Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3043.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think everyone understands what the legislation is before us, and I urge adoption of the conference report.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), chairman of the Military Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

I have one remaining speaker--me.

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

First of all, Madam Speaker, I will not take the full time, but I simply want to rise to thank the staff that has helped to put these bills together: Cheryl Smith, Sue Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Teri Bergman, Andria Oliver, Beth Chaney, Rob Nabors, David Reich, Kirstin Brost, Lesley Turner, John Daniel, Christina Hamilton, Steve Crane, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Ron Anderson, all the associate staff and the staff on both sides of the aisle.

I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. Walsh. He is a good man and I think he understands these issues very thoroughly.

Having said that, I would like to spend just a few moments to talk about what this debate is really about, because, so far, it has skirted around the edges.

The fact is that last November the public sent two messages to Washington. The first is that they wanted a change in Iraqi policy and the second is that they wanted a change in priorities here at home.

The President has decided to stiff the American public and reject both of those messages. First, what he is saying to the American people is forget what message you thought you were sending in the last election. I am the great decider and we are going to do things my way. That is what is happening here.

The President isn't just stiffing the Congress when he says that he will veto any appropriation bill that departs from his budget ceiling by one dollar. He is also stiffing the American people, who made it quite clear that they thought very little of his budget and foreign policy priorities.

Since that time, since the election, the President had said ``stay the course'' in Iraq, and in addition to the gargantuan defense budget that he has asked for, he is also asking for $200 billion in additional spending just to deal with the war that he started.

He is also saying stay the course when it comes to the $60 billion we are providing this year in tax cuts for people who make a million dollars a year. But at the same time, Madam Speaker, he is saying oh, tut, tut, tut, we cannot afford to invest here at home, so he sends the Congress a budget which cuts $16 billion out of education, out of health care, out of science, out of law enforcement and other critical domestic national priorities. And then he threatens to veto any appropriation bill that departs from his great wisdom.

Well, let's walk through where this bill would be and what it would look like tonight if we had followed the President's budget advice. If this bill did what the President wanted to do in his budget, it would be cutting vocational education by 50 percent. Is there anybody on either side of the aisle who is shortsighted enough to think that is a good idea?

If we had followed his instructions, we would have eliminated every student aid program on the books except Work-Study and Pell Grants.

In the area of handicapped education, there are a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle who have made that their number one priority. They want to raise funds for special education. The President suggested we cut $300 million out of that program. Even the Republican Party objected in the House to that, and they raised the money that I had provided in the chairman's mark above the mark that we had provided, and we restored a significant amount of money to that program.

The President wanted us to cut mental health services by $100 million. He wanted us to cut funds that teach medical personnel how to deal with illness in children's hospitals by 63 percent. The President wanted us to cut rural health programs by 54 percent. He wanted us to cut the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program by 18 percent. We have rejected those cuts, and this House on a bipartisan basis provided 53 Republican votes for this bill as it left the House.

Now some people say this bill spends too much. This bill is a billion dollars less than it was when it left the House because we cut that in a concession to our minority party Members.

We have also in the bill respected a good many Republican priorities and respected a good many Republican initiatives, and in the process we have cut $1 billion.

Surely, surely at a time when we are spending $200 billion or close to it in Iraq, surely we can spend the equivalent of what we spend in Iraq in 6 weeks in order to meet high-priority domestic needs in the education, health, and job training areas.

Now our Republican friends cry newly found crocodile tears because we are also marrying this bill up with the military construction bill. Well, it seems to me if we can't agree on the advisability of the war, at least we ought to be able to agree how we feel about the warriors. And what we are doing in this bill is adding $3.5 billion for veterans health care. And we paid for it. We paid for it by making an identical reduction in the Defense appropriation bill, but that didn't suit the President. He said you have to pay for it again, and so he has issued this dictate that we pay for this increase in veterans health care twice by now going in and cutting other domestic programs by $3.5 billion. And that is why we are marrying these two bills together, because we want the public to see what the specifics are. We want the public to see what the domestic priorities are that would have to be cut if the President wants us to double pay for the bill we have already paid for in increasing veterans health care by $3.5 billion.

Now the President says he is going to veto any bill we send him, and the House Republican leadership says they already have the votes to sustain any veto the President makes. So we have a choice. We can sit here like potted palms and do nothing and supinely roll over to the President's dictation; or we can try to make it as uncomfortable as possible for him to be irresponsible and unnecessarily confrontational. And that's what we are trying to do.

We are sending these bills to the Senate because it is the right thing to do. And as the gentleman from Texas points out, when the minority says that this is an unprecedented act, that is absolute nonsense, because they did the same thing four times themselves; nary a peep from anybody on that side of the aisle then.

I would simply make one last point. We have heard the slogan ``better late than never.'' Well, last year the Republicans decided rather than being late, they chose never. And they delivered not one dollar, not one dollar in additional expenditures for veterans health care, and it fell to us after they shut this Congress down and went home without appropriating a single dollar in veterans health care. It was left to us to fix that mess and to add over $3.5 billion in new funding for veterans. We did it last year. We are doing it again this year. We have made it our number one priority.

But that isn't what the boys and the girls on the other side of the aisle want to talk about. They want to obscure a few facts. And here they are:

In health care, the President cut funding for the primary Federal agencies responsible for increasing health care access in this country. This conference report rejects those cuts and provides $1.5 billion above the President's request to provide programs to improve health care access for the millions of Americans that don't have it. We do that at the cost of 5 days of what we spend in Iraq.

On education, the President cut funding for the Department of Education by $1.2 billion. This conference report rejects those cuts. We invest $4.5 billion above the President's request to the Department of Education, roughly the cost of 2 weeks in Iraq. And by doing that, we provide strong increases for Pell Grants, Head Start and various other education programs.

In job training, the President cut the largest job training in vocational education programs by $1.2 billion. This conference report rejects those cuts and invests $1.3 billion above the President's request, roughly the cost of 4 days of the war in Iraq.

In medical research, the President cut funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health by $480 million. I have never had anybody in my life come to me and say, ``Obey, why don't you guys in Washington get together and cut cancer research.'' But that's what the previous Congress did in each of the last 2 years. They cut 1,100 grants out of the National Institutes of Health with the complicity of this President. We are saying no way. Let's have an end to that nonsense. We reject those cuts. We invest $1.4 billion above the President's request, roughly the cost of 3 days of fighting in Iraq.

For economic development, in helping to alleviate poverty, the President slashed those programs by over a billion dollars. We rejected those cuts, costing roughly 4 days of what we spend in Iraq.

Lastly, the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. The President comes from an oil State. He knows energy prices have skyrocketed, but he has cut LIHEAP by $380 million in his budget. We have rejected those cuts and invested $630 million more than the President's request, roughly the cost of 2 days of activity in Iraq.

So we are left with this. We are left with two arguments. We hear some of our Republican friends say we are going to vote ``no,'' we are going to vote against the Labor-Health-Education bill because we don't like the fact that the bill also contains the veterans funding. And we hear others say we are going to vote ``no'' on the Military Construction bill because we don't like the fact that it contains too much for education and health. Those are two beauties as reasons for voting against this bill.

I want to see whether the minority party Members of this House, I want to see whether they are going to be following the wishes of their constituents or whether they have their votes tied once again lock, stock and barrel to the President's desk. I want to see if they came here to represent their constituents or be another set of lemmings jumping off the cliff once again for this President. We will find out on that vote tonight. I hope we see the right vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my chairman, Mr. Obey, for the hard work, the energy and the thought that went into this bill, and both the minority and the majority staff for the hard work that they did in preparing us for the culmination of this work.

But I have to say, Madam Speaker, as someone who supported both of these bills that are contained in this conference report before us, I must admit to no small measure of frustration and disappointment with respect to where we stand today. I'm disappointed because this exercise embodies what is wrong with Washington.

By lancing these two bills together, we ensure a Presidential veto of both. By combining these bills, it makes certain that neither will advance in a timely fashion. And tying them together guarantees that we will further delay vital and noncontroversial spending for our veterans; funding to provide our wounded warriors needed health care; funding to reduce the backlog in the processing of claims benefits; and funding to invest in our veterans hospitals and defense facilities, both here at home and abroad.

I've said over and over, I can't figure out how anyone thinks that holding the veterans funding, which we all support, hostage to a bill that is going to be vetoed is good public policy. The fact is, everyone knows it's not good

public policy; and, frankly, it's not even good politics. As former Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young asked, Give me one good government reason why joining these two bills makes sense.

I supported both the Labor-HHS and the Military Construction-Veterans Appropriations bills when they came to the House earlier this year. I think they're both good bills, and they're both well designed by the chairmen and the ranking members.

Chairman Obey and I have worked shoulder to shoulder on the Labor-HHS bill for several months now, and I am satisfied with this bill as it has been produced over the last several weeks. I think it is a fair compromise. Knowing the President is not going to sign the bill, I am optimistic that he will negotiate with us in good faith in the coming weeks so that we can produce a final product that he can sign and we can pass that preserves the important bipartisan priorities this legislation seeks to address.

I am incredibly disappointed that leaders of this committee have been forced to yield to the political whims and flippant strategies of party leaders advancing this needless game of partisan one-upmanship.

Appropriations has always been a committee of principle, a committee of good governance. Appropriators have traditionally cast aside politics for policy. Tonight, Madam Speaker, this committee has become the primary sponsor of a partisan stand-off, and that's a shame.

My constituents sent me here to develop good policy. They sent me here to do the right thing. And the fact is that delaying vital funding for our veterans is not the right thing.

I regret that we're here discussing this. I regret that we haven't seen the Military Construction-Veterans bill go to the White House. It's a bill that could have been sent a month ago.

If the Senate sends the Labor-HHS bill back to us as a stand-alone conference report, I will vote for it. As importantly, I will be among the first to vote for a stand-alone Military Construction-Veterans conference report as soon as the House decides to appoint conferees, but the process that has been used to bring us to this point leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in an attempt to set the record straight with respect to recent history of funding for these important veterans programs. Certain speakers over the past several days have made statements that have, in the least, inferred that the manner in which we are being asked to vote for the veterans portion of this package before us is consistent with past practice. This is simply not the case.

The facts of the matter are these: In 7 of 12 years of previous Republican control, funding for veterans was approved in stand-alone bills. In five of those cases, the conference report containing veterans funding was approved in September or October. In one case, the conference report was approved on November 8, and another was approved on November 18.

In 4 of the remaining 5 years, veterans funding was included in multiple omnibus bills. But in all but one of these cases, the House had approved the stand-alone veterans bill. In all but two cases, the Senate passed a stand-alone bill. In one case, fiscal year 2003, the election year in which the Senate switched its majority, neither body approved a stand-alone bill.

In every one of these 4 years, the omnibus bill that was finally approved was both fiscally responsible and negotiated openly by the House and the Senate bodies with full awareness and agreement of the executive branch. In the final circumstance, last year, the House approved a veterans bill before the beginning of the fiscal year and waited until the day before Congress adjourned for the Senate to appoint conferees.

Unfortunately, such appointment occurred too late to act. As we saw, when we had the majority in the House, there was a tremendous amount of frustration with the other body in closing some of these conferences out. I suspect my good friends on the other side of the aisle are experiencing similar frustration this evening.

Although funding for our veterans has found its way to these deserving Americans in more than one manner, the real point here is that not once in the past 12 years or even before that, as far as I am aware, has such funding for veterans been placed in jeopardy in the manner that it is being placed tonight. Never has it been paired with a bill that everyone is certain will be vetoed. Never has it been used as a pawn to force the President to choose veterans over other programs, no matter how important they may be.

Madam Speaker, as many of my friends are wont to say, people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. In the debate regarding the funding for our veterans, it is particularly important that the facts are not distorted for political purposes.

Veterans Funding History Under Republican Congresses

FY 1996: Stand alone VA-HUD conference report passed in

December. Subsequently vetoed, and wrapped into an Omnibus

which passed the following Spring (4/25/96). House passed

conference report 12/7/95. Senate passed conference report

12/14/95. President vetoed conference report 12/18/95.

Enacted as part of the Omnibus 4/25/96.

FY 1997: Stand alone VA-HUD conference report enacted

before the end of the fiscal year (9/26/06). House passed

conference report 9/24/96. Senate passed conference report 9/

25/96. President signed conference report 9/26/96.

FY 1998: Stand alone VA-HUD conference report enacted in

October (10/27/97). House passed conference report 10/8/97.

Senate passed conference report 10/9/97. President signed

conference report 10/27/97.

FY 1999: Stand alone VA-HUD conference report enacted in

October (10/21/98). House passed conference report 10/6/98.

Senate passed conference report 10/8/98. President signed

conference report 10/21/98.

FY 2000: Stand alone VA-HUD conference report enacted in

October (10/20/99). House passed conference report 10/14/99.

Senate passed conference report 10/15/99. President signed

conference report 10/20/99.

FY 2001: VA-HUD conference report enacted in October with

the Energy and Water attached (10/27/00). Energy and Water

conference was previously vetoed and the revised E&W

agreement was included within the VA-HUD conference

agreement. House passed conference report 10/19/00. Senate

passed conference report 10/19/00. President signed

conference report 10/27/00.

FY 2002: Stand alone VA-HUD conference report enacted in

November (11/26/01). House passed conference report 11/8/01.

Senate passed conference report 11/8/01. President signed

conference report 11/26/01.

FY 2003: Neither the House nor Senate passed a VA-HUD bill

(nor did they pass 9 other appropriations bills). This was

the year the Senate changed parties in the 2002 election. The

omnibus which was enacted in February 2003 contained 11 of

the 13 appropriations bills. House passed omnibus conference

report 2/13/03. Senate passed omnibus conference report 2/13/

03. President signed omnibus conference report 2/13/03.

FY 2004: Senate did not pass the VA-HUD bill until November

18, 2003. The bill was wrapped into an omnibus conference

report which was filed one week after Senate passage (11/25/

03) that included 7 of 13 appropriations bills.

The House passed the omnibus in December (12/8/03), however

a filibuster in the Senate delayed passage of the omnibus

conference report until January (1/22/04) and the omnibus was

enacted the next day (1/23/04). House passed omnibus

conference report 12/08/03. Senate passed omnibus conference

report 1/22/04. President signed omnibus conference report 1/

23/04.

FY 2005: Senate never passed the VA-HUD bill. The bill was

wrapped into an omnibus which contained 9 of the 13

appropriations bills. The omnibus conference report was

enacted in December (12/8/04). House passed omnibus

conference report 11/20/04. Senate passed omnibus conference

report 11/20/04. President signed omnibus conference report

12/08/04.

FY 2006: Stand alone Military Quality of Life-VA conference

report enacted in November (11/30/05). House passed

conference report 11/18/05. Senate passed conference report

11/18/05. President signed conference report 11/30/06.

FY 2007: Senate did not pass the Military Quality of Life-

VA bill until November (11/14/06) and did not appoint

conferees until December (12/06/06) due to objections over

earmarks. The bill was wrapped into an omnibus continuing

resolution enacted in February 2007 (2/15/07) which contained

9 of the 11 appropriations bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself just a few brief moments, but first I would like to ask the chairman if he has any additional speakers.

In that case I will wrap up.

I would just like to express to my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Committee, that I envy him the ability to say tonight that he has provided, his subcommittee bill has provided, the greatest increase in the history of veterans spending, because I was able to do that four times myself, and it is a great feeling. It is a credit to the subcommittee.

I do believe that is a good bill. I think it is just really unfortunate that we had to put these two bills together and put them both at risk.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I commend Chairman Obey for his leadership of the Appropriations Committee, particularly on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee on which I had the privilege to serve for a number of years. I commend the chairman of the Veterans Quality of Life Subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's veterans.

Everyone who wants to honor our promises to our veterans, everyone who salutes their service to our country owes a deep debt of gratitude to you, Mr. Edwards, for your extraordinary leadership.

Madam Speaker, our national budget should be a statement of our national values. The legislation that we debate here today invests in America's correct priorities. It includes the largest increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, and potentially life-saving biomedical research, and it does it all in a fiscally sound way.

Madam Speaker, I have a long speech this evening. But in the interest of time, I am going to submit it for the Record and just say two things, because the main focus of this legislation is on our veterans and the other is on the investments made by the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee.

In the military, it is said that we leave no soldier behind on the battlefield, and when they come home, we promise here in this House that we will leave no veteran behind. This legislation fulfills that promise to our veterans. The President has said that he will perhaps veto this bill. I hope that he will have a change of heart and a change of mind in that regard because those who care about our veterans, and I believe that includes everyone, I know everyone in this Chamber and in the Senate, in the Congress and in the country wants them to have what they have earned and what they deserve.

In terms of the other aspects of the bill, I bring to the floor some deep concerns about the priorities that the President is criticizing in this bill. The President says he will veto any bill that is $1 more than what he has asked for in his budget. In this bill, we have $1.4 billion more for the National Institutes of Health. That isn't even enough to meet their needs, to meet the requests for grants that they have in any responsible way. But it is $1.4 billion more than what the President requests. And I can't help but juxtaposition the war in Iraq with this budget today. In the war in Iraq, we spend about 10, $12 billion a month, some of it unaccounted for, some of it in no-bid contracts, some of it in no-performance contracts, some of it the money has just disappeared. Democrats, in taking over the majority, have tried to hold the administration accountable. What we are finding is that it is hard to find some of that money. At the same time, consider this. As the President is spending 10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq, we spend 5 billion, $5\1/2\ billion a year on cancer research.

In America, 550,000 people die of cancer each year. That doesn't count those who are diagnosed, those who are suffering with; I am just talking about 550,000 people who die of cancer. Wouldn't it be better for us to invest more money? Say we doubled the biomedical research for cancer research from $5.5 billion to $10 billion or $11 billion in a year. Think of the return that that could be in scientific advancement. We know the scientific opportunity is there.

The heads of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, all the entities of government that deal with the health of the American people want more investments in their budgets; and yet their boss, the President of the United States, who has appointed them, has dismissed their professional judgment on these issues, and not only failed to fund, but threatened to veto if we in Congress try to meet those needs.

Across America, almost every family, certainly probably every family in this body, has been affected by cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, you name it, the list goes on, all of which would benefit by a bigger, more robust investment in basic biomedical research in the budget of the National Institutes of Health. So that is why this bill is so important, because it directly relates to health and well-being of the American people and it directly relates to our national security and how we honor our commitment and our promises to our veterans.

I wish the President were here, and I wish the rules of this House would allow us to address him directly because it's a mystery to me and I wonder how anyone who might consider our national budget a statement of our national values could possibly say that although I know that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are dying of cancer, and although I know that scientific opportunity exists that we are ignoring. We have a moral responsibility to fund that opportunity, that scientific opportunity, but which we are ignoring by the President's call for a veto. How do you justify that?

So, my colleagues, I think it is really important that we send a message to the President in the only way that the rules allow us to do in this House, and that is to send it with this bill to the President's desk with a very, very strong vote, a vote for the health and well- being of the American people. How do you explain to your constituents that we cannot afford to find cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, as I said, and the list goes on, but we can afford to spend $1 trillion in Iraq, much of it unaccounted for, and do that all at the same time?

I urge my colleagues to think about your friends, think about your neighbors, think about your families, think about your own responsibility to a healthy America when you make this vote, because you can make all the difference in the world. I think that we should vote as if the lives of our constituents depended upon this vote, because they certainly do. With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation and once again commend the presenters of this legislation for their great leadership.

Our budget is a statement of our values.

The legislation we debate today invests in American priorities: it includes the largest increase in veterans spending in the 77-year history of the VA, and potentially lifesaving medical research, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way.

These bills have passed the House and Senate with the strong bipartisan majorities they deserve.

The President has said he will veto these bills. But allow me to make the case that these are investments that are necessary and right.

The Labor-HHS spending bill has been historically called the ``People's Bill.'' It is where Congress addresses the aspirations of the American people: the economic security of their families, the health and well being of their families, and the education of their children.

Today, this bill is once again the ``People's Bill.''

This is because it makes crucial investments in the health of all Americans: every dollar spent on NIH research is returned to us manifold: in improved quality of life and millions of lives saved.

We should be proud that NIH supported researchers have made the United States the world leader in biomedical and behavioral research, creating thousands of jobs and new businesses in the process.

But in order to build upon past scientific achievements, address current medical needs, and anticipate future health challenges, we must make investments today.

We stand today on the precipice of countless scientific breakthroughs. For example, mapping of the human genome has greatly advanced our knowledge about the links between genetics and diseases.

Scientists are working right now to identify genetic changes that increase and decrease risk for cancer, to determine patterns of protein markers for very early detection of cancer, and to better treat and cure the disease.

By funding these critical investments, we can declare a national war on cancer--a disease that kills 550,000 Americans a year.

In my hometown, NIH is funding cutting edge research at the San Francisco VA Medical Center on the health of our veterans. Right now, scientists are breaking new ground in the diagnosis, prevention and management of disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries that result from combat.

No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation than those who serve in the Armed Forces. From the bitter cold winter at Valley Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously answered when called, gone where ordered, and defended our Nation with honor. They have done everything asked of them.

How we repay that service speaks volumes about our national character.

I want to thank all of our veterans and military service organizations who have long advocated for the funding contained in this bill.

I also want to thank Chairman Spratt, Chairman Obey, and Chairman Edwards for their leadership and their dedication to those who have worn our Nation's uniform.

This bill provides $6.6 billion more than last year and $3.7 billion more than the President's budget. These are dollars well-invested.

For example in this bill:

We provide quality healthcare to 5.8 million America veterans, including 263,000 who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We ensure that the veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan--one third of whom will be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and 300,000 who are expected to suffer from Traumatic Brain Injury--get the best treatment possible. We will ensure the poly-trauma centers and Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and PTSD are fully operational.

For our veterans living in rural areas, this bill will increase the travel reimbursement rates for those who travel long distances to the nearest VA facility.

These benefits have been earned. These are the benefits our veterans deserve.

Madam Speaker, on this coming Monday, our Nation will honor its veterans with Veterans Day. But in this body, every day should be Veterans Day. On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let it be our promise that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.

Today, we are delivering on that promise.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.

The conference report includes funding for many important programs and I recognize that the conferees had a challenging task in shaping the report because of budget constraints. Overall, I think the report is a good one and I hope that the President will change his mind and sign it.

This conference report funds our military construction needs and keeps our commitment to veterans, with the largest single funding increase in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report provides needed funding for veterans' medical care--both for VA hospitals and clinics as well as for research into conditions such as Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, both of which are common problems facing Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The report also includes funding to provide 1800 new claims processors to address the 400,000 benefit claims backlog.

I am pleased that key funding for Colorado installations and facilities has also been included in this report.

The report includes $7.3 million for a new F-16 facility for the 140th Air Wing of the Colorado Air National Guard at Buckley Air Force Base (AFB). I led the Colorado delegation this year in securing this funding, which will help the Guard replace an outdated facility that can no longer provide proper security and communications to support one of its key missions--to fly F-16s in support of homeland defense. The soldiers and airmen of the Colorado National Guard who are activated and deployed to support our homeland defense deserve this safe and modern facility.

The report also includes $61.3 million for the Fitzsimons Veterans Hospital, another key priority for the Colorado delegation. The funding will enable construction to begin on the facility's parking structure and energy plant. Denver's current Veterans Hospital is fifty years old, is at full capacity and does not meet the needs of our veterans. As Colorado's service members continue to be placed in harm's way, it is essential that we be prepared to meet their needs when they return home. This funding will put us on a path toward making the new campus at Fitzsimons a reality.

The conference report also includes an amendment, passed overwhelmingly in the House in June and later passed in the Senate, that prohibits the Pentagon from taking the first steps toward expanding the Army's Pinon Canyon training site.

After meeting with community members in La Junta and Trinidad in September, it is even more clear to me that the Pentagon has failed to convince Coloradans of a pressing military need for the Army to acquire an additional 418,000 acres at this particular location. I hope the Army hears the strong message Congress is delivering today that we will ensure that the livelihoods and property of Colorado citizens are respected and protected.

Another key provision for southern Colorado is the inclusion of $35.1 million for the construction of on-site chemical destruction facilities at the Pueblo Chemical Depot.

We need to continue to do all we can to safely and expeditiously remove the mustard agent remaining at the Pueblo depot. The sooner we clean up these weapons, the sooner the surrounding communities will be safe--and a clean-up by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty deadline of 2012 will come at a lower cost to taxpayers.

The conference report also includes nearly $170 million to support Fort Carson as it expands because of the stationing of two new brigades and the new headquarters of the Fourth Infantry Division. This includes $53 million for new barracks; $18 million for an addition to Evans Army Hospital and a dental clinic; $8.3 million for a Defense Access Road to allow personnel and equipment to deploy easily from Peterson Air Force Base; $4.9 million for a new indoor range; $72 million for new unit operation facilities; and $13.5 million for construction of new facility support operations for the 13th Air Support Operations Squadron.

The conference report also includes $24.5 million for an Air and Space Integration Facility at Schriever Air Force Base and $15 million to upgrade academic facilities at the Air Force Academy.

This conference report also provides funding for the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the most vital agencies in our government. This report will increase funding by $4.4 billion over the fiscal year 2007 budget--a 6.9 percent increase and one that I strongly support. This funding will be important both to Colorado and to our country.

This report provides funding for a broad range of important projects, from increasing funding for essential research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to increasing health care access in rural areas. I strongly support include the 3.8 percent increase in funding for the NIH. This increase will be pivotal in jump starting a reinvestment in important medical discoveries.

Included in the report is important funding for Children's Hospital of Denver. Funding obtained to build the North Campus Ambulatory Surgery Center will broaden access to pediatric care in the north Denver metro area. This new development will also add more convenient alternative to patients, families, pediatricians, and physicians while also decreasing the burden on other health centers in the Denver metro area.

Making our health care system safe and more efficient is a goal of this Congress and I am happy to announce that Avista Hospital will contribute to that goal. Avista has been a leader in the Electronic Medical Record field and will continue to implement a cutting edge system thanks to funding included in the report.

The report provides for increases in the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which will fund important public health programs such as children's immunizations, environmental health and cervical and breast cancer screenings.

Our nation's youth are our greatest resource, and we must do all that we can to prepare them to lead our country in future years. This report would provide very important funding for the Department of Education to further the education of our children.

I supported the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001 because we need to create higher academic standards and accountability in our education system and close the so-called achievement gap in this country. However, NCLB has been underfunded since it was first passed, meaning that local school districts do not have the resources available to try to meet these new standards. This report takes a step in the right direction by increasing funding for NCLB over both the fiscal year 2007 budget and the President's request. I am also pleased to see increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). IDEA provides resources to meet the unique challenges in educating children with disabilities.

In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, higher education is more important than it has ever been. Yet skyrocketing tuitions are making college education increasingly difficult for many students and families to afford. Just a few weeks ago, the College Board announced that the average tuition at four-year schools in my home state of Colorado had increased 16 percent from last year. Pell Grants are one important and effective way that the federal government helps students and families afford college. The conference report will increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,925.

I am encouraged that the report includes an increase in funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is a critical program that helps many Colorado families, who are struggling to get by, avoid having to make choices between paying their heating bill and putting food on the table. The conference report will increase funding for this program by $250 million over the fiscal year 2007 budget.

I am pleased the labor provisions of this report reflect a new direction and commitment to

expanding job training and enhancing the safety of workers, by increasing funding for a number of employment, education, and protection programs for the American workforce.

With that said, I am disappointed the conference report does not include my amendment to increase the funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The board plays a vital role in labor- management relations. While funding is not the only problem that faces the NLRB I am concerned that without the additional funding, there is a danger they will have to layoff some of their staff in order to pay for their required overhead, including salaries.

The funding for programs included in this report is a cause for celebration, not a veto. The President suggested underfunding for many of these programs and has threatened to veto the report in its current form. I request that the President reconsider his veto threat and sign this conference report.

In summary, Madam Speaker, this is a good report that provides funding for many important purposes. It is good for Colorado and good for the country, and it deserves approval.

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the very distinguished chairman of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, I've got to say that I was somewhat saddened at this constant finger-pointing: the Republicans did this in 1996 and we didn't know how to run the place and we didn't provide the funding that was necessary for veterans and all of this sort of stuff and we were late in doing these things.

The fascinating thing about this is that there's this brilliant document that came forward during last fall's campaign, and it was unveiled by the new Speaker of the House. It was called ``A New Direction for America.'' And in it, it talked about this new spirit of openness, the fact that we would have transparency and disclosure and accountability, the likes of which we had not seen in a long time, if ever.

Madam Speaker, I will tell you that we all know that we've gotten the exact opposite of that. I unveiled a few weeks ago, along with my colleagues Mr. Hastings, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Sessions, an outline of what has happened in this year.

Well, this process that we're dealing with at this very moment is an example of the kind of arrogance that we have seen in trying to utilize veterans as a political pawn.

Now, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), quoted the veterans publication in which they said very clearly, we can do something that will ensure that the resources necessary for our Nation's veterans are there. We can pass in a bipartisan way a military quality of life appropriations conference report. We can get it through both Houses of Congress, and we can get it to the President of the United States. And then we will have, albeit late, we will have been able to get the funding that is necessary.

Now, Madam Speaker, I don't believe that there are Members of this institution who actually want to deprive our Nation's courageous veterans from having access to the quality health care and the other items that they need to have to address their concerns. I don't believe that anybody sincerely wants to do that.

But I will tell you this, we know full well that there has been game- playing in this process. In fact, all one needs to do is look at the rule. We know that rule XVIII in the Senate basically says that you cannot link up two appropriation bills. It's a scope violation, and it can't be done.

Madam Speaker, on October 31, 44 Members of the United States Senate signed a letter, and I'd like to include this letter in the Record at this point.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, October 31, 2007.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Majority Leader Harry Reid,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid: We write this

letter to request that federal funding for our nation's

troops and veterans not be further delayed and held hostage

for partisan purposes. Congress must promptly complete its

work on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Military Construction-

Veterans Affairs (MilCon-VA) and Defense appropriations

bills, and they should be sent to the President's desk as

freestanding measures by Veterans Day.

It has been nearly two months since both Houses passed

their respective FY 2008 MilCon-VA appropriations bills, and

nearly one month has gone by since both chambers approved

their FY 2008 Defense appropriations bills. Plenty of time

has passed for these measures to go through conference and

get signed into law. Yet to date, this Congress has still not

sent a single appropriations bill to the President--a failure

of accomplishment that has not happened in decades.

Meanwhile, our brave soldiers are defending us overseas,

taking the fight to the terrorists, and keeping our nation

safe. Veterans continue waiting for increased funding, which

the President already has signaled that he would approve and

will lead to improved medical care and other benefits.

Swift action on the MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations

bills is not only fitting with Veterans Day coming in less

than two weeks, but it also is one of our highest

responsibilities as lawmakers. Our soldiers and veterans

already have done so much for our country. The Democratic

Congressional Leadership should not now cynically use them to

shoulder a bloated ``minibus'' funding bill up Pennsylvania

Avenue and wrest billions in excessive spending. Leading

veterans groups have expressed strong concerns about such an

approach. For months, the President has said that he would

oppose it.

Our troops and veterans cannot afford unnecessary delay,

and they rightfully expect Congress to put their interests

ahead of politics. It therefore is irresponsible to attach VA

and military funding measures onto a domestic spending bill

which we know will get vetoed. Instead, we urge you to work

with us in a bipartisan manner so we can quickly advance

freestanding MilCon-VA and Defense appropriations bills for

the President's signature.

It was addressed to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, and in it they said that they were not going to

stand for this attempt to play politics, partisan politics, with funding for our Nation's veterans.

And so we all know what is going to happen if this measure passes out of this House. The Senate has the ability and 44 Members have signed this letter saying that they are going to, in fact, raise a point of order to prevent it from proceeding.

Now, it was 2 months ago today, Madam Speaker, 2 months ago today that the Senate passed this appropriation bill; and, unfortunately, the attempt to get the resources necessary for our veterans is, in fact, being denied. I think that it is absolutely reprehensible that we would use them to try and pass a bill that we know the President of the United States has said he's going to veto.

So I suspect that just as we went through this debate on the State Children's Health Insurance Program measure, there will be some that say Republicans are voting against providing resources for our Nation's veterans, and it's the power of the majority here in the House. They can fashion things in such a way that that, in fact, can be described. They can characterize the vote that way.

The veterans of this country aren't going to buy it. The American people aren't going to buy it. They know that games are being played with this very important funding measure.

Madam Speaker, it is essential that we defeat this rule, make sure that we get a clean appropriation bill for our veterans to the President's desk just as expeditiously as possible.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I was very sorry that my friend from Fort Lauderdale wouldn't yield to me, and I would be happy to yield to him in a moment as I respond to the statement that he made just when I completed mine.

He said that I was responsible for leaving 11 appropriations bills on the floor. He said that he got a lecture.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Well, I had just completed my statement, Madam Speaker, and the gentleman said getting lectures from people, and I'd given a 5- or 6-minute statement. So I don't know, maybe it was an exaggeration for me to infer that the gentleman was referring to what I said when, in fact, I had served on the Rules Committee in a leadership position in the past several Congresses. So maybe I was wrong in interpreting that he was referring to my statement.

But, Madam Speaker, let me say this: we know that the House of Representatives did, in fact, pass out those appropriations bills. We worked in a bipartisan way to make that happen. We had a friendly exchange with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations in which we characterized the Senate as the enemy and the other party as merely the opposition.

The fact of the matter is we've had a real challenge in dealing with the Senate. We know that as we look at this measure we, in past Congresses, have, in fact, been successful at passing measures out of the House of Representatives.

And I will say again that my friend referred to these lectures when, in fact, I began my remarks by pointing to the fact that we were promised a new day, and the fact is we're getting much, much worse. We're getting much worse than the behavior and the performance that my friend complained about of the past.

So, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that playing politics with our Nation's veterans is exactly what we're going through right now, and I think it's a very sad commentary. And I am gratified, I'm very gratified, that our Nation's veterans organizations are recognizing exactly what's happening, and I thank my friend for yielding.