Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment changes the application of existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment changes the application of existing law. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentlemen has asserted this point of order and put the House in this position. The budget resolution which the body adopted this week included a $50 billion bridge fund for the war. In this bill, we use the $507 million from that fund to pay for urgent war-related military construction projects. This leaves the remaining $49.3 billion for the Defense Subcommittee to allocate to other war-related expenditures. Every single one of these projects directly supports the war on terror. And every single one of them was included in the Defense Authorization Act that the House passed nearly unanimously last week. These projects support specialized urban warfare training, mobilization of critical assets in the gulf region, and the easing of troop rotations abroad. Mr. Chairman, what arises here is the Rules Committee did not protect that designation of emergency funding, and I regret that. But I greatly regret that the gentleman from Texas has raised this point of order. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not understand that we are at war? Does he not understand that we have people in harm's way across the entire southern tier of Asia, that are being fired upon as we speak; that these funds are essential to fight the global war on terror, to bring democracy to these scattered points around the world, that these are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are in dire need of this support, of these expenditures? There is a fiscal point to be made here, a principle to be expressed here. I understand that. But if an emergency situation is not described by a Nation at war, I do not know what determines what an emergency is. These funds are essential. The battles that our men and women are fighting in Fallujah, in Bayji and Tikrit and Tal Afar and across Afghanistan are supported by the training that they receive here in the United States, the urban warfare training. Their familiarity with the weapons that they use, the weapons systems that they use, the familiarity with each other, that is essential to unit cohesion. These funds, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, are essential to our war effort. I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his point of order, support the body of the bill, let us go forward with these essential funds that ensure the quality of life and the health and welfare of our fighting men and women across the globe.

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support on this, and for the allocation we received. This is a tremendous blow to our effort to pass this bill that provides for the military quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines who are in harm's way. Clearly, this builds the bases and the training facilities that they need to fight this incredibly difficult and dangerous war.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I don't know whether this will be the last word, but I hope it is, because enough has been said. Mr. Chairman, I have made every effort throughout the process of constructing this bill to reach across the aisle and to do this in a bipartisan way, not only because I believe that is the way we should operate here, but because on a bill of this importance that involves our national security and the health and well-being of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, we need to be bipartisan, and I am afraid because of the tenor of this debate that the vote, in the end, will not be. I don't know. I can't predict the outcome. I do have to say, I very much regret the process fight that we had on our side of the aisle. I strongly disagree with my colleagues who chose this bill to make their fight over earmark reform. Every earmark in this bill is authorized. That is the process that we follow. I also deeply regret that Members on the other side of the aisle chose to make this their political fight, to make their political points about tax cuts and revenues and to make it a partisan bill. This is not a partisan bill. It should not be a partisan bill. So I feel badly that the tenor of the debate was not about the strength of our military and the importance of their mission, but it was about process and politics. In my mind, on this bill, there is no place for either. Our commitment is to our troops, to their lives, to their families and to our veterans, and I hope that both sides, now that the debate is over, will close ranks, stand shoulder to shoulder and send our troops a very, very clear signal that we support them, we support their mission, and that we support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a unanimous vote on this very important subcommittee appropriations bill.