Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 15, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the debate by thanking Chairman Edwards for all the hard work he's put into preparing this legislation. I congratulate him on his first bill as chairman of Military Construction-VA, and I appreciate his kind words made just a few moments ago. Mr. Edwards has continued the excellent bipartisan relationship that this subcommittee has enjoyed for years. The chairman held many, many hearings this spring, perhaps more hearings on the VA accounts than any previous subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue.
Mr. Edwards has previously thanked our staff for their diligent work to prepare this bill and has mentioned them by name. I will thank them once again by name. They include Liz Dawson, Dena Baron, Jamie Swafford and Susan Sweat on the minority staff, and Carol Murphy, Walter Hearne, Tim Peterson, Donna Shabaz, Mary Arnold and John Conger on the majority staff. They have worked very hard on this measure, but their work is just beginning.
As most of us know by now, there's much left to do in conference on this bill. For the first time in the history of the subcommittee, for the first time since 1958, the military construction portion contains no specific recommendation for projects. While I remain disappointed that no projects were included in this appropriation, I am pleased that last night we reached an agreement that will restore the transparency and openness begun by the Republican majority in the last Congress with regard to earmarks in the remaining appropriations bills.
I want to make sure my colleagues understand that there is very little to the military construction portion of this bill. Unlike some appropriations bills, such as the Homeland bill we passed earlier today which include funding for specific agencies, offices and programs in addition to projects, the MILCON appropriation consists almost entirely of projects.
Pursuant to yesterday's agreement, specific detailed funding amounts for the following programs will have to wait until conference: Base Realignment and Closure needs; initiatives to restation 70,000 troops and their families from Europe and Korea to the United States; projects necessary for increasing the active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000; relocating Marines from Okinawa to Japan; consolidating U.S. forces south of Seoul, South Korea; establishing enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti; new runways, control towers, National Guard readiness centers, and projects in the Middle East or Afghanistan where we have soldiers in harm's way. All of these specific details will have to wait until conference, Mr. Chairman.
In addition, we know that quality-of-life issues are a priority for our military; yet, no specific initiatives such as modernization of unaccompanied housing, construction of new medical facilities or much-needed child development centers, which we continuously heard in our hearings was the primary quality-of-life issue for our soldiers and their families, none of these are included in this bill.
Specific projects and earmarks will no doubt be included in the Senate version of this bill, and I hope Chairman Edwards and Chairman Obey will work with Mr. Lewis and me to make sure that House Members' initiatives will receive equal consideration at the conference level and are not disadvantaged by our airdropping of these projects into the conference. I would point out that the bill is different from other appropriations bills in that military construction projects have an added layer of examination, having already undergone scrutiny by the Department of Defense.
It is my hope that our colleagues will not offer amendments today that may decrease the military construction accounts. Though this bill today does not detail how these accounts will be used, the accounts will provide for many important military projects that our troops need.
Now, with regard to the VA portions of the bill, the VA is receiving the largest increase in the Department's history, an increase of $6.7 billion over the last fiscal year level. All of us in this body are deeply grateful for the sacrifices and service our veterans have provided this Nation, and this generous increase is appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle. We do have concerns about the VA's ability to absorb so large a funding increase in one fiscal year. We are determined to work with VA officials in this effort as part of our oversight responsibilities.
The bulk of the increase is going to boost medical services, medical facilities and construction for the VA. The bill increases the VA's discretionary funding by more than 18 percent over the fiscal year 2007 level. It is important to remember that the increase in this bill is in addition to the $1.8 billion this Congress just provided to the VA in the supplemental. When considered together, the supplemental funding and the funding in this bill amount to a 23 percent increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs' discretionary accounts.
Chairman Edwards has indicated that we will be conducting oversight hearings later in the year, and I'm glad to know that. Hearings will be needed to ensure that the funding we have provided actually gets to the veterans and does not languish in an administrative account. Mr. Chairman, we all want to make sure our veterans receive the care they deserve, but we will have to be diligent in our oversight in order to get this funding where it is intended, to our veterans.
The President has indicated he will sign this bill even though it exceeds his budget request by some $4 billion. However, he has stated that offsets for these increases should be found in other appropriations bills. I agree with him, and I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with us and find these savings elsewhere.
I think it is important to point out that, though we have some concerns on our side of the aisle about the feasibility for this large 1-year increase, it has been in large part Republicans that have a track record of meeting veterans' needs. During the period of Republican majority from 1995 to 2007, VA funding increased by 96 percent from $38.2 billion to $74.5 billion. I would point out that in the final decade of the last Democratic majority, veterans funding increased by less than half as much, about 42 percent, Mr. Chairman.
Similarly, Republicans led the way to increase spending per veteran by over $1,800 when we held the majority, while the Democrats managed to increase per-veteran spending by $411 during a similar period of their majority. It was also a Republican Congress that passed the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, which expanded eligibility for millions more veterans to access VA health care.
I point out these things to make sure my colleagues understand the historical record on veterans' issues. And in truth, Mr. Chairman, funding for our veterans has always been a bipartisan issue.
I support the bill on the floor today. It continues in the bipartisan tradition. It's not a perfect bill in my opinion, but our subcommittee has a good work product, and I'm proud of the combined efforts of Republicans and Democrats to continue the longstanding tradition of support and commitment for the men and women who have served our great country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Before I yield to my friend from Indiana, I too want to join my colleagues in commending my friend from Florida, Bill Young, and his wife, Beverly, for constantly, consistently visiting our veterans, our wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda and at veterans facilities, and for day in and day out and week in and week out and year in and year out, being as supportive of our Nation's veterans as any couple probably in the entire United States.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just in closing, the Speaker of the House just said what a happy day this is for her. It is a happy day for me and for Members on this side of the aisle also, Mr. Chairman.
Why on a bipartisan issue do we have to sound so partisan sometimes in supporting the bill?
The Speaker mentioned that veterans funding had been so neglected for the past few years. I will again point out to Members of the House, Mr. Chairman, that during the period of Republican majority, in working with our friends across the aisle and funding VA, we increased funding by 96 percent during that period, from $38.2 billion annually to $74.5 billion. And during the final decades of the Democratic majority, the increase was only half that much.
The Speaker mentioned the concurrent receipt issue. Of course it was during the speakership of Speaker Hastert that the House of Representatives enacted concurrent receipt legislation. And as a matter of fact, the previous speaker, Mr. Buyer, was the author and prime mover behind that legislation, and he deserves credit.
The point is this is a bipartisan issue. There is bipartisan support. I expect after discussion of a few amendments, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a near unanimous vote in favor of this bill. I will certainly be voting for it, as will the leadership of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding.
I would simply join my chairman in his offer to continue working with Mr. Hayes with regard to this effort. Certainly, no one has been a stronger advocate for the men and women at Fort Bragg, and also Pope Air Force Base and the families in that surrounding area, than has Robin Hayes of North Carolina.
I appreciate the sense of the amendment. I suspect that it will not pass today, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to work with Chairman EDWARDS to see if we can accommodate the gentleman from North Carolina's needs as we move forward in the process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source