Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I am proud to present the Fiscal Year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for consideration of the House. The Appropriations Committee has dedicated to providing a suitable quality of life for our servicemen and women from recruitment through retirement. I believe this bill is fiscally responsible, while improving the quality of life for our all-volunteer force throughout their military careers and beyond. It also builds upon initiatives begun last year to get the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs to be more cooperative and expand synergies that exist between them. The bill totals $136.1 billion. It stays within our discretionary allocation of $94.7 billion, which is $824 million below the budget request. But, more importantly, the bill is $8.5 billion over last year's level after adjusting VA medical services for contingency funding. The increases above last year are in four areas: veterans medical care, active duty military medical care, housing allowances for military families, and the first year of major construction for the new BRAC round recommendations. Mr. Chairman, the bill continues to improve military health care and recommends $21 billion for fiscal year 2007 for the defense health program. This is a sizeable increase of $1 billion above last year's level and represents more than a 40 percent increase in this budget since fiscal year 2003. For veterans medical care, the bill recommends $25.4 billion, a $2.9 billion increase, or 12.7 percent, over last year's level. This program has increased $7.6 billion, or 43 percent, since 2004. I do not know what could speak more for the priorities of this House or this Congress or our committee than this commitment to our Nation's veterans. For military construction, including funding to support the global war on terrorism, the bill provides $16.3 billion. The remainder of the bill funds a variety of defense programs and four related agencies, most of which are funded at the budget request. I would like to mention that an additional $40 million in funding is recommended for two programs to accelerate environmental clean-up at formerly used defense sites and closed installations dating back to the 1988 BRAC round. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to make sure the limited resources we have are spent efficiently and effectively and that programs achieve their mission. We are, after all, at war; and we need to make sure that our current active duty personnel understand that the commitments to our former warfighters are kept. If we keep our promises to our former warfighters. We will keep our promises to those who are fighting today. This bill accomplishes that, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Lewis, for his vision and leadership and for the allocation that he has provided our subcommittee, probably the most generous of all of the subcommittee allocations. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank sincerely my ranking member and colleague and friend, Mr. Edwards of Texas, for his hard work. He knows these issues cold. He is a good collaborator, a good person to work with. I respect his thoughts, I respect his work ethic, and I think this is a product of both of our vision. I would also like to thank Mr. Obey, as ranking member of the full committee, for working with us throughout this process. While we may have some differences, I think overall clearly this is a bipartisan bill that expresses the views of this House that our veterans and our active duty service personnel are our highest priority. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY06.008 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I would like to do is ask, if there is no objection of my colleague from Texas, I have two brief colloquies that I would like to enter into with two of my colleagues. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would yield for the purpose of colloquy 2 minutes to Mr. Wicker of Mississippi, a member of the committee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time. While the funds may not be spent this year, they will be spent. They are needed to implement this BRAC round. We learned from the last BRAC round that if we delay the initial investment, it costs far more in the long run to implement these BRACs. I remind the gentleman again that he voted against the measure that would have delayed the implementation of the 2005 BRAC round, which is exactly what this amendment would do. Additionally, any delay in implementing BRAC reduces the savings and the efficiency of the BRAC that it is designated to promote. It may also cause the same types of environmental restoration problems at these current BRAC sites that we are experiencing from these past BRAC rounds. For that reason I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank her for expressing her concern on this very important issue. This is a priority of the highest order for our subcommittee. We take it very seriously. As you heard Mr. Edwards say, we have moved on this issue in a number of ways. So I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I agree with her on the need for the increased mental health screening and appreciate her intention in raising this issue. I want to assure her that we will be mindful of this issue as we move this bill forward.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, while I certainly understand the intent of the gentleman's amendment and the sincerity with which he brings it, we can't accept this offset. I understand the problem, and the subcommittee has included an increase of $40 million for formerly used defense sites in the 1990 BRAC Round. Additionally, we have included report language directing the Department of Defense to place a larger emphasis on these sites in future budgets. It is a problem. Clearly, it is a problem. Mr. Farr, Mr. Blumenauer, to their credit, have raised this issue. We are all concerned about it and we are moving on it. But, this is a bad way to go about it, and here is the reason. The gentleman's amendment would cut funds for the implementation of new BRAC rounds by $440 million to get $77 million. And the problem is the rate at which these funds are outlaid. Clearly, if we took the $440 million out of the 2005 BRAC, that would further delay implementation of the BRAC, which would lead to problems just like this in the out years. If we use the $440 million, it gets us $77 million for these FUD sites, but it leaves $363 million on the table that cannot, will not, won't be used by the Department.

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

Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to yield.

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

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

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on getting this rule together and also to Chairman Dreier and the members of the Rules Committee for their help and support. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we can be very proud of. After all, we are a Nation at war, and the way we treat our veterans of past wars is a very clear signal to our current active duty people as to how they will be treated in the future. And the commitments we have made in the past are being met in this bill. One of the key issues always in the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill is veterans' medical care, the Veterans Health Administration. We have provided almost a 13 percent increase in veterans' medical care in this bill, a remarkable increase, although consistent with the last 6 or 7 years where we have dramatically ramped up funding. No other budget within the Federal Government's entire purview has received the increases that the Veterans Health Administration has. Clearly Congress, especially the House, establishes its priorities by the funds it provides, it allocates, it appropriates on the discretionary side of the budget. If that is any indication, our commitment to our Nation's veterans is the highest priority of the House of Representatives and indeed the Congress. We have also provided additional resources for the benefits administration to make sure that we bring down the time frames that veterans are forced to wait until their benefits issues are resolved. We are working on reducing those delays. We have also mandated that the Veterans Administration create a minimum of 10 new veterans' outreach clinics. This is part of the CARES Commission statement. People all over the country, veterans all over the country, are benefiting from these new veterans' clinics. The quality of health care has improved dramatically. We are getting to the veterans much sooner, and the process that they follow, they can be treated at the clinics or, if it is a more serious health issue, they can then be referred to the hospital. But we are getting veterans into the system much sooner, and the view on the part of veterans and their service organizations is that this is a very important major improvement and breakthrough in veterans care. Additionally, we provided more money for mental health. One of the real focuses of this subcommittee has been not only mental health, which it has been, but also the transition from active duty to veterans status. What we found is that because of the difficulties, very serious challenges to find a safe place for our soldiers in Afghanistan or in Iraq, many of them are coming back with very serious mental health issues, post-traumatic stress disorder and other issues that have caused great stress on the soldier, sailor, airman, marine and their families, additionally, when they return. One of the things that we will require is that all of our active duty people enter into a dialogue with our mental health professionals within the service while they are active in the field. Currently, if a soldier has a concern about their mental health, or they are upset or they are depressed or they are anxious about things and they want to get some advice, they have to voluntarily go forward, step forward. People worry about a stigma. How does that affect my record in the future if I go and seek out help? What we have stated, stipulated in this bill, is that every one of our active duty people will have, as part of their service, a regular routine of working with mental health professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, so that there is no stigma, that everybody is in the mix. That way we think that our folks who are in very stressful situations, very dangerous situations, will be more at ease in how they go about getting this very important aspect of their health in order. Additionally, this subcommittee is responsible for the defense health, TRICARE for Life, et cetera. While the increase is not as substantial as it is in veterans, it is a healthy increase. My view is that as we go forward into conference with the Senate, hopefully we will be able to add additional resources within the defense health portion of this budget to make sure that we are meeting needs. Our subcommittee traveled last year to Europe. We visited Landstuhl hospital in Germany. It is truly remarkable the quality of care that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines are receiving there. In the field, the Medevac units, the quality of care in the combat zone is beyond description. It is that good. In the history of war, there has never been health care like we are providing today. We can be very proud of that. But we have to make sure that the resources are there, that they are allocated to make sure that those needs are met. One last point, and that is on the military construction, we have a lot of money in this bill to roll out the 2005 BRAC. The Army, which is very dependent upon this, asked us to get as much money forward as we could, so we did. That was a priority for us, Army is going through transformation, they are going through BRAC. We have people moving from Europe to the U.S., from one place in Asia to another, from places in Asia back to the U.S., and it is all part of this process. We want to make sure that they had the resources up front so that they could get this moving and meet the commitments that they have made, not only to us, to the taxpayers, but to the troops. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we can all be very, very proud of. It has been a bill that we have worked very closely on in a bipartisan way with my opposite number on the Democratic side, Mr. Edwards, we have collaborated well. I would like to, just again, thank the Rules Committee for the rule.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5385, and that I may include tabular material on the same.