proposing this amendment is to bring together a group of people who can truly devote the time and effort to study the needs and examine the challenges our women veterans face. They then can report to Congress their finding and recommendations so that we, as a body, can evaluate these findings and implement improvements and initiatives to ensure women receive the care they have earned.

I introduced legislation similar to my amendment, H.R. 2394, the Bipartisan Commission on Wounded Women Veterans. This amendment would fund the commission envisioned in H.R. 2394.

I am grateful to all who serve their nation and we as a Congress have a responsibility to ensure they receive the best possible care. In this war on terrorism, the greatest burdens have fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. Events over the last few years have made a new generation of Americans realize just how precious our freedoms really are. We owe our freedom fighters--past, present, and future--a debt of gratitude for their selflessness and sacrifice. I will continue to fight to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our Nation owes them.

Thank you for the time and I ask for a yes vote on my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill this year.

My amendment would designate and devote $2 million from the Department of Administration general operations expenses account. This is a very large account. The President requested $1.4 billion for that account. This body is appropriating $1.6 billion for that account, and what it does is fence that money and say that $2 million of this must be devoted and appropriated to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans.

The intent of this amendment is that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans would undertake a special effort, through a task force or special commission, to study and make recommendations on the health care needs of women veterans. All of us are concerned about whether the veterans health care system is meeting the needs of this newest generation of veterans. But there is a special category of veterans that I think sometimes gets overlooked.

In 1978, I got a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the third class with women at the United States Air Force Academy. And I walked up a ramp, and over that ramp was a big sign in aluminum letters that said, ``Bring Me Men.'' That sign stayed there for 20 years after women were admitted to the Air Force Academy. It's gone now, but some of us as women veterans feel that maybe the VA hospitals have a similar sign over their doors, if not literally, then certainly figuratively.

I am the only woman veteran serving in the Congress. And women veterans face different obstacles than men and have different health care needs than men when they start to get care from the VA. To start with, many women don't even consider themselves or call themselves veterans, and they don't think of the VA as their system.

A larger number of women are serving in the military, and in the future we are going to see higher numbers of women veterans, and they will face different problems and challenges as they age. One in seven veterans of the current war on terrorism, one in seven Americans who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman, and yet the VA health care system is very oriented towards the health care needs of men.

Just let me give you one example. If you are a veteran and you go to the VA for a clinic on PTSD, if everyone else in that group is a guy, are you really getting the care that is appropriate to you? A lot of women veterans don't feel comfortable in those settings. They are not sure that the OB/GYN care is what

they need. If they face osteoporosis, they're not sure that the VA is where they should be. Or if they face problems with cancers particular to women, is the VA going to meet their needs?

My goal in proposing this amendment is to get the VA to bring together a group of people who can truly devote the time and effort needed to study the needs of women veterans and examine the care that is available to our women veterans and the challenges that we face so that they can report their findings to Congress and to the VA so that we as a body can evaluate and adjust the system so that all of our veterans get the care that they have earned.

I am very grateful, and I think all Americans are, to those who serve our Nation, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they receive the best possible care. The burdens of this war on terrorism has fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. We owe them, our veterans past, present and future, a debt of gratitude for their selflessness and for their service. We need to make sure that our veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our Nation owes them.

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

I thank my colleague for his support of this effort. I look forward to working with him to make sure that the VA undertakes this effort and takes it seriously, and we get some good, solid recommendations that all of us can work on.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here, and I enjoyed the comments of the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, and the comments of Mr. Wicker, and then I was disturbed by the comments of Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, what I would say is he didn't go back far enough. I came here in 1992, and I heard the horror stories of what was occurring in the Appropriations Committee of how individuals would cut veterans programs to fund WIC and other programs. I was deeply disturbed by that.

Then I would watch as the Clinton years would flatten VA spending. I guess the gentleman forgot about that too.

I want to associate myself with Mr. Edwards' comments and Mr. Wicker's comments because this is a bipartisan issue, and I am deeply disturbed about Mr. Obey's comments to try to rewrite history here. Some of the language, inflammatory language, that he used is deeply disturbing to me.

Now, if the gentleman wants to talk about his issues and how he feels about the war, that's one thing; but don't allow those emotions to bleed into how we care for America's veterans. That bothers me.

We talk about how we got here. I recall the movie ``Born on the 4th of July.'' What did they depict in the movie ``Born on the 4th of July''? They depicted a VA system which bothered many people here in Congress. It was then Ken Keyser who worked for the Clinton administration who then thought that the best way we could improve our VA system is to move more people into the system. They set forth the priorities, but then they opened the system to the nondisabled systems.

When we opened that, we didn't really prepare the system for the number of veterans that came into the system. When I looked back here over the last 6 years, my gosh, we have almost doubled the veterans budget.

We also, as we are coping with dealing with the influx of veterans based on eligibility reform, I almost feel like, on the Veterans' Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis, we are mechanics looking at different subsets of systems within the VA that need a tremendous amount of work.

It's easy for us to always talk about the health side, but there is such a strong disability backlog too. If it were just money, if we could just throw money on it, and that's what would solve it, Mr. Edwards, if that's what you could put in the budget, it would be solved. The reality is that's not what's going to solve it. What's going to solve it will be management practices and accountability. If we don't have that, it's not going to be solved.

The chairman of the committee is now on the floor. When he held a roundtable discussion, he learned that they were giving exams to those who are the case workers out there. When you get only 23 and 27 percent pass rate by the individuals who are actually working on these disability claims, I would say we've got a problem and we have to work cooperatively on those problems.

I want to thank the new majority. I want thank the new majority because you are different from the old majority.

The old majority, when I came here a freshman, and I was in the minority, because that old majority did things a little differently, and those weren't good budgets on behalf of veterans. But when you came now in the new majority, Mr. Edwards, I congratulate you, because you have done what you said you were going to do. I want to personally thank you for that.

But I just want you to know this, Mr. Edwards, there is much work for all of us, because it's not going to be just money alone.

When Mr. Obey brought up the issue about the funding shortfall, what I did is I went in and I began to examine the finance modeling and found the errors in the inputs in the stale data in the model, and that's how we made the corrections. So even though we put in the $1.5 billion, we only spent a third of that, and the other went for carryover.

So there's going to be a lot of management issues, and there's going to be

a lot of oversight that we going to have to continue to do. But as a baseline, let me congratulate you, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Wicker, on a very good bill.

Picking up off the comment that Mr. Edwards had made in his opening statement about management, I think you're right on point. Good management of the resources and accountability is what's essential.

So when the chairman just spoke in the well and said, well, we don't have the money, that's not entirely correct because the GAO came back in 2005 and 2006 and said, we gave them sufficient resources allocated toward mental health, but they didn't even spend around $60 million that you had already given them in those cycles.

Mr. Edwards, you worked on those budgets. So it's not just giving them the money; that was my point made earlier.

So when Mr. Filner made the comment, they don't have the money; we had given them the money, then they didn't utilize it. And so I agree with Mr. Filner when he gets his angst about how it is that you don't spend money we gave you, yet you've got waiting lines.

It goes back then to the management question about the resources in which we get them, and that's where I'd like to work with you and work with the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would note, as I listened to the Speaker speak in the well, is that when the Republicans presented their budget proposal as an alternative, we spent $8 billion more than the majority in the 10-year scope, actually in the 5-year budget plan, $8 billion more. And we did it without increasing taxes.

So what everybody needs to understand here is, yes, we are increasing money here to veterans, but these are also the very same veterans which are about to be taxed.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this amendment is either ill-conceived or politically conceived in that the Deputy Secretary is the gentleman who came to the committee to testify, and that was by agreement at the committee.

So to say that the administration sent someone who was uninformed is not a good way to address this to our colleagues.

That was by agreement of the committee, and it was the Deputy Secretary of the VA who came in and who testified, and as a matter of fact, his testimony, that I will share with all my colleagues, is that he testified just last week during the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on the SEC bonuses, at which the author of this amendment was present and he said, by statute, senior executive presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed appointees are not eligible for performance bonuses.

Did you hear that? They're not eligible for bonuses. So what we have here is, the gentleman's brought an amendment that is either redundant, multiplicitous or unnecessary.

With that, I withdraw my reservation of objection.