Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3130) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for veterans medical services.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to respond to a couple of the points made by the gentleman who just spoke. The first is that we have provided in the 2005 bill $2.11 billion for mental health for our veterans. That is a very substantial amount of money. And in the 2006 budget, we have proposed $2.2 billion, and we fenced it so that that money cannot be used for any other purpose. That has never been done before in a veterans appropriations bill. And I am very proud that our subcommittee took that action, and it was a bipartisan action. The second point is that we have before us a straightforward stand- alone supplemental bill that provides just under $1 billion for the Veterans Administration health administration for this year, for 2005, only for 2005. And so it is very simple. If we pass it, and send it to the Senate they can act on it tonight or tomorrow as a stand-alone bill, identical bill, and the President could sign it tomorrow before the Fourth of July, and that is what I hope happens because I believe we will get broad support. I cannot imagine anyone voting against this bill. But the Senate bill, and the Senate has not passed a bill that includes this funding. They have not. Out of committee they have passed an interior appropriations bill for the 2006 fiscal year that has a $1.5 billion attachment to it for veterans affairs. That bill is a 2006 bill. It will not even take effect in law until 2006, which will not help the 2005 budget at all. This is the vehicle to use. And I am very hopeful that once we pass it and send it to the Senate with a strong unanimous or bipartisan voice from the House that it will become law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just am thunderstruck by the rhetoric that I just heard. Stomping and trampling on the rights of our veterans? That is really beneath the dignity of this institution. Everyone I know, and I know most Members in this body, has the greatest respect for our veterans, the greatest respect. The gentleman asked the rhetorical question, I believe it was a rhetorical question, where were we last year when Secretary Principi asked for an additional $1.3 billion? Mr. Speaker, we were there. When we completed our budget, our appropriation for 2005, we put an additional $1.3 billion in, based on that request. So let us try to dampen the rhetoric and stick to the facts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), one of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the Veterans Affairs' Committee and himself a veteran of the Gulf War.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership in bringing this rule to the floor that provides for consideration of several suspension bills, including a very important one. I have heard a lot of bellyaching tonight about what happened before and why we should have done something else, and why did we not do something this way and why did we not do it that way. I suspect that when all the bellyaching is over, that we will have a near unanimous, if not unanimous, vote, at least I hope we do, to provide these resources. We have a very logical process that we follow. It is according to our rules and according to our traditions. In the Committee on Appropriations we hold hearings in the spring, we take testimony, we provide oversight, we then receive our allocation, and provide the resources every year to meet the needs of our Nation. Again this year, as we did last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, the Veterans Administration receives the highest increase of any budget within the entire Federal budget. Year after year after year. The House has the power of the purse. We set our priorities with the money that we have. Clearly, year after year this budget, the Veterans Administration budget, has been our highest priority. Whether you are a Republican or you are a Democrat, that is the way most Members believe. I feel that. I hear that from my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, members of my subcommittee and members of the full committee. And that is the way we have proceeded. It is not a partisan issue, and I hope we will not make it one tonight. Because at the end of the day, literally, that will be your last vote, and I hope we are all together on it. What has happened since we had these hearings is that we move rapidly. I think everybody noticed that tonight. The appropriation bills for 2006 are complete. We moved rapidly. But the Veterans Administration has a midyear annual review, which they had just recently. Ensuing hearings by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, providing oversight, determined that there was a shortfall. The Veterans Administration brought that forward, about $1 billion, or $975 million. They also explained that they had a work-around solution, $600 million out of capital and $375 million in anticipated reserve that they would utilize to fill that void. We then held additional hearings, the subcommittee and the Senate authorization committee and the House authorization committee, and what we have found is that we have an accurate picture now of what that shortfall is. We also have an accurate sense of the Congress that we do not want to work-around solution. We want to provide those resources so that the Veterans Administration does not have to set aside repair and maintenance and acquisition of equipment, MRIs or computers or research equipment or laboratory equipment. We do not want them to have to do that. So we are going through our normal procedure. And parts of that procedure, when you have to go back and take a look-back at a budget, is a supplemental budget request. This supplemental budget request will be presented for the consideration of the House tonight. The request is to provide that shortfall, $975 million, to the Veterans Administration to meet the needs to complete 3 more months of this year. Now, people say, well, $1 billion, how could they be off $1 billion? My colleagues, this is a $30 billion-plus budget. This $1 billion means they were off by 3 percent, 3 percent, in their estimation. Now, is that unforgivable? Of course not. Is it a mistake? It sure is. And we have a way to resolve that mistake, to fix it, to correct it, and again to show our commitment to our Nation's veterans, especially in a time of war. We are sending a signal not only to our current veterans, but we are sending a signal to those heroes that are out there in the field today, in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the globe. We want them to know that the commitments we have made to them we will keep, even if it has to be in an extraordinary measure like this. So I would welcome additional comment. I would welcome the opportunity of those individuals who looked ahead and offered additional resources. But I would ask you to look at the logic of what we are doing. Look at the thread of logic through this whole process. We want to do this right, and I think we have done it right. So let us have the debates tonight. If you feel compelled to say ``I told you so,'' go ahead. But stick with us and vote for this bill and support our veterans in a process that is reliable and is predictable and has a thread of logic all the way through it.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. After all the speeches and the rhetoric, really the big difference here is the dollar amount. We all realize there is a shortfall. We all support closing the gap. So the issue is $1.5 billion that the Senate acted on. One Member said it was 3, but I think most people, at least on the opposite side of the aisle, agree that it is $1.5 billion. We believe it is $975 million. So everything else really at this point is rhetoric. We just need to try to address that. And I tried for the life of me to figure out where this $1.5 billion figure came from. I know the Senate is working with that figure, because everything we have heard from the Veterans Administration was that they had a work-around solution to come up with $600 million out of their capital fund and $375 million out of their reserve fund to close this gap in different lines of health care within the hospital system, and that would add up to that $975 million. The $1.5 million is still a big question mark, and the only thing I can come up with is that, in a conversation I had with OMB Director Bolten, he mentioned that there may be, they do not know but they are working on it, a shortfall in 2006, in 2006, of somewhere between $1.1 and $1.6 billion. And that is 2006. No one, no one, has ever mentioned the fact that there is a shortfall in 2005 of $1.5 billion. So we have what I think is a number that is provided through a logical process, through testimony in the hearings presented by the head of the health administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary. This, I believe, is as close to what we can get as what the gap is. Let us support it on a bipartisan basis. Let us support the rule and consider the bill.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the Senate attached this 2005 funding to an 2006 bill, which will not take effect within the 2005 year. If they take up this bill on a stand-alone basis, the President can sign it tomorrow.

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to this amendment. But first on the merits of this discussion about the veterans budget, we held a subcommittee hearing, an oversight hearing on Tuesday with the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Buyer) held a hearing this morning with the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to try to sort this shortfall out and that is exactly what it is. It is a shortfall. I do not believe that there is any intent to mislead or deceive the Congress. And if this amendment is an attempt to belie the confidence of the American public in the process that we have, I think it is a mistake. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and his administration made a mistake. They made an estimate as to what the costs would be for 2005. Now we have 3 months left in 2005. They have completed their mid-year review and they have found that there was an error in their assumptions. Now, this is a 30-plus billion dollar budget. So a 3 percent mistake, which is what this was, they were off by 3 percent, that is a billion dollars. Now, I cannot speak for any other Member of Congress, but I suspect there have been times when my office budget has been either overestimated or underestimated by 3 percent. It is a small percentage, but when you are talking huge amounts of money like we are talking about here, it comes out to be a very large number, a billion dollars. But I believe that they made an error. They made a mistake. I do not think they tried to deceive us or mislead us. Let us be honest. The appropriations process moved very quickly this year. Their mid-year review came after we completed most of the deliberations in our hearings on this bill. So we are going to fix that. I mean, if the idea here is to get at the problem we have, we found the problem. By the way, it was oversight by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that discovered this in consultation with the Veterans Affairs Administration. So we are sorting it out. And I think we have done the responsible thing. We have identified what that shortfall is. Somewhere in the neighborhood, plus or minus $5 million, of about $975 million. It is a lot of money, but we fortunately will be able to remedy that today. The last bill, I believe, that we work on tonight will be a supplemental bill to provide those funds to make sure that we keep the Veterans Health Administration whole. They planned to work around the solution. They were going to use capital funds. They were going to take from their own hide, basically the capital account of $600 million and they had a reserve plan for $375 million. We want them to have that reserve. We want them to have those capital expenditures. We do not want them to defer maintenance and repair and purchases of computers and MRIs and other medical equipment. We want no diminution, no reduction in the quality of service our veterans have, especially in this time of war. So we are moving. We are moving at a pace, and we will have this resolved at least on the House side this evening.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I do not think I am incorrect in stating that this discussion regarding veterans health care does not belong on a foreign operations bill. Clearly there is a venue for discussion of veterans funding. And as Members know, we have had a full discussion of that before the House and in committee and it was done in a proper way. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that we were provided additional information after the House had concluded its work on the Veterans and Military Quality of Life bill. That prompted us, my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my ranking member of the subcommittee, to jointly request an oversight hearing which was conducted just this morning for 2\1/2\ hours.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, we can deal with this before the 2006 budget is implemented. We have time. It is June. We moved expeditiously to get the bill passed. We did that. We now have new information and we have to respond to that. And the questions I can frankly say were aggressive and thorough, and the response from the Veterans' Administration, while complete, at least we believe complete at this time, was not as thorough as we would like. And we asked questions, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I and other members of the subcommittee have asked questions. We want to get at what exactly is the anticipated shortfall for 2006. We want to make sure that this projected deficit for 2005 is responded to. That there is no diminution of care or quality of care in our veterans hospitals and that is our responsibility. That is the proper venue for this debate. Not on the foreign operations bill. We will have time to respond to it. We have had discussions with OMB and with the Veterans' Administration. We will not rest until we resolve this difference of what is needed to meet the needs of our veterans. But I assure the House and Members here today that we will get to the bottom of this, we will get the proper resolution. And if additional funds are needed, and I believe they are, we will find them.

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank both the gentlemen for raising this issue. Mr. Chairman, this is a serious problem. There is a great deal of alarm about the uncovering of this information. It is a great disappointment. I thank the two gentlemen for bringing this up, even though it is not germane to this bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I have discussed this. We will be holding an oversight hearing on Tuesday at 9 a.m. at which time members of the Veterans Administration, I believe we will also have people from defense health and possibly the Office of Management and Budget, will come up and give us the straight scoop on what actually happened and who knew what and when.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me and for his leadership on this really, really emotional and important issue for our State and our Nation. In the ensuing Federal action, we provided almost $21 billion to rebuild New York City and to rebuild the lives of these individuals. Less than $1 billion is going toward the health and well-being of human beings. All the other $20 billion went to rebuild the city. Of that, we are now being asked to rescind $125 million that was not spent on worker's compensation claims. Today, I also met with some of these individuals. Some of them are sick. They have mental health problems. They have physical health problems. Some of them have no health insurance. We need to find a way, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's (Chairman Regula) statement about finding a way, because we do want this money to be spent. We do not want to leave any soldiers on the battlefield. We do not want to leave any wounds unhealed. So with the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Regula) help as we go forward, I think we can find a way to get this resolved, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, today I am proud to represent the first Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill for consideration of the House. This subcommittee was formed for the purpose of taking a more comprehensive look at the programs related to providing a suitable quality of life for our service men and women, from recruitment through retirement. I believe the bill before Members today does just that, and it does it in a fiscally responsible way. Since the advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, quality of life has come to play an increasingly important role. In the short time between the subcommittee's organization and today, I have met with many officials from the Department of Defense who are energized and excited with the makeup of this new subcommittee. Everyone we met said the same thing, you recruit the soldier, but you retain ``the family''; and this new bill structure will make a significant contribution to that goal. I have also met with many people on the issues related to the Defense Health Program and the VA. Again, there is excitement about the synergies that currently exist and the ones that can be developed or enhanced between DOD and VA. This bill makes all that possible. I salute the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for having the foresight and persistence to bring about this positive change. The bill before us today totals $121.8 billion, of which $85.2 billion is discretionary spending and $36.6 billion is mandatory spending. On the discretionary side, the bill is $1.1 billion above the President's request and $5.9 billion above last year's bill. The bill funds the VA at $68.1 billion, $2.3 billion above fiscal year 2005, and $635 million above the budget request. Included in this amount is $21 billion for medical services, a $1.6 billion increase above the 2005 enacted level, and $1 billion above the budget request. This is an 8.5 percent increase over last year. I would also note that with the funding in this bill, the medical services account will grow by 18.2 percent over the past 2 years. Also, this funding level does not assume adoption of any new fees, nor does it preclude the committee of jurisdiction from moving on such legislation. The VA funding level, among other things, restores funding for long-term care to the level it was in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation, and we direct the Secretary to work with the National Association of State Veterans Homes to come to some agreeable policy to make the program work better for veterans and the taxpayers. The bill also includes language directing the Department to spend not less than $2.2 billion on specialty mental health care in fiscal year 2006, in direct concern to many Members of Congress that the VA needs to make this a priority. We have never specified funding for a category of care in this bill in the past. We have also included report language directing the Department to more than double the funding available for mental health research. For the Department of Defense, the bill provides $53.5 billion. Within this total is funding for military construction, family housing construction and maintenance, costs associated with BRAC for the prior rounds and the current round, basic allowance for housing payments, facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization, and environmental restoration. Regarding BRAC, let me just repeat what we have said in subcommittee. As of now, we consider the Secretary of Defense's recommendations just that, recommendations only. We will be following the commission process, but we see no need to make changes to the military construction budget at this time. Also included in this total is $20 billion for the Defense Health Program, an increase of $1.8 billion above fiscal year 2005 and $192 million above the budget request. This amount supports troop readiness by making sure we have an adequate funding level to prepare our soldiers, sailors, and airmen for training and deployments while caring for their families and dependents. One last thing I wanted to mention is the joint DOD-VA incentives program which was authorized in fiscal year 2003 and has been appropriated since that time. This program creates a fund which creates the opportunity for the DOD and VA to explore joint ventures in research and information technology that establishes and enhances continuity between these two Departments and contributes to the synergies we all want. We have a responsibility to make sure that the limited resources we have are spent efficiently and effectively and that programs achieve their mission. The structure of this bill provides us with an opportunity to take a bold look across programs and Departments and find synergies and efficiencies. Change is not always easy to go through, and it does not happen overnight; but we have taken the first step towards producing a more focused bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his vision and support. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking member of the subcommittee. We have developed a strong working relationship based upon trust. He has a wealth of experience with the military, given his long association with Fort Hood, Texas. He has been very generous with his time and his counsel as we assembled this bill, and it is much appreciated. Thanks to my subcommittee members for their active participation in the hearing process and also for their advice, and also to our very professional staff led by the capable Carol Murphy, and to my personal staff for their help in preparing this work product. I am very grateful to all of them. This would not have been possible without their help. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26MY05.004 Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio has changed the language to comply with the existing legislation, so I have no objection to it, and I withdraw my reservation of the point of order.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Texas regarding our staff. They have done a remarkable job. This is a brand-new structure. The leadership of the committee, the chairman, Chief Clerk Frank Cushing, helped us to organize the staff and they gave us the best people they could give us. I am very proud of the work product that they have provided us with and the support that they have given us along the way. Again, I credit the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has been a pleasure to work with. His knowledge of the military has helped me a great deal to get up to speed on these issues. I have a lot more to learn, but I look forward to working with him as we complete this bill after House passage and the conference with the Senate. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with an amendment with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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 does indeed change the application of existing law. The gentleman from Wisconsin has served for many, many years with distinction on the Committee on Appropriations. He knows full well the powers of the Committee on Appropriations. This is not one of them. The ability to manipulate and change the Tax Code is not within our jurisdiction. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I insist on the point of order and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.