Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) be given an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York, who has put in so much time and energy into her staunch defense of veterans medical care for her district and for the rest of the State of New York. I think she has done it in a responsible way, unlike some others, who have talked about advocacy for the veterans and then offered funds that were not available; offered budgetary gimmicks to present the image that there are funds available for veterans health care that are not actually there. There has been a lot of discussion today about the independent budget. If this budget was so good, why did the American Legion, the largest veterans service organization in America, not support it? They did not. But they did support this budget. The independent budget was presented by veterans advocacy groups at the beginning of the budget process as a marker. Blue sky, best possible scenario, this is what we would like. How many people, how many organizations have not done that in a discussion or in a negotiation? They ask for the sky, and they get what they need. And that is exactly what this budget provides; what the Veterans Administration needs to provide quality health care in America for our veterans. Who am I talking about when I say that the veterans organizations support this bill? The American Legion supports this bill. The Veterans of Foreign Wars supports this level of funding. Noncommissioned Officers Association, Retired Enlisted Men's and Women's Association, the Military Coalition, the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Who would know better the importance of medical care for veterans than the Military Order of the Purple Heart? They endorse this bill. Jewish War Veterans, Gold Star Wives. Who would know better than a Gold Star wife or a Gold Star mother of the importance of veterans medical care than these women? They support this bill. It is easy to wave a budget that was a negotiating position that was created months ago before the rubber met the road in terms of this budgetary process. Fleet Reserve Association, Reserve Officers Association, National Military and Veterans Alliance, Retired Officers Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Catholic War Veterans, National Association for Uniformed Services, Korean War Veterans Association. Who are the experts? Who are the veterans? Who speaks for the veterans? I think the veterans. Let them speak for themselves. And they have. Yes, the independent budget was presented as a negotiating piece. But if my colleagues ask these organizations what is the right number, they are going to tell them and they have told us $1.7 billion is the right number. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) has produced a document that shows how each and every VISN around the country is affected positively by this bill. We have to proffer support for this level of funding. Those who would not vote for this bill do not get off scot free. There is a price, and the price is they go home and they say to their veterans, I could not support that bill. And they say, Why? We needed that money. We needed that $1.7 billion. And they are going to hold our feet to the fire if we do not support that level of funding. They know what is real and what is not real more than most others do, and that $3-billion figure is not real. The $1.7 billion is real money for real people for real programs and real health care. Getting back to the initial amendment, I reluctantly cannot support the amendment. I respectfully ask the gentlewoman to withdraw it. I know the VA in her district faces some difficult challenges. It does all over in the Northeast and the West, the Midwest. We heard that today. But I think we can address those issues outside of this amendment. I promise to work with her and other Members representing VISN 3. We are going to make sure our staff is engaged with the leadership in VISN 3 to try to resolve these issues regarding her concerns. So I would complete my comments by asking the gentlewoman to withdraw the amendment if she could.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) for his wisdom and for his willingness to work with us on this issue. I think it is the proper approach; and we will work together on it, and I appreciate it.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would ask him if he was aware that this bill increases veterans' medical care by $1.7 billion?

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

Mr. WALSH. In the event that we do provide this 1.7 increase in this bill, is the gentleman prepared to support that $1.7 billion increase? Because if he does not he is then, in effect, supporting the President's level of level funding.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again for his comments, and we look forward to working with him on this important issue.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his continued concern and efforts on behalf of the veterans in his district and the State of Wisconsin and bringing this important issue before the committee's attention. In H.R. 2684, we provided a $1.7 billion increase for veterans medical care, the largest increase in history. With this increase, the VA will be able to continue to provide services to his veterans and ours.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer a modest proposal. We have obviously a very controversial amendment here. We have spent about half an hour discussing it so far. This has taken at least as much time as any amendment, and I understand there are very deep and passionate interests on the part of all Members. What I would like to suggest, in the interest of time and expediency, we have the opportunity to finish this bill fairly soon. As a matter of fact, when this debate is concluded, there will be a vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and on, I presume, the Hinchey amendment. Then we would come back after that and conclude the debate on the remaining amendments. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Members who are interested in discussing this limit their time to 3 minutes as opposed to the 5-minute rule.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his constructive amendment. We believe, just as he does, that rural health care services for veterans are extremely important and consider this a friendly amendment, and we are willing to accept it on our side.

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, the percentages do show a scale of increase in this budget. No matter how we cut it, a 20 percent increase in any budget is very substantial. It would be difficult, quite frankly, to manage.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, this surely is a worthy program. There is broad support certainly for fire prevention training. That is why the Committee on Appropriations increased the budget of FEMA's fire prevention training by 20 percent. We have discussed and debated this bill for about 10 hours now, and we have seen clearly throughout the debate the difficult choices that we had. There is no other area, clearly, of this budget that has had a 20 percent increase. So it is a priority for the committee. Mr. Chairman, the budget last year was about $25 million. This year it would be $31.4 million, under this budget, an increase of $6 million, $6 million that could have been used in any number of other programs that any number of other amendments would have affected. FEMA had proposed an increase of over 45 percent for this budget item, but the committee could not support such an increase. The efforts of FEMA to overhaul and improve the United States Fire Administration are to be commended, but we should not smother the program with funding which may be not used effectively. How many times have we seen the Federal Government throw money at a problem, only to create more problems? This would be a substantial increase for any budget. We need to give the agency time to implement the recommendations of the blue ribbon panel on the U.S. Fire Administration. While FEMA requested more money than this bill provides, the committee feels that slowing down the pace of implementation will be best for the program in the long run. We remain committed to working with FEMA to implement changes in the Fire Administration, but we do not feel a funding increase of 45 percent in one year is merited. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a need for a veterans' outpatient clinic in the 7th District of Georgia. I would like to assure the gentleman that I will work with him on this issue toward the establishment of a clinic in that county of Georgia as we move towards conference.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that sections 421 through 423 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the excellent work that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has done in my State and across the Nation in protecting our air, water, and land. He has provided great leadership, in the tradition of the great Theodore Roosevelt also from New York State. We see this as a friendly amendment, and I can say from our side that we are prepared to accept it.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on the point of order. I would offer to the gentleman and gentlewoman that spoke the comments I made throughout the debate on this bill, that we understand your concerns. We have those same concerns. The difficult choices made while producing this bill caused us to make these rather difficult cuts. As I have said, I will continue to work with all who have an interest in supporting this terribly important program, that as we work through the process and get to conference, we will try to fill those gaps as we go down the road.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is my understanding. I recognize the importance of this provision to the District of Columbia, and I look very much forward to working with the gentlewoman in that regard.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) be heard.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I do insist on my point of order. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the amendment because it violates the rules of the House since it calls for an en bloc consideration of two different paragraphs of the bill. Precedents of the House are clear on this matter. Amendments to a paragraph or section are not in order until such paragraph or section has been read.

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