Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to enter into a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from California.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I certainly cannot commit to language I haven't seen, but as I said, I would be happy to continue to work with the gentleman as we go towards conference.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, my good friend, someone who has worked very closely with us throughout this process.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this to us. This certainly would have an impact on all metropolitan areas where land values are high. So I would be happy to work with the gentleman as we go forward with this bill.

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

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for raising this issue, and I share his concern. The gentleman has correctly indicated that this bill works to address PTSD research so that we can better treat mental health symptoms of our active and retired military personnel. As the gentleman is aware, in this difficult budget climate, we crafted a bill that uses our resources wisely. I commit to the gentleman that I will take his views with great respect as they relate to PTSD into consideration as we move forward toward the conference of this bill.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I am aware that the Department of Defense wants to revise the budget request for this program. I am also aware that the Department does not want to submit a budget amendment. The gentleman from Kentucky is correct, the jurisdiction complicates the transfer of funds from RDT&E to the Chemical Demilitarization Construction account, and the timing of this request is also a complicating factor. However, I assure the gentleman from Kentucky that this issue will be kept in mind during the conference consideration of this bill.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with my friend, from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer's) amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I know the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) brings a tremendous amount of history to this issue and expresses the concerns that all of us feel for communities that have this long-term problem. So I accept his genuineness and his attention to this. And pressure is a good thing. Let me state that we have just discussed this with my colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and we intend to work on this when we get to conference with the Senate. I would just point out that the Navy recently sold the former Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro in California for $650 million, which was a much higher price than was anticipated. Since all land sale revenues must come back into the priority BRAC account, there will be some additional funds available in fiscal year 2006 for environmental cleanup. This amendment is probably not necessary. DOD has indicated that by the year 2008 it will have either completed the cleanup or put into place all the remedial systems it needs for cleanup at all but two installations. Once in place, the cleanup will take time, and more funds will not necessarily speed up the process. These are areas, for example, where you have a range, firing range, where mortars or small arms or other weaponry was fired and remains unexploded in the ground. It will take time to find that. It is a very dangerous process. I am sure it is a very tedious, stressful process, but it has to be done right, so it does take time. I would also note that by taking money out of the 2005 BRAC account, the gentleman would actually compound the very problem he is trying to correct for the upcoming BRAC. It will slow down the cleanup and disposal of closed bases for this round and will, therefore, negatively impact the economies of those communities by stalling reuse development. We do intend to deal with this issue in conference. And we will look at what funds may reasonably be added to the prior BRAC account to accelerate environmental cleanup. We need to make sure that more funds will actually translate into more effect. Since I do not know, at this time, what that plus-up could be, I am afraid that I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida for his hard work and his dedication to getting this base back on track, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Florida as we go forward.

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.

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

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Jim Walsh

Speeches

Manage analytics