C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would offer $10 million to restore a cut that the committee had already made in the operation and maintenance, defense-wide account. Actually, the Defense Department offered this up when we were looking to achieve $9 billion in savings to reach our allocation. This is one of the areas where the Defense Department indicated that there was no problem with taking a cut. You will hear me discussing this throughout the day and evening as long as we're dealing with this bill. We had to come up with $9 billion in reductions from the President's request. This is a part of where we found the $9 billion. And since the Department did not have any objection to this, in fact, offered this up as a possible way of helping with the savings, I must oppose this amendment and ask that the Members do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this is a tremendously important issue. Traumatic brain injury is something that we don't even know what the needs are going to be in the future. Our warriors are coming home wounded, yet full of high spirit, morale, and wishing to go back to the fight if they were medically able. Some of our warriors today don't even know that they have or will be exposed to having traumatic brain injury in the future. It is something we just don't know the answer to. We also know that the medical professionals tell us that they cannot use money just to spend it, but they have to use it effectively, and they have to use it where it has produced results. In view of this, I think it is important to guarantee that we have an adequate source of funding for this medical research and the treatment of these wounded warriors who suffer with this affliction. And so in view of that, I rise in support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Army budget documents submitted to the committee during our lengthy hearing process--and they were lengthy--stated that funding in the request for this purpose is to support the long-term sustainment of Army training and testing activities by improving the Army's ability to comply with requirements mandated by Federal, State, and local environmental laws. In other words, what we're dealing with here is an issue that the military is mandated to comply with by existing law. We have already--and I said this before, and I'm going to say it again probably numerous times today--we have already reduced the President's budget request for the defense bill for fiscal year 2012 by $9 billion. It wasn't easy. We made a lot of cuts, and I just don't think that we should take this cut. And so I object and I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Gulf War Illness Program is an important medical research area, the program to which Mr. Kucinich speaks; but this bill already contains $6.4 million for the program. In addition, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill has already included an additional $15 million for the program. The committee has been extremely careful to guarantee that medical research programs are funded at the level at which they can be adequately dealt with as far as the medical researchers are concerned. But in the days of having to reduce our budget by $9 billion, we believe that we have already adequately funded this program at $6.4 million, in addition to the $15 million added by the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Therefore, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under section 3(j) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, because the amendment does not merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill, but also proposes language other than the amounts. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me say that I agree with Mr. Dicks. We are more than happy to work with you in order to work out this problem.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We will accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The ranking member, Mr. Dicks, has eloquently pointed out why we are opposing this amendment. But like Mr. Dicks and like Mr. Poe, the author of the amendment, I couldn't agree more. If this language included the word Pakistan, I would probably have to have a different attitude on this amendment because I share those concerns and I share them strongly. However, I understand the importance of our coalition and the coalition support fund that we have agreed to and the importance of maintaining that agreement. But I would say that someone at a higher level who deals diplomatically with other countries, including Pakistan, has dropped the ball somewhere. I agree with Mr. Poe, but I just don't think that we can be in a position where we can renege on our agreements and arrangements with our coalition partners, because they are very important to us and to the missions that we face. So as reluctant as I might be because I share Mr. Poe's thoughts, I also will oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, some years ago, the Americans and our allies pretty much stabilized Afghanistan and neutralized the Taliban. But then before the job was completed, we all walked away. The Taliban resurged, came back, and created the situation that we face today and yesteryear and the year before. Let's not let that happen again. Now this Task Force for Business and Stability is part of that operation to try to maintain stability once we clear out and neutralize the Taliban once again. The mission of the task force is to assist the commander of U.S. Central Command in developing a link between U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and economic elements of U.S. national power in order to reduce violence, enhance stability, and to restore economic normalcy in Afghanistan through business and economic opportunities such as agricultural diversification and energy development. The Secretary may use up to $150 million of available operations for overseas contingency operations. This amendment would prohibit that. This amendment would not permit us to do the things that we need to do after winning on the battlefield. After eliminating the combat areas, we have got to maintain an Afghanistan that is not any longer under the jurisdiction and the influence of the Taliban. As I said, we did that once before at great cost. We neutralized the Taliban. We basically stabilized Afghanistan, and then we walked away. We didn't do the things that this Business and Stability Operations Task Force would do. So let's do them this time so we don't have to go back and refight the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is not a good amendment. It is not a good amendment, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very, very similar to one that the House rejected earlier today. The project that would be funded by this amendment, by the shifting of this money, is not an authorized program to begin with. But even if it were, the Army's O&M account in the OCO portion of the bill is funded at over $39.1 billion. And should this project remain in the final authorization bill and the Department concurs that it is a high enough priority, then there simply are ample funds to cover it with the $39.1 billion. So I see no reason for this amendment, and I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't call this a slush fund. This is not an additional fund that was added by the subcommittee at the request of the Pentagon or the Department of Defense. When the subcommittee analyzed the request at our hearings and in the subsequent material provided us to justify the budget of the Defense Department for the overseas contingency operations, we had a strong disagreement. We did not think that their figures were well thought out. So rather than appropriate that $5 billion that they requested, we moved it to what we call this transfer fund. It is not any additional money; it is just taken out of one account and put into another account. This transfer fund is to give the Defense Department some flexibility when they do get their facts and figures together on what the actual costs are. Now, the $5 billion, again, is not a slush fund. They can't spend this money without reporting back to Congress. Any money spent from this transfer fund must be reported to Congress, and Congress has 15 days in which to respond to that request. This was done to try to make sure that we had what they needed, that the Defense Department had what they needed for the overseas contingency operations, but that they had to justify exactly how they were going to use the money. And to the contrary, rather than being the potential slush fund, this is definitely not a slush fund, and so I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.