H2574 CREC 2015 04 29 Pt1 Pg 3

User Manual: H2574

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 50

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

H2574

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
TABLE 16.—ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY
SENATE COMMITTEES OTHER THAN APPROPRIATIONS—Continued
[Fiscal year 2016, $ billions]
2016

Outlays .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

1,891.005

2016–2020

2016–2025

9,512.616

20,901.395

Includes entitlements funded in annual appropriations acts.

TOM PRICE,
TODD ROKITA,
MARIO DIAZ-BALART,
DIANE BLACK,
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR,
Managers on the Part of the House.
MICHAEL B. ENZI,
CHUCK GRASSLEY,
JEFF SESSIONS,
MIKE CRAPO,
LINDSEY GRAHAM,
ROB PORTMAN,
PATRICK J. TOOMEY,
RON JOHNSON,
KELLY AYOTTE,
ROGER F. WICKER,
BOB CORKER,
DAVID PERDUE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
f

RESIGNATION
AS
MEMBER
OF
COMMITTEE
ON
FINANCIAL
SERVICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following resignation as a member of the Committee on
Financial Services:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2015.
Attn: Trevor Kolego,
OHN
B
OEHNER
,
Hon. J
Speaker, House of Representatives,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: It is a tremendous
privilege to represent the people of the
Tenth District of Illinois in the U.S. House
of Representatives.
I have greatly appreciated the opportunity
to serve on the Financial Services Committee. However, due to my appointment to
the Committee on Ways and Means, I hereby
resign my seat on the Financial Services
Committee.
I believe that this new position will better
allow me to represent the interests of my
constituents, and I look forward to getting
to work with my colleagues on the Ways and
Means Committee.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT J. DOLD,
Member of Congress.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without
objection, the resignation is accepted.
There was no objection.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

f

ELECTING MEMBERS TO CERTAIN
STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the House Republican Conference, I
send to the desk a privileged resolution
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 229
Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of
Representatives:

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mr.
Walker.
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Dold.

The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
f

MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION
AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R.
2029 and that I may include tabular
material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
GRAVES of Louisiana). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in
the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2029.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) to
preside over the Committee of the
Whole.
b 1430
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved
itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2029)
making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30,
2016, and for other purposes, with Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the
bill is considered read the first time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. DENT) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. BISHOP) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, it is my honor and privilege
to bring H.R. 2029, the fiscal year 2016
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, to the House of Representatives.
I present this bill alongside my good
friend and ranking member on the subcommittee, SANFORD BISHOP from
Georgia, who has been an essential

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

partner all along the way. I greatly appreciate the participation and support
of our committee members, both sides
of the aisle, as we considered priorities
and funding levels for the important
programs in our bill.
We analyzed the budget request, developed questions, held oversight hearings to hear directly from members of
all the services, the Department of Defense leadership, the Secretary of the
VA, the VA inspector general, and the
directors of four related agencies. We
received over 700 requests from Members—again, from both sides of the
aisle—and gave full consideration to
each one. It has been a busy spring, and
we did our best to accommodate those
Member requests.
As we consider this bill, I can’t proceed further without noticing that this
subcommittee has a formidable level of
support from the chair and ranking
member of the full committee. Thank
you, Chairman ROGERS and Mrs.
LOWEY. Your attention to oversight
and genuine care for the military and
veterans has been inspiring.
To round out our team, we have some
great support from our professional
staff: Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, Tracey Russell, Maureen Holohan, and
Matt Washington on the committee
staff and Heather Smith, Drew Kent,
and Sean Snyder on my personal staff.
We couldn’t do it without all of them.
H.R. 2029 demonstrates our firm commitment to fully supporting the Nation’s veterans and servicemembers.
Our investment of nearly $77 billion for
military construction and Veterans Affairs that is 6 percent—6 percent—over
last year’s level is unprecedented. This
bill provides comprehensive support for
servicemembers, military families, and
veterans. It supports our troops with
facilities and services necessary to
maintain readiness and morale at bases
here in the States and around the
world.
It provides for Defense Department
schools and health clinics that take
care of our military families, and the
bill funds our veterans health care systems to ensure that our promise to
care for those who have sacrificed in
defense of this great Nation continues
as those men and women return home.
We owe this to our veterans and are
committed to sustained oversight so
that programs deliver what they promise and taxpayers are well served by
the investments we make.
On the military construction side,
this bill provides a total of $7.7 billion
for military construction projects and
family housing, including base and
overseas contingency operations funding, an increase of $904 million. That is
nearly 12 percent above the enacted fiscal year 2015 level and $755 million

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.045

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

below the President’s request. This
funding meets DOD’s most critical
needs, including priorities for the combatant
commanders
in
EUCOM,
CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and PACOM.
It provides $607 million for military
medical facilities, including the one at
Landstuhl, Germany. It provides $334
million for the Department of Defense
education facilities, for construction or
renovation of 10 schools. It supports
our Guard and Reserve through $512
million for facilities in 28 States. It
fully funds military family housing at
$1.4 billion. And it provides $150 million
for the NATO security investment program, which is $30 million over the
budget request.
On the Veterans Affairs side, the legislation includes a total of $163.2 billion
in combined discretionary and mandatory funding for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Discretionary funding alone for veterans programs in the
bill is $68.7 billion. Total fiscal year
2016 discretionary funding is $3.6 billion
above 2015. It is a 5.6 percent increase
and $1.4 billion below the request.
Three billion dollars of this increase
was advance funded.
On the VA medical services side, the
bill funds VA medical services at $48.6
billion. That includes $970 million that
the VA came back and asked for on top
of the advanced funding from last year.
We stretched pretty far to do this, and
we haven’t funded this second bite in
the House before. It is tough to find
$970 million in any budget environment, but this committee did, showing
again the level of bipartisan commitment we have to our veterans.
For disability claims, we provide the
full request for the Veterans Benefits
Administration, which is a $163 million
increase over fiscal year 2015, and the
full request for the Board of Veterans
Appeals.
The bill will enhance transparency
and accountability at the VA through
further oversight and an increase for
the VA Office of Inspector General’s
independent audits and investigations.
I can assure you the inspector general’s
office has been very, very busy.
This legislation also contains $233
million for the modernization of the

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2575

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

VA electronic health record and includes language restricting funding
until the VA demonstrates progress on
the system’s functionality and interoperability. This is a major concern to
all of us on both sides of the aisle, and
I know the chairman, in particular, has
been outspoken about this matter, but
it is something that all of us, Republican and Democrat, want to see fixed.
On construction issues, major construction within the VA is funded at
$562 million, which is the same level as
fiscal year 2015. The bill provides funding for hospital replacement and allows
the VA to continue to correct seismic
safety issues and deficiencies. We did
not fund the more-than-double budget
request for construction, as we face the
impact of gross mismanagement of the
Colorado VA Hospital construction,
which resulted in a $930 million cost
overrun. That is not a typo: a $930 million cost overrun, which is nearly twice
the entire VA major construction line
item. We have also cracked down on
oversight with multiple restrictions.
We fund the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Armed Forces
Retirement Home, Arlington National
Cemetery, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims at the requested funding levels.
In closing, this is a very solid bipartisan bill that is focused on the needs
of servicemembers, veterans, and all
their families. We are $4.6 billion over
the fiscal year 2015 level; again, a nearly 6 percent increase. Not a cut. We
have provided for our military and veterans to the very best level we can.
Did we fund every last dime requested? No. Not every idea has merit,
and not every project is mission critical. We did not fund some projects. We
cut some requested increases, and we
rescinded funds. These were fair decisions and part of our responsibility as
appropriators.
We have received a lot of criticism
for the actions we have taken very recently. It started with an email campaign from the VA legislative affairs
office; then a Statement of Administration Policy; and last, some of the
VSOs have joined in. Let me tell you,

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

in my time, before I was chairman of
the subcommittee, and certainly in my
time since I took over this position, I
can say with absolute certainty, the
VA’s problems stem from poor management, not too little money. Poor management, not too little money. I will
say that again. The problems we encounter at the VA time after time—
whether it is the Phoenix patient wait
list scandal, the claims and benefits
mess in Philadelphia, or the Denver
hospital construction debacle—show
that the VA’s problem is management,
not money, and for the VA to complain
about a 6 percent increase rather than
an 8 percent increase and to call a 6
percent increase a cut—they call that a
cut.
Only in Washington, D.C., can someone call a 6 percent increase over last
year a cut. Everywhere else in America
it is a 6 percent increase, but not in
this town. Amazing to me, and particularly from a Department that has so
many severe managerial problems at
this time. We need to be diligent with
oversight and at the same time be a
helping hand to the Department. There
is a way out of the morass, but more
money without the necessary management reforms is not the answer.
I have talked to many Members
about the VA, and just last night in the
Committee on Rules, I got quite an
earful there. Truly, Members are in
agreement that we must help the VA
transform because that transformation
is crucial to serve veterans properly
and to respect the taxpayers footing
the bill. By the way, that frustration I
have heard from Members is from both
sides of the aisle, as was the case I
heard last night in the Committee on
Rules.
We will do a lot of good with this bill.
It is fair, it is balanced, and, at a 6 percent increase over last year, it is generous. On behalf of our servicemembers, military families, and veterans, I
urge your support of this legislation.
Let’s take care of those who sacrifice
for our country. It is time to do the
right thing and support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.026

H29APPT1

H2576
onstruc 1on,

gencies Appropriat1ons Act,
thousands)
FY 2015
Enacted

TITLE I
i litary
ilitary
i l itary
i l itary

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

FY 2016
Request

H.R. 2029)

Bill vs.
Enacted

Bi 11

Bi 11 vs.
Request

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

construction,
construction,
construction,
construction,

Army.
Navy and Marine Corps.
Air Force.,.
Defense-Wide.

528,427
1,018,772
811,774
1,991,690

743,245
1 '669 '239
1 '389' 185
2' 300 ,767

663,245
1 '349' 678
1,237,055
1,931,456

+134,818
+330,906
+425,281
-60,234

4,350,663

6,102,436

5,181,434

+830 771

-921 '002

128,920
92,663
103,946
51 ,528
49,492

197,237
138,738
113,595
36,078
65,021

167,437
138,738
104' 295
36,078
65,021

+38,517
+46,075
+349
-15,450
+15,529

-29,800

-- - --- - -- -- --

-80,000
-319.561
-152' 130
-369,311

~

Total, Active components.
ilitary
ilitary
ilitary
ilitary
ilitary

construction,
construction,
construction,
construction,
construction,

Army National Guard .... , ..
Air National Guard . . . . . . .
Army Reserve ......... .
Navy Reserve ........... .
Air Force Reserve ........ ,,.

~-¥-~~-·~~~~--

Total, Reserve components. , ... , . , ................ .

=======.:======::::
Total, Military construction ....
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program.
Army.
maintenance, Army ...
Navy and Marine Corps ..
maintenance, Navy and
Air Force.
maintenance, Air Force ..
maintenance, Defense-Wide

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund
Total, Family housing.

::::;::::::;::::::::;;:=::=:::;:::;;::;;::;;:::;::;;:

6' 653' 105

511,569
=======:::::::::::::::::::::::;;:::;:

5,693,003

+85,020

+915,791

============== ====::::========= ==============
120,000

150,000

-49,700

78,609
350,976
16,412

99,695
393,511
16,541

99,695
393,511
16,541

+21 '086
+42,535
+129

354,029

353,036
160,498
331,232
58,668

353,036
160 '498
331,232
58,668

-993
+160,498
+3,485
-2,432

327,747
61 '100
1 ,662

==============

-39,100

============== ==============

199,700

1,190,535
::::::::::::::===========

Chemical demilitarization construction, Defense-Wide ..
Department of Defense Base Closure Account

--------------

~

550,669

4,777,212
:::::::::::::=::=::::::=:::::::::;;:;:::::::::::::::

Family housing construction,
Family housing operation and
Family housing construction,
Family housing operation and
Marl ne Corps ..
Family housing construction,
Family housing operation and
Family housing operation and

-- ---- -- - -- --

426,549

-9,300

-960' 102

:::::;:;::;:::::;:;;:;:::::.:;:::::;::::=::::::::;::::=::

+30. 000

-1 '662
===::::::::::;;:=:::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

1,413,181

==============

38,715
315,085

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::=====

1 '413, 181
::;::;:::::;:::::::::::=:::::::=::::::=::::::::::::::::

251 '334

;:;:=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::=::

========:::::::::;:;:::::::::::::

+222,646

==============

251,334

38,715
-63,751

-96,000

-125,000
-117,000
-46,467

====::::::::::::;::;;;:;::;::::;::::::::::::::::::

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Military Construction - fiscal year 2014 (Sec. 127).
Military Construction - fiscal year 2015 (Sec. 128).
Military Construction. Army (Sec. 125) ...
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps (Sec.
130)''
Defense Access Roads (Sec. 131).
Military Construction, Air Force (Sec. 126) .. ,, .. ,,,,.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide (Sec. 127).
NATO Security Investment Program (Sec. 132) ..
42 USC 3374 (Sec. 128) ..
Total, Administrative Provisions.

Appropr·i at ions.
Rescissions

125,000
117' 000
-49,533
-25,522

30,000
-52,600
134,000

-41,392
-25,000
-63,800
36,753
(242,000)
(-205,247)

-103,918
356,518
(30,000)

386,518)

======:::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::

Total. title I, Department of Defense.
Appropriations.
Rescissions.

+25,522
+30,000
-11 '208
-134,000
+25,000
-40' 118
-393,271
(-212,000)
( -181 '271)

-96,000
+30,000
-52,600
134,000
103.91-8
-356,51,S
(+30,000)
(-386,518)

::::!:::============

==============

::::.::::::.:::;;;;::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::==

+593,000
(+774,271)
( -181 '271)

1,286,62-J
(-900, 102)
(-386,518)

6,558,000
(6,763,247)
(-205,247)

8,437,620
(8,437,620)

7' 151 '000
(7,537,518)
(-386,518)

79,071,000

79,124,675
87' 146.761

79,124,675
87,146,'761

TITLE II - DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011

H29APPT1

+53' 675
+87' 146,761

Insert offset folio 408/1 here EH29AP15.001

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Compensation and pensions ..
Advance appropriation, FY 2017 ...

April 29, 2015

H2577

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2016 (H.R. 2029)
(Amounts in thousands)
FY 2015
Enacted

FY 2016
Request

Bill vs.
Enacted

Bi1l

Readjustment benefits.
Advance appropriation, FY 2017.

14,997,136

15,344,922
16,743,904

15,344,922
16,743,904

+347,786
+16,743,904

Veterans insurance and indemnities.
Advance appropriation, FY 2017.

63.257

77' 160
91 '920

77' 160
91 '920

+13,903
+91,920

(500)
160,881

(500)
164,558

(500)
164' 558

+3' 677

10
(2,877)
361
1 '130

31
(2,952)
367
1 '134

31
(2,952)
367
1 '134

94,293,775
(94,293,775)

198,695,432
(94,712,847)
(103,982,585)

Veterans housing benefit program fund:
(indefinite).
(Limitation on direct loans) ..
Administrative expenses
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account ...... .
(Limitation on direct loans).
Administrative expenses.
Native American veteran housing loan program account.
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration.
Appropriations, ... , ..
Advance appropriations, FY 2017.

8111

vs

Request

+21
(+75)
+6
+4

============== ============== ============== ============== ==============
:::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::;:::::::;:::::::::::;

::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::

198,695,432
+104,401,657
(+419,072)
(94,712' 847)
(103,982,585) (+103,982,585)

:::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::;:::

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;

==============

Veterans Health Administration
Medical services:
Advance from prior year.
Current year request.
Advance appropriation, FY 2017.

(47,603,202)
1 '124. 197
51,673,000

(47,603,202)
969,554
51 '673' 000

(+2,587,675)
+760,365
+4,069,798

-154. 643

-------------- --------------

--------------

-------------

(45,015,527)
209' 189
47,603,202
--------------

Subtotal.
Medical support and compliance:
Advance from prior year ......................... .
Current year request.
. ......... .
Advance appropriation, FY 2017

47,812.391

52' 797' 197

52,642,554

(5,879,700)

( 6' 144 '000)
69,961
6,524,000

( 6 . 1 44 ' 000)

(+264,300)

6.524,000

+380,000

6' 144' 000
--------------

Subtotal ..
Medical facilities:
Advance from prior year.
. ........ .
Current year request ..
Advance appropriation, FY 2017 ..

-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------6,593,961

6,524,000

+380,000

(4,739,000)

(4,915,000)
105' 132
5,074,000

(4,915,000)

(+176, 000)

5,074,000

+159, 000

------------Medical and prosthetic research.
Medical care cost recovery collections:
Offsetting collections ..
Appropriations (indefinite) ...

-----

----

--------

-----

----- "--

4,915,000

5, 179,132

5,074,000

+159,000

588.922

621 '813

621 '813

+32,891

-2,456,000
2,456,000

-2,445,000
2,445,000

-2.445,000
2,445,000

+11 '000
11 '000

-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------(transfers out) .......... .
transfer) ............ ..
Incentive Fund (Transfer
(by

-69,961

-105.132

Subtotal .............. .
DoD-VA Joint Medical Funds
DoD-VA Joint Medical Funds
DoD-VA Health Care Sharing
out).
DoD-VA Health Care Sharing
transfer).

-154.643

-69,961

6' 144' 000

4,915,000

Subtota 1 .

+4.830, 163

(-276,251)
(276,251)

(-286,000)
(286,000)

("286,000)
(286,000)

(-15,000)

(-15,000)

( -15, 000)

---------105. 132

--------------

(-9,749)
(+9 ,749)

Incentive Fund (by
(15,000)
:::::::;:::::::::::;::::::;:::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::

Total, Veterans Health Administration ..
Appropriations ..
Advance appropriations, FY 2017.

(15,000)
::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::;:::::::;::::;::::::::::::::

59,460,313
(798,111)
(58,662,202)

Advances from prior year appropriations.

65' 192' 103
(1 '921 '103)
(63,271 ,000)
(58,662,202)

(55,634,227)
=======::::::::::;:;::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::::::::;::;:::;:::::::;::::::;:::::;:;

(15,000)
========:=:::::::::::::::::::::

=====::::======== ==============

64,862,367
( 1 . 591 '367)
(63,271 ,000)

+5,402 ,054
(+793 '256)
(+4,608, 798)

(58,662,202)

;:::::==========::::=

-329,736
(-329.736)

(+3,027,975)
:::;::::::::;::::::=:::::::::::::::;::::::;:::;;

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::;;;;;;

National Cemetery Administration

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

256,800

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

266,220

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011

266,220

H29APPT1

+9,420

Insert offset folio 408/2 here EH29AP15.002

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

National Cemetery Administration ..

H2578

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2016 (H.R
(Amounts in thousands)
FY 2015
Enacted

FY 2016
Request

2029)

Bill vs.
Enacted

Bill

Bi I I vs
Request

Departmental Administration
General administration ....
...........
Board of Veterans Appeals ..
' ' .. ' .......
General operating expenses, VBA. ................. '.
Information technology systems .. . '. ' .... ' '
Office of Inspector General ..
Construction, major projects.
Construction, minor projects.
Grants for construction of State extended care
facilities.
Grants for the construction of veterans cemeteries.
Total, Departmental Administration.

321 '591
99,294
2,534,254
3,903,344
126,411
561 '800
495,200

346,659
107,884
2,697,734
4,133,363
126,766
'143' 800
406,200

336,659
107,884
2,697,734
4,038,363
131 ,766
561 '800
406,200

+15,068
+8,590
+163,480
+135,019
+5,355

90,000
46,000

80,000
45,000

80,000
45,000

-10,000
-1 '000

8' 177' 894

9,087,406

8,405,406

+227,512

-682,000

1 '400' 000
-1 '400' 000
100,000
-100,000
250,000
-250,000

1 '400 '000
-1 '400' 000
100,000
-100,000
250,000
-250,000

1,400,000
-1,400,000
100,000
-100,000
250,000
250,000
-60,000

-101 '000
15,000

-10,000
-95,000
+5,000
-582,000

89,000

Administrative Provisions
Section 226
Medical services ..
(Rescission).
Medical support and compliance.
(Rescission).
Medical facilities.
(Rescission) ..
Bonus limit rescission (Sec. 233).
JIF rescission (Sec. 238).
Contract disability exams.
Payraise absorption (Sec. 240 and 241) ..

-41 '000
15,000
40,000
~-

w

~

~

-

-16,000

Advance Appropriations. FY 2017:
Mandatory.
Discret·ionary ..
Advances from prior year appropriations:
Mandatory.
. ................ .
Discretionary.
(limitation on direct loans).
Discretionary ............ .
Advances from prior year less FY 2017 advances
Net discretionary.

- -

-

- * -

-

~ -

-

-313, 626

------ ---

~ -

-429,626
:::::::::::::;:;:;::;:::::::::::-:::::::::::::::::::-:::::::::;:

Total, title II.
Appropriations.
Rescissions.

-40,000
-313,626

-313,626

--.

Total. Administrative Provisions ..

-101 '000
-15,000

:::::::;:::;::::::::::-:::::::::=::=::::::::::::

-429,626

-413,626
==========:::::::::::.:::;;;

162' 172' 782
(105,316,580)
( -1 . 806' 000)

273,241 '161
(107,737,576)
( -1 ,750. 000)

271,799,799
(106, 412' 214)
(-1.866,000)

+1 09. 627' 017
(+1 ,095,634)
(-60,000)

(58,662,202)

103,982,585
(63,271 ,000)

103,982,585
(63,271 ,000)

+103.982,585
(+4,608,798)

(55,634,227)

(58,662,202)

(58,662,202)

(+3 .027,975)

(3' 377)

(3,452)

(3,452)

(+75)

( 68' 041 '389)
(-3,027,975)

(74,711,819)
(-4,608,798)

(73,270,457)
( -4' 608 ,798)

(+5,229,068)
(-1 ,580,823)

(-1,441,362)

-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

--------------

(65,013,414)

(70,103,021)

(+3,648,245)

( 68' 661 '659)

(

-1,441,362
1 '325' 362)
(-116,000)

(-1,441.362)

(94, 131 ,393)

Mandatory ....

Advances from prior year less FY 2017 advances
Net mandatory ..

(198,529,342) (198,529,342) (+104,397,949)
103,982,585) (-103,982,585) (-103,982,585)
----------------------- -------------- -------------(94,546,757)
(94,546,757)
(+415,364)
( 94' 1 31 ' 393)
(

-------------Total mandatory and discretionary.

159' 144' 807

--------------

164,649,778

-------------- --------------

163,208,416

+4,063,609

::.:============ ============== ============== ==============

-1,441.362

====::::::::=========

TITLE III - RELATED AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

74' 100

Jkt 049060

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

75,100

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011

75' 100

H29APPT1

+1. 000

Insert offset folio 408/3 here EH29AP15.003

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Salaries and expenses.

April 29, 2015

H2579

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. FY 2016 (H.R. 2029)
(Amounts in thousands)
FY 2015
Enacted

FY 2016
Request

1 '900

2,000

Foreign currency fluctuations account.

- ----Total, American Battle Monuments Commission ....

~-

Bill vs
Enacted

Bill

+100

2,000

--- --- -------------- - --- - --- -- -

~-

Bill VS
Request

~

--------------

76,000

77,100

77' 100

+1 '100

31 '386

32' 141

32' 141

+755

65,800

70,800

70,800

+5,000

62.400
1 '000

63,300
1 '000

63,300
1 ,000

+900

63,400

64,300

64,300

+900

236,586

244,341

244,341

+7,755

244,004
75,000
212,996

+244,004
+75,000
+166,996
-175,000

--------------

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and expenses ..
Department of Defense - Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses.
Armed Forces Retirement Home - Trust Fund
Operation and maintenance.
Capital program.
Total, Armed Forces Retirement Home ..
Total, title III ..

TITLE IV - OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Construction. Navy and Marine Corps. , , , .
Construction, Air Force.
Construction, Defense-Wide ..
. ' .' ' ' . ' ' ..' .
Reassurance Initiative Military Construction.

Total, title IV.

Advances from prior year appropriations ....

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

(By transfer).
(Transfer out).
. ......... .
(Limitation on direct loans).

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

532,000

221 '000

===::==========

Grand total ... , ..
Appropriations ....
Rescissions ...
Advance appropriations, FY 2017 ..
Overseas contingency operations.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

46,000
175,000

Jkt 049060

PO 00000

Frm 00077

::::::::::::::::::.::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::::::;:;:::.::::=:;:;::::;::;:;:;::;:;:::::

+311,000
:::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;:::;::::::::;::::::::

169,188,368
(112,316,413)
(-2,011 ,247)
(58.662,202)
(221,000)

281 '923' 122
(116,419,537)
( 1,750,000)
(167,253,585)

(55,634,227)

(58,662,202)

(58,662,202)

(+3,027,975)

(291 '251)
( -291 '251)
(3' 377)

(301 ,000)
( -301 '000)
(3,452)

(301,000)
( -301 '000)
(3,452)

(+9,749)
( -9,749)
(+75)

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

+110,538,772
279 '727' 140
(114, 194,073)
(+1 '877' 660)
(-2,252,518)
( -241 '271)
(167,253,585) ( +1 08' 591 '383)
(532,000)
(+311 ,000)

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011

H29APPT1

+244,004
+75.000
+212 ,996
+532, 000

======:::::======:::::

-2,195,982
(-2,225,464)
(-502.518)
(+532,000)

Insert offset folio 408/4 here EH29AP15.004

Military
Military
Military
European

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H2580

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, let me say that I am
delighted to have the opportunity to
work with Chairman DENT of the subcommittee as well as the chairman and
ranking member of the full committee.
Madam Chair, as you know, this bill
has a strong reputation for common
ground and bipartisanship. We are
pleased with several aspects of the bill.
For example, the bill maintains tough
but fair reporting requirements for
VistA modernization, which closely
tracks the VA’s development of its
electronic health record.
The bill continues to prioritize the
elimination of the veterans claims
backlog by fully funding the fiscal year
2016 requests: $18.3 million for a centralized mail initiative which consolidates inbound paper mail from regional
offices to a centralized intake site, as
well as $140.8 million for the Veterans
Claims Intake Program to scan and
convert paper claims into a digital format. I believe that these are all positive steps to making the VA function
better.
Furthermore, Chairman DENT has
avoided including contentious legislative riders, which is very much appreciated. Unfortunately, however, the
chairman was forced to write a bill
under the majority’s fiscal year 2016
budget resolution, which chose to lock
in the Budget Control Act levels and to
use gimmicks to boost defense funding.
Because of the budget resolution’s failure to provide relief from these budget
caps—which were established in 2011
and later adjusted in 2013—the chairman was forced to make some tough
choices due to the allocation that he
was given.
While military construction is provided $7.2 billion, an increase of $593
million above 2015, it is still $1.2 billion
below the budget request. In an effort
to avoid the defense budget cap, the
bill shifts $532 million to the overseas
contingency
operations
funding
stream, even though the fiscal year
2016 budget request did not include an
OCO request. This is a gimmick, purely
a gimmick to boost defense spending
by pumping up the OCO budget, which
is not limited by the budget law.
The Department of Veterans Affairs
is funded at $68.7 billion, and while it is
$3.6 billion above fiscal year 2015, the
enacted level, it is also $1.4 billion
below the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The inadequate fiscal year 2016
allocation again forced the chairman
to slice the request for military construction by $582 billion. That is hospital construction.
Furthermore, the bill includes language that directs that only replacement, safety, and security projects can
receive budgeted funding. This is troubling language, and it eliminates all
national cemetery projects for fiscal
year 2016 and puts several other
projects in jeopardy.
b 1445
The majority claims they reduced
the construction account because the

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

half-built Veterans Affairs Denver hospital project is drastically over budget
and riddled with mistakes.
I certainly agree that the VA needs
to be held accountable for the poor job
in managing the Denver hospital
project; however, no funds for the Denver hospital were allocated within the
MILCON-VA bill.
Additionally, I am not aware of any
similar issues with any of the other requested projects in the bill for FY12,
including replacement, clinic construction, seismic improvements, or cemetery construction.
I believe the majority’s budget caps
and resulting inadequate allocation—
not the problems in Denver—led to cutting construction in half. I am concerned that, if the reduction stands, it
will further contribute to the gaps in
access, utilization, and safety that
were already identified in the VA’s annual Strategic Capital Investment program process.
Madam Chair, this committee can no
longer afford to function under the
Budget Control Act caps. The reductions to VA will cause gaps in access,
utilization, and safety and could lower
the standard of care due our veterans.
Madam Chairman, as I pointed out
during the MILCON-VA markup, the
FY 2017 advance funding will consume
$4.6 billion of the nondefense discretionary cap next year, so this problem
will only get worse. Certainly, the Department of Defense cannot be the only
winner.
Using the FY 2016 budget levels will
produce a long summer and an early
fall, with no real progress on the FY
2016 bills. If so, it is inevitable that a
continuing resolution or a series of
continuing resolutions will be needed
to keep the government open and running in place long past the new fiscal
year starts on October 1.
We cannot continue to govern in this
fashion. I believe that it is well past
time to be strategic about how we handle our Federal budget, and now, we
need to take the next step toward a
more responsible budget process so we
can eventually stop lurching from one
crisis to the next.
I believe that Chairman DENT crafted
the best bill he could with the allocation he was given. I also believe that
this is the first step in a long process,
and I am concerned about the impact
these reductions to the VA construction account could have, and we believe
they will have to be addressed before
the process.
To that end, I am prepared to offer
an amendment to the bill restoring the
full funding of the request so that we
can, in fact, do justice by our veterans
and do what is necessary for our military construction without using budget
gimmicks. At the appropriate time, I
will offer an amendment to do that.
Madam Chairman, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROG-

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

ERS), the full committee chairman, and
I want to thank him for all his support
and leadership in putting this bill together.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of
this bill, the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs bill for 2016. In doing
that, I want to congratulate Chairman
DENT, the new chairman of this subcommittee. This is his maiden voyage
as chairman of this subcommittee. He
is a cardinal now. He has done a great
job putting together this bill.
I also want to thank Mr. BISHOP, the
ranking member on the other side, for
his cooperation in making this bill
what it is today.
This is the first bill of the process,
and I am pleased that we are off to a
very early start—I am told the earliest
start since 1974—continuing our good
work from last year. I am optimistic
that we are going to have a successful
appropriations year, finishing on time
and under regular order.
We are beginning the year on the
right foot with a bipartisan bill,
Madam Chairman, that I believe we
can all get behind. The FY 2016 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations bill includes, as has
been said, $76.6 billion in discretionary
funding for important veterans benefits
and services and for the infrastructure
that supports the brave men and
women serving in our Armed Forces
and their families.
This is a total of $4.6 billion over last
year. No one can call this a cut and be
realistic about it. We have increased
the funding by $4.6 billion year-to-year.
We can’t say that for all the other
bills. Yes, we went overboard with
what we had to work with in providing
funds for the veterans and for military
construction. That is a demonstration
of our commitment to our warfighters
and to our veterans and their loved
ones, who sacrifice so much to protect
this great Nation.
Within the total, the bill includes
$7.7 billion for the DOD’s construction
projects in the U.S. and around the
world, which provide our servicemembers with the infrastructure they need
to remain at the ready.
The legislation also provides a total
of $68.7 billion in discretionary funding
for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
That is a 5.6 percent increase over last
year to guarantee the VA has the resources they need to care for every single qualified veteran, including meeting growing healthcare needs.
To that end, VA medical services are
funded at $3.8 billion above the current
level. That will treat 6.9 million eligible patients, providing mental health
care, helping prevent suicide, and supporting research into prosthetics and
traumatic brain injuries, among numerous other health initiatives. However, it is critical that we make sure
the VA is being responsible with these
taxpayer dollars.
It is clear that the VA is facing some
considerable management challenges,

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.028

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

April 29, 2015

and so this bill provides the oversight
that will hold the Department accountable for its mistakes and takes the necessary steps to address and correct
these problems.
For instance, the bill keeps a close
eye on how the VA is spending its construction dollars by requiring reports
on construction costs, savings, and
changes in scope.
This is a good bill, Madam Chairman.
I urge its adoption.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
LOWEY), the full committee ranking
member.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, before I
begin, I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman DENT and Ranking Member BISHOP, who worked so
well together, and full Committee
Chairman ROGERS.
The House Republican ‘‘work harder
for less’’ budget resolution was opposed
by every Member on my side of the
aisle, in part because it makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12 appropriations bills to
grow our economy and give hard-working Americans the opportunity to succeed.
Democrats preferred the approach
taken by the President, calling for an
end to sequestration and more reasonable and realistic budgeting that can
help families afford college, a home,
and a secure retirement.
Refusing to adopt a sufficient overall
allocation for discretionary investments has a significant impact on the
initiatives in all the appropriation bills
that grow the economy and create jobs.
The bill we consider today presents a
false choice. The VA needs more resources in 2016 than 2015 to sustain its
level of services for the brave men and
women it serves. The majority invests
a disproportionate share of the allocation’s nondefense funds in the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill;
yet it still falls far short of meeting
VA’s actual needs.
The equivalent of 70,000 fewer veterans would receive medical care under
this bill, compared to the President’s
request. In addition, it further reduces
funds available for priorities in the
other spending bills for transportation
infrastructure, job training, higher
education, biomedical research, and
clean energy, just as an example. All
these initiatives are key to economic
growth and creating opportunity for
hard-working Americans, especially
veterans.
Additionally, $532 million in today’s
bill would be shifted to overseas contingency operations in a gimmick to
boost defense spending.
Even with these tricks, the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill
would have a profound impact on military families and veterans, forcing a
$2.7 billion cut below what the President says is necessary, including $754
million less for military construction,
$155 million less for medical services,

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2581

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

$70 million less for medical support and
compliance, $105 million less for medical facilities, and $582 million less for
VA construction projects.
These cuts, which hurt those who
have sacrificed for our country, are unacceptable. Not everything requested
by the President is sacrosanct, and
Congress has a duty—it is an important
part of our responsibility—to evaluate
each and every line item in a budget
proposal. Such an assessment of this
bill makes clear that many accounts
are clearly underfunded.
Despite the abundant shortcomings,
there are some positive aspects, including reporting requirements for electronic health records and prioritizing
the elimination of the veterans claims
backlog.
It is imperative that, as the bill progresses toward enactment, improvements are made and that, as the entire
appropriations process continues, we
reach an agreement that will ensure
these bills invest in our hard-working
families’ economic security.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, at this
time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. ROBY), who
has been a tireless advocate for the
needs of the veterans in her community in Alabama.
Mrs. ROBY. First, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
hard work on this bill, and I thank the
chairman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I am so grateful
for this opportunity to stand here
today in support of H.R. 2029, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act.
This bill undeniably provides muchneeded funding for both our veterans
programs and military projects, while
staying within the strict limits of our
House-passed budget resolution.
I am especially proud because there
is funding that we were able to secure
in this bill for the folks in Alabama,
right at home, including new school
construction both at Fort Rucker, the
home of Army aviation excellence, and
$33 million for new school construction
at Maxwell Air Force Base, much-needed dollars for our military families at
this post and this base, and also funding for a new squadron operations facility at Dannelly Field.
These are all extremely important to
our critical military functions in Alabama. Anybody who has been on post
at Rucker or at the base at Maxwell
knows that these schools are in disrepair and are in need of replacing.
Our military families deserve quality
on-base facilities, and these projects
are going to go a long way to help improve their quality of life right there in
Alabama.
I want to address, though, what I was
struck with—and everyone else in this
institution—when I woke up this morning, Madam Chair. I was extremely disappointed, alongside my colleagues, to
see that the President, yet again, has
threatened to veto this bill.

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

This bill provides critical, muchneeded funding for our military families and our veterans, and the President should not play around with that.
b 1500
Under this administration we have
failed our veterans miserably. And only
in Washington, D.C., when you see an
increase of $3.6 billion for our VA to
provide these critical needs for our
men and women who have worn the
uniform and put their lives on the line
for the freedom and liberty that allow
us to stand in this room today, only in
Washington, D.C., will a $3.6 billion increase on behalf of our veterans be
called a cut.
You know why, Madam Chair?
It is being called a cut because it is
the only way to shift the blame away
from this administration’s failure to
our veterans back to the Republicanled House. It is clearly politics that is
driving us, and I am asking, Madam
Chair, that the President seriously
rethink his position.
The administration needs to take responsibility, and they are trying, once
again, to point fingers at leadership in
this House that is doing all that we can
to ensure that our veterans get timely
care and the best care that we can provide them. This is cynical, and it is
shameful, and I believe—I believe—that
the American people can see straight
through it.
So I hope, again, Madam Chair, that
the President will reconsider this position because there is no place—no
place—here in this bill for political
gamesmanship when it comes to our
military families and our veterans.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, at this time I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
LEE), a member of the Subcommittee
on Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, let me
thank the ranking member for yielding, for his unwavering leadership for
our veterans on this committee, and
for your friendship. Thank you very
much, Mr. BISHOP.
Let me also thank Chairman DENT,
in addition to Ranking Member BISHOP,
really for working very hard in a bipartisan way on a variety of issues facing
our veterans, including empowering
our vets in their transition back to civilian life and ensuring adequate and
accessible access to care.
As the daughter of a veteran, I understand the enormous sacrifices that our
servicemembers and their families
make to serve our Nation, so this subcommittee is extremely important.
I want to thank the ranking member
and chair for working with me and my
colleagues on the subcommittee to include important report language on the
backlog at the Oakland VA regional office, which is, of course, one of the
worst in the Nation.
I want to thank our ranking member,
Congresswoman BROWN, who is here
today, for her leadership on the committee in shedding some light also on

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.029

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H2582

what is taking place at the Oakland
VA regional office.
This language will ensure that the
Oakland office not only has to provide
Congress with accurate information on
what has happened with these backlogged claims, but it will require the
Veterans Benefits Administration to
outline the lessons learned and what
the new protocols are to ensure that no
veteran faces delays in accessing care.
Yet, of course, insufficient allocations in this bill leave much work to be
done. The 2016 MILCON-VA approps bill
includes a $582 million cut from the
major construction account. Now, that
is half of the President’s request of $1.1
billion.
Simply put, the level of funds allocated in this bill is totally insufficient
and, yes, it undermines the responsibility we have to provide our veterans
with the best and most innovative
care. As a result, the construction of
vital medical facilities that will serve
our veterans will be delayed. This includes the initial phase of construction
for the state-of-the-art Alameda Point
outpatient clinic in my own congressional district, which serves thousands
of veterans in the northern California
area.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield the
gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. LEE. Thank you very much.
I just want to thank the ranking
member and the chair for continuing to
work with me to ensure that the limitation language in the report with regard to major construction funds for
the VA does not preclude clinics like,
for example, the Alameda Point outpatient clinic.
Addressing the limitation language
and restoring funding to the President’s request level for major construction is really vital to ensuring that our
Nation keeps the promise that we have
made to our brave veterans to give
them access to the best care.
Madam Chair, we really can’t afford
what these cuts will do with our veterans. We can’t afford to allow this
dangerous and harmful impact of sequestration now to be locked in by
these allocations before us today.
These dismal numbers, they directly
affect our veterans’ access to care that
they need and that they have earned.
So I hope that, as this process moves
forward, these insufficient allocations
are resolved.
Mr. DENT. I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from
California (Mr. DENHAM) for a colloquy.
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Chair, every
Member of this body recognizes the
special obligation this House has to
take care of our veterans. We also have
an obligation to ensure that the funds
we entrust to the Department of Veterans Affairs are actually properly
spent.
The shocking waste of funds at the
Aurora Hospital in Denver has rightly
earned the outrage of both this body

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

and the American public. The $930 million in cost overruns in Denver will
have to be paid for by taking funds
that could otherwise have accelerated
critical access projects across the
country or assisted the Department as
it attempts to tackle the backlog in
claims at the Veterans Benefits Administration.
I am particularly concerned that the
complete failure of project management of the Denver hospital is negatively impacting veterans in my district. They have already suffered from
a lack of access to care.
Specifically, I am seeking clarity on
what the committee intends with the
major construction funding appropriated under this bill. The Committee
report includes language requiring the
funding provided for major construction to be used for new hospital construction and seismic corrections.
One of the projects included in this
request is the Livermore Realignment
and Closure project. This project would
utilize FY 2016 funding to provide for
the complete construction of a new
medical facility at French Camp in the
Central Valley. The facility would provide direct medical care to more than
87,000 veterans in its service area and
dramatically reduce the nearly 6-hour
commute faced by veterans in my district for even routine health care.
Madam Chairman, does the Livermore Realignment and Closure project,
a project that was authorized more
than a decade ago by this Congress,
meet the criteria for funding set by the
committee in the report accompanying
this appropriations bill?
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I thank the
gentleman from California for offering
this opportunity to clarify the meaning
of our report language. I do share your
concern about the mismanagement of
construction projects by the VA. It is
delaying vital projects such as Livermore.
In this report, we simply made clear
the priority for funding hospital construction and seismic corrections.
Within the funds provided in the bill,
unallocated major construction funding remains available, and the VA has
the ability to allocate those funds towards French Camp as well as other
projects in the budget request. The report instructs the VA to make that determination and provide a list of
projects to this committee.
I have heard similar concerns from
other Members, including the gentlelady, Ms. LEE, who just spoke a few
moments ago, who have projects included in this request, such as Alameda
Clinic and a rehabilitative therapy
clinic in St. Louis, which the administration could also choose to fund.
I appreciate these concerns and the
opportunity to provide some clarity. I
hope that is helpful. But nothing precludes funding.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance
of my time.

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. BROWN), who
is the ranking member of the House
Veterans’ Affairs Committee and a
strong supporter of our veterans.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chair
and Members of the House, I rise in
strong opposition to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill.
After taking steps forward with the
new Choice Act program, this Republican budget takes two steps back with
its cuts to veterans health care, just
another example of Republicans talking the talk but not walking the walk.
But don’t take my word for it. If you
ask the veterans service organizations
who represent the interests of veterans, every one of them is opposing
this bill.
The national commanders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said the following about the Republican Veterans
bill:
The VA cannot fulfill its mission without
proper funding, but the House, for whatever
reason, now wants to ration care, eliminate
infrastructure projects, and stop improving
upon the programs and services that the VA
was created to provide. This is a bad bill for
veterans, and anyone that votes for it should
really take a second look.

And let me just say one other thing.
I often say, if you are not in the room,
you are on the menu, and I am sure
that veterans never thought that Republicans would put them on the menu.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I
just want to respond to the gentlewoman from Florida’s comments.
You know, a lot of people have been
saying that we cut spending in this
bill. The President requested an 8 percent increase. We provided for a 6 percent increase.
You know, because the President
makes a request does not mean that
Congress has to behave like potted
plants and simply accede to every item
that the President has asked for. That
is not our role as Members of Congress.
Our job is to provide some real serious oversight over a department that
has failed in many respects. And Members on both sides of the aisle agree
with that, given the problems of Denver, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Oakland,
and elsewhere. I can go through a long
list.
But some of the oversight mechanisms in this bill, I should mention, include things like requiring a spending
plan before construction dollars can be
spent. We did that because of what has
happened all across the country.
We prohibit increases in the scope of
construction projects. We prohibit
transfer of funds between construction
projects. We fence 75 percent of funding
until conditions are met, cut funding
for poorly performing offices, require
detailed quarterly reports regarding
disability compensation claims. We
have tightened restrictions on reprogramming. We have also rescinded

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.031

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

$415 million from VA pay accounts,
that is pay and bonuses, limiting the
amount of money available for pay increases and bonuses.
Should we reward failure at the VA?
I mean, there are management problems at the VA. It is not simply about
money. We all know this. And given
you can open up a newspaper every
day, just 2 weeks ago in the city of
Philadelphia, at the regional office
there, a scathing inspector general’s
report about the failures, and to simply
reward that would be unconscionable
on our part.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. My question
is: Will you admit that this budget will
deny 70,000 veterans from receiving
health care?
Mr. DENT. Reclaiming my time, I
will tell you that this budget adequately meets—more than adequately
meets—the needs of our servicemembers and our veterans and their families.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, I have no further speakers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, again, just
urging all Members to support this important legislation. It is the right
thing to do. We have no further speakers at this time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the 5minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for
amendment each amendment shall be
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro forma
amendment shall be in order except
that the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees
may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The Chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD designated for that purpose.
Amendments so printed shall be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2029
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the following sums
are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for
military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes, namely:

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2583

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
For acquisition, construction, installation,
and equipment of temporary or permanent
public works, military installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army Corps of Engineers and
other personal services necessary for the
purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and operation of facilities in support of the functions of the Commander in
Chief, $663,245,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2020: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $109,245,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of the Army determines that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.

b 1515
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF
GEORGIA

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)’’.
Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $154,643,000)’’.
Page 28, line 15, after the dollar amount,
insert ‘‘(increased by $69,691,000)’’.
Page 29, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $105,132,000)’’.
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $10,000,000)’’.
Page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $95,000,000)’’.
Page 36, line 5, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $582,000,000)’’.
Strike section 233.
Strike section 238.
Strike section 240.
Strike section 241.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia (during the
reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman’s amendment.
The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentleman from Georgia and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, the amendment that I am offering should be supported by every Member of this House. Very simply, it
would restore the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill
to the full amount requested by the administration and to the full amount
deemed necessary by the affected agencies.
Last night, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, one of the largest veterans serv-

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 9920

ice organizations in the United States,
put out a letter calling this year’s
MILCON-VA bill ‘‘bad for veterans.’’
They oppose the bill.
The Independent Budget group,
which consists of the AMVETS, the
Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, expressed serious concerns with this bill. The Iraq
and Afghanistan Veterans of America
also expressed their serious concerns
with this bill. In their letter, they
called on Congress to provide the entire $1.5 billion that was cut from the
budget request for the VA, which this
House should do immediately.
Without this necessary funding,
much-needed investments in veterans
health care will be shortchanged, and
important services will be compromised.
I understand that House rules make
it difficult to add money to a spending
bill’s allocation, but I sincerely hope
that we don’t hide behind that as an
excuse.
We should be doing the right thing on
behalf of our Nation’s veterans. We
have the power to do it. We need to
pass a law to change the law which
limits us and puts this cap on what we
can do to take care of our veterans and
our military construction. This amendment addresses that, and I urge all of
my colleagues to vote ‘‘yes’’ and to
demonstrate to the veteran community
that the message has been received.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise
in strong support of this amendment, which increases funding for all the VA programs that
the Republicans cut in this year’s Mil Con-VA
Appropriations bill.
Our troops continue the fight to keep our
country safe and to ensure the blessings of
liberty that we enjoy. And after their service in
the military ends, many are in desperate need
of quality health care to make a healthy transition to civilian life.
As Members of Congress, it is our job to
make sure that the men and women who
fought for our freedom have access to high
quality, comprehensive health care services.
One of our first obligations to meeting this demand is ensuring that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) has the resources it needs
to provide top-notch care to our veterans. Just
a few months ago, President Barack Obama
proposed a budget for 2016 which will help to
meet the needs of the VA by providing $70.2
billion in discretionary funding for VA, a 7.5
percent increase from 2015. This proposed
budget would also provide $3.2 billion in estimated medical care collections and $95.3 billion for VA’s mandatory benefit programs.
However, I am deeply disappointed in that
H.R. 2029, the House MilCon, VA and Related
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee’s proposal cuts $1.4 billion from the President’s
budget request. This is simply a desperate attempt to balance our nation’s budget on the
backs of our veterans, and it is not acceptable.
The Veterans have fought for our nation,
and now is the time we need to fight for them.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to stand with me and the millions of our

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.032

H29APPT1

H2584

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

nations’ veterans and support this amendment
to appropriately fund the VA and provide services to our veterans that they earned from
their years of service.
[April 28, 2015]
VFW CALLS NEW VA APPROPRIATIONS BILL
‘BAD FOR VETERANS’
WASHINGTON.—The national commander of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States said the U.S. House of Representatives is set to penalize disabled veterans this
week if it votes to reduce the Department of
Veterans Affairs budget request by more
than $1.5 billion.
‘‘The nationwide crisis in care and confidence that erupted in the VA last year was
caused in many ways by a lack of adequate
resourcing that only Congress is authorized
to provide,’’ said John W. Stroud, who leads
the 1.9 million-member VFW and its Auxiliaries. ‘‘That’s why the VFW is demanding
that the House amend this bill to appropriate a funding level that fully funds VA.’’
In its current form, the fiscal year 2016
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Bill makes across-the-board
cuts to all VA discretionary accounts, and
drastically underfunds medical care, major
construction and Information Technology
accounts. Stroud said across-the-board cuts
to discretionary spending is what Congress
created back in 2011, but by another name,
sequestration. Now the House wants to impose its own sequester on a federal department whose sole mission is to care for
wounded, ill and injured veterans.
‘‘The VA cannot fulfill its mission without
proper funding, but the House for whatever
reason now wants to ration care, eliminate
infrastructure projects, and stop improving
upon the programs and services that the VA
was created to provide,’’ said the VFW national commander. ‘‘This bill is bad for veterans and any vote for it is unconscionable,
which is why we want veterans and advocates everywhere to get involved by urging
their elected officials to fully fund the VA.’’
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
VETERANS OF AMERICA,
April 28, 2015.
Hon. JOHN BOEHNER,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. NANCY PELOSI,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER AND MADAM MINORITY
LEADER: On behalf of the 400,000 members of
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
(IAVA), we write to express concern over the
House Committee on Appropriations’ April
22, 2015 markup and vote on the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) appropriations bill
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016.
Over the expressed objections of the administration, the committee reduced the
president’s FY 2016 VA budget request by
more than $1.4 billion. If allowed, this cut
could hamper the services ten of thousands
of veterans receive, and impact VA’s ability
to activate new and replacement facilities
with sufficient staff and equipment and to
adequately maintain facility infrastructure.
Secretary McDonald has been upfront and,
above all, realistic in asking for full funding
of the president’s FY 2016 VA request. Reform of the VA, its facilities and its infrastructure are monumental tasks. Unfortunately these challenges become almost
unobtainable with a reduction in funding
outlined in the House’s mark.
During Congress’ first 100 days, great
strides have been made to address the needs
of our nation’s veterans. Passage of the Clay
Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act was a huge bipartisan vic-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

tory in the House and Senate. It showed the
American people what is possible if we work
together.
In that same vein, we ask that you again
work in a bipartisan manner and request the
House, in making its final adjustments or as
a part of a conference on this legislation, to
find the means to fund the VA’s realistic request so that the institution can meet its
congressional mandate next year. To that
end, we ask the leadership of the House to
restore VA’s overall funding at least to the
level recommended by the administration in
its FY 2016 budget.
Sincerely,
MATTHEW M. MILLER,
Chief Policy Officer, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).
THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET,
April 27, 2015.
Hon. JOHN BOEHNER,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. NANCY PELOSI,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER AND MADAM MINORITY
LEADER: As partner organizations in the
Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, we
write to express our concerns about the results of the Committee on Appropriations’
April 22, 2015 markup and vote on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) appropriations bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016.
Over the expressed objections of the Administration, the Committee made a rushed
determination to reduce the President’s FY
2016 VA Medical Care request by over $600
million. This reduction is equivalent to the
cost of providing care for tens of thousands
of veterans next year. If enacted, the bill
would harm these services and others, including reducing VA’s ability to activate
new and replacement facilities with sufficient staff and equipment and to adequately
maintain facility infrastructure.
In the separate capital infrastructure accounts (for major and minor projects as well
as for state veterans home construction
grants), the Committee reduced the Administration’s request by $582 million. We are
deeply concerned that VA will not receive
enough resources to enable the system to
properly maintain its existing health care
facilities, nor to build any new ones. Despite
the VA’s well publicized deficits in addressing the overdue and over-budget medical
center construction project in Denver, dozens of other VA centers are much older and
in poorer condition than the Colorado facility that is being replaced, but no funds
would be made available in the FY 2016 appropriation to begin these priority projects.
Also, lack of maintenance, repairs, and improvements in existing VA facilities now
carrying backlogged projects costing billions
of dollars would be much more expensive in
future years due to funding inadequacies
brought about by this bill. The Congress
should note that over the past decade, Congress has funded VA infrastructure needs at
a level that was $7.9 billion less than what
we collectively recommended in Independent
Budgets over that period.
In the long run, Congress will be forced to
appropriate much larger sums to enable VA
to catch up to the deficits being created by
this bill. In a related vein, please see VA’s
letter to the Speaker and President of the
Senate, dated April 14, 2015, requesting several high priority construction authorizations and supportive appropriations, and the
expenditure of unobligated balances from
section 801 of Public Law 113–146, to be used
to complete the construction of the Denver
facility, and for other purposes that we
strongly support.

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Strangling the VA’s appropriated accounts
for infrastructure, but refusing to allow any
flexibility in the use of funds already provided by Congress in prior acts, places VA in
double jeopardy. It means VA simply cannot
build, and cannot expand—even when funds
are available and could be used. This barrier
penalizes and denies care in some way to
every veteran who relies on VA. As VA Secretary McDonald said last week, this situation will ‘‘harm veterans.’’ We agree.
On the topic of VA’s Medical and Prosthetic Research program, we appreciate the
Committee’s approval of an amendment to
match the Administration’s request of $622
million for FY 2016. Without these new
funds, VA clinician-scientists would have
needed to significantly reduce recruitment
and analysis in the Million Veteran Program, delaying the benefits of precision medicine to veterans. Also, these funds will be
used for completion of genetic studies on
functional disability in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; to initiate studies aimed at
finding the root cause of a known genetic
susceptibility to post-traumatic stress disorder; and, to conduct new studies aimed at
predicting susceptibility to opioid abuse. Despite this good news, as advocates we are
concerned that these funds were shifted in an
unprecedented manner from the VA information technology (IT) account—an appropriation that was already reduced $80 million
from the President’s requested level during
the Committee’s consideration. Also, holding
VA accountable for making significant
progress in developing the next generation of
electronic health records in coordination
with the Department of Defense, while suppressing the IT funding to make that very
progress possible, is deeply troubling.
In addition to these concerns, we note that
in the bill’s administrative provisions, the
Appropriations Committee would further reduce VA funding, even when it appears that
the bill would be providing higher levels at
the top line. For example, if this administrative language is adopted by Congress, VA
will find itself in the odd position come January 2016 of needing to decide (in the Committee’s words, ‘‘if it chooses to do so’’)
whether over 300,000 VA employees will be
due a comparability increase, without any
funding appropriated for it. We know of no
statute that makes federal employee comparability increases discretionary once the
President announces the comparability rate.
In the research program, for example, the appropriation would be reduced by a rescission
of over $3 million even while the Committee
voted to approve an amendment to restore
the account to the Administration’s full requested level. Other administrative provisions have similar effects, all deleterious to
any VA flexibility in funding its many requirements in FY 2016. In fact the total rescissions from these administrative provisions would be more than $400 million, with
nearly $200 million directed at the Medical
Services account atop the $600 million discussed above.
This is a particularly important moment
in VA history, given the events of the past
year. Suffocating the system now with a
dearth of funding (well over $1 billion less
than requested by the Administration), and
restricting or rescinding the use of available
funds—even those to be appropriated in this
bill—while demanding reforms, only proves
to make VA’s intended and ongoing efforts
more challenging.
As indicated, we respectfully request the
House, in making its final adjustments, or as
a part of a conference on this legislation, to
find the means to sufficiently fund these crucial VA accounts so that the institution can
meet its Congressional mandate next year.
To that end, we ask the Leadership of the

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.059

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

House to restore VA’s overall funding at
least to the level recommended by the Administration in its FY 2016 budget, although
even that level is almost $1.4 billion below
our joint recommendations in the Independent Budget for next year.
When the nation sends our soldiers and
Marines into live combat in hostile territory, we do not skimp on their training,
weapons, or ammunition for the fight. Now
that these veterans are home, we should do
no less.
On behalf of the millions of veterans who
make up our memberships, we will appreciate the House Leadership and Members
taking into account our concerns about
funding levels needed by the VA in FY 2016,
and acting to fully fund the VA system.
Sincerely,
STEWART M. HICKEY,
National Executive Director, AMVETS.
HOMER S. TOWNSEND, JR.,
Executive
Director,
Paralyzed Veterans
of America.
GARRY J. AUGUSTINE,
Executive
Director,
Washington
Headquarters, DAV (Disabled American Veterans).
ROBERT E. WALLACE,
Executive
Director,
Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United
States.

The CHAIR. Does any other Member
wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to
clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an amendment
must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia proposes also
another kind of change in the bill,
namely: striking sections from the bill,
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to
address portions of the bill not yet
read.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, I move to appeal the ruling of
the Chair.
The CHAIR. The question is, Shall
the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the
Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam
Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 237, noes 180,
not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 178]
AYES—237

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
Section 17 of chapter 2 of the House
Practice book states in part:
‘‘It is not in order to strike out or
otherwise amend portions of a bill not
yet read for amendment.’’
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIR. Does any other Member
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mrs. LOWEY. I wish to be heard on
the point of order.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from
New York is recognized to be heard on
the point of order.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I rise in
strong support of the amendment.
The bill falls far short of providing
the resources that the President requested and veterans earned. The National Commander of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars has demanded that ‘‘the
House amend the bill to appropriate a
funding level that fully funds the VA.’’
The gentleman from Georgia’s (Mr.
BISHOP) amendment does just that.
The VFW went on to say the bill
‘‘drastically underfunds medical care,
major construction, and information
technology accounts. . . . The VA cannot fulfill its mission without proper
funding; but the House, for whatever
reason, now wants to’’———
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman will
suspend.
The gentlewoman must confine her
remarks to the point of order.
Does the gentlewoman wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mrs. LOWEY. Yes.
I just want to emphasize that the
VFW strongly supports the amendment
for the reasons that I suggested.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2585

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris
Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom

Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert

Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan
F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael
F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)

Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham
(NM)
Luján, Ben Ray
(NM)
Lynch
Maloney,
Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)

Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES—180
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O’Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda
T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman
Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING—14
Beyer
Cleaver
Guinta
Hastings
Meeks

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.062

H29APPT1

Palazzo
Payne
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Rangel

Roskam
Royce
Rush
Smith (WA)

H2586

b 1545
Mr. QUIGLEY changed his vote from
‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’
Messrs. HURT of Virginia, MEADOWS, and LABRADOR changed their
vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’
So the decision of the Chair stands as
the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE
CORPS
For acquisition, construction, installation,
and equipment of temporary or permanent
public works, naval installations, facilities,
and real property for the Navy and Marine
Corps as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, $1,349,678,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2020: Provided, That of
this amount, not to exceed $91,649,000 shall
be available for study, planning, design, and
architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of the Navy
determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
For acquisition, construction, installation,
and equipment of temporary or permanent
public works, military installations, facilities, and real property for the Air Force as
currently authorized by law, $1,237,055,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2020:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed
$89,164,000 shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect and engineer
services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of the Air Force determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For acquisition, construction, installation,
and equipment of temporary or permanent
public works, installations, facilities, and
real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments), as currently authorized by law, $1,931,456,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may
be determined by the Secretary of Defense
may be transferred to such appropriations of
the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as
the Secretary may designate, to be merged
with and to be available for the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation or fund to which transferred:
Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed $160,404,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services, as authorized
by law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress of the determination and
the reasons therefor: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available by this
title may be used to construct any fiscal
year 2016 special operations command military construction projects until the Commander of the Special Operations Command
has certified in writing and submits to the

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress a report that includes the
following:
(1) A definition of ‘‘Special Operations
Forces-peculiar’’ as it applies to the use of
United States Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) funding to meet military construction requirements for facilities that
provide healthcare services or support fitness activities.
(2) A description of the decision-making
process used to determine whether a military construction project that provides
healthcare facilities or supports fitness activities should be funded by the USSOCOM
or the military departments.
(3) Provides a schematic of the human performance centers by installation, a listing of
the planned equipment related to training
and resiliency and a description of the mission-critical benefit of each item, an explanation of why the unique physical and psychological health services incorporated could
not be provided by the Defense Health Agency or military services, and a planned staffing breakdown.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. STEFANIK

Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
page 4, line 14, insert after the dollar
amount ‘‘(reduced by $30,000,000)(increased
by $30,000,000)’’ and insert on line 23, after
the
dollar
amount
‘‘(increased
by
$30,000,000)’’.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman from New
York and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, I
would like to thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT) and his
staff for allowing this important discussion of an east coast missile defense
site, as well as the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. TURNER) for his continued efforts and support.
Madam Chair, my amendment would
provide for the planning, design, and
construction of an additional missile
defense site. Simply put, missile defense shields our Nation from hostile
incoming warheads. And with the escalation of threats of rogue nations like
North Korea and Iran, the United
States must be ready not just to retaliate, but to actually stop an attack. We
must be able to defend our Nation and
shoot it down. North Korea does, indeed, have a nuclear weapons capability and is a real concern, given their
unstable and erratic behavior. Iran has
clearly demonstrated key technologies
required for ICBM development.
This is about maintaining our Nation’s readiness, and an east coast missile defense site provides increased battle space, more decision time, increased reliability, more inventory,
and a different angle of intercept.
General Jacoby stated that a third
site would give him an increased battle
space and increased opportunity for
him to engage threats from either Iran
or North Korea. An east coast missile
defense site would increase our Nation’s defense capability against those
very real threats.

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Madam Chair, this amendment provides for the security and protection
that our Nation needs.
I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TURNER).
Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, I want
to thank Congresswoman STEFANIK and
also Chairman DENT for their support
for this amendment providing funding
for the planning, design, and construction of an additional missile defense
site capable of protecting the homeland from a long-range ballistic missile
attack.
As Congresswoman STEFANIK is very
well aware, we currently possess only
two sites, both located on the west
coast, limiting our ability to target
and intercept incoming ICBMs either
that are targeting the east coast or
that are originating from the east.
Dating back to 2007, the United
States Northern Command in charge of
defending the homeland recommended
the construction of the east coast site.
One thing that we know: under President Obama’s plan for missile defense,
he canceled President Bush’s third site
that was to be located in Poland and
provide ICBM coverage for the east
coast of the United States continental.
He then canceled phase 4 of his own
phase adaptive approach that would
have similarly provided that coverage.
The only opportunity that we have
left with those two options gone is to
look to the east coast site. Two Presidents and three Secretaries of Defense
have all recognized the advantages of
an additional missile coast defense site
in order to provide further protection
against long-range ballistic missile
threats from regions such as the Middle East.
As China, Russia, Iran, and North
Korea push for more advanced launch
vehicles, the construction of an east
coast site will dramatically improve
the ability of our military to intercept
incoming threats by increasing the opportunity to engage and defeat those
threats.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. STEFANIK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise in
support of the gentlewoman’s amendment.
With advantages in launch capabilities, we should explore protecting the
east coast from our adversaries, as Mr.
TURNER and Ms. STEFANIK have stated.
She has been very articulate and a
great advocate for her district in Fort
Drum.
Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. STEFANIK).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, as the designee of the ranking member, I move to
strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.037

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I am first
seeking clarity from Chairman DENT
on what the committee intends with
the major construction account funding in this bill.
Included in the committee report is
language that the funding provided for
major construction be used for hospital
construction and seismic corrections.
One of the projects in the request is the
Alameda Clinic. This clinic would provide direct medical care to veterans in
my district.
Mr. Chairman, does the Alameda
Clinic project meet the criteria for
funding set by the committee in the report accompanying this bill?
Mr. DENT. Will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. It does, yes.
Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentleman for this clarification, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
For construction, acquisition, expansion,
rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities
for the training and administration of the
Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction
Authorization
Acts,
$167,437,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated, not to exceed $20,337,000 shall
be available for study, planning, design, and
architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Director of the Army
National Guard determines that additional
obligations are necessary for such purposes
and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
For construction, acquisition, expansion,
rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities
for the training and administration of the
Air National Guard, and contributions therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, $138,738,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not
to exceed $5,104,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Director of the Air National Guard
determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE
For construction, acquisition, expansion,
rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities
for the training and administration of the
Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 1803
of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction
Authorization
Acts,
$104,295,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated, not to exceed $9,318,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services, as authorized
by law, unless the Chief of the Army Reserve
determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2587

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

Houses of Congress of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY RESERVE
For construction, acquisition, expansion,
rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities
for the training and administration of the reserve components of the Navy and Marine
Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title
10, United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, $36,078,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2020:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated,
not to exceed $2,208,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of the Navy determines
that additional obligations are necessary for
such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons
therefor.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE
For construction, acquisition, expansion,
rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities
for the training and administration of the
Air Force Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction
Authorization
Acts,
$65,021,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated, not to exceed $13,400,000 shall
be available for study, planning, design, and
architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Chief of the Air Force
Reserve determines that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
For the United States share of the cost of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for the acquisition and construction of military facilities
and installations (including international
military headquarters) and for related expenses for the collective defense of the North
Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of title 10, United States Code, and
Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$150,000,000, to remain available until expended.
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
For expenses of family housing for the
Army for construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by
law, $99,695,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2020.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, ARMY
For expenses of family housing for the
Army for operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance premiums, as authorized by law,
$393,511,000.
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND
MARINE CORPS
For expenses of family housing for the
Navy and Marine Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, $16,541,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
For expenses of family housing for the
Navy and Marine Corps for operation and
maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $353,036,000.

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
For expenses of family housing for the Air
Force for construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by
law, $160,498,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2020.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
For expenses of family housing for the Air
Force for operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law,
$331,232,000.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
For expenses of family housing for the activities and agencies of the Department of
Defense (other than the military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing, and minor construction, as authorized
by law, $58,668,000.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE
ACCOUNT
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure Account, established by
section 2906(a) of the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687
note), $251,334,000, to remain available until
expended.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. None of the funds made available
in this title shall be expended for payments
under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for
construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United
States, except Alaska, without the specific
approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
SEC. 102. Funds made available in this title
for construction shall be available for hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
SEC. 103. Funds made available in this title
for construction may be used for advances to
the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the construction of access roads as authorized by
section 210 of title 23, United States Code,
when projects authorized therein are certified as important to the national defense
by the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 104. None of the funds made available
in this title may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United States for
which specific appropriations have not been
made.
SEC. 105. None of the funds made available
in this title shall be used for purchase of
land or land easements in excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, except: (1) where
there is a determination of value by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the
Attorney General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where the estimated
value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise
determined by the Secretary of Defense to be
in the public interest.
SEC. 106. None of the funds made available
in this title shall be used to: (1) acquire land;
(2) provide for site preparation; or (3) install
utilities for any family housing, except housing for which funds have been made available
in annual Acts making appropriations for
military construction.
SEC. 107. None of the funds made available
in this title for minor construction may be
used to transfer or relocate any activity
from one base or installation to another,
without prior notification to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
SEC. 108. None of the funds made available
in this title may be used for the procurement

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.041

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H2588

of steel for any construction project or activity for which American steel producers, fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the opportunity to compete for such
steel procurement.
SEC. 109. None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for military construction or family housing during the current fiscal year may be used to pay real
property taxes in any foreign nation.
SEC. 110. None of the funds made available
in this title may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
SEC. 111. None of the funds made available
in this title may be obligated for architect
and engineer contracts estimated by the
Government to exceed $500,000 for projects to
be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty Organization member country,
or in countries bordering the Arabian Gulf,
unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint
venture with host nation firms.
SEC. 112. None of the funds made available
in this title for military construction in the
United States territories and possessions in
the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Gulf, may
be used to award any contract estimated by
the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section
shall not be applicable to contract awards
for which the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible
bid of a foreign contractor by greater than 20
percent: Provided further, That this section
shall not apply to contract awards for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for
which the lowest responsive and responsible
bid is submitted by a Marshallese contractor.
SEC. 113. The Secretary of Defense shall inform the appropriate committees of both
Houses of Congress, including the Committees on Appropriations, of plans and scope of
any proposed military exercise involving
United States personnel 30 days prior to its
occurring, if amounts expended for construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated to exceed $100,000.
SEC. 114. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for construction in prior
years shall be available for construction authorized for each such military department
by the authorizations enacted into law during the current session of Congress.
SEC. 115. For military construction or family housing projects that are being completed with funds otherwise expired or lapsed
for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, inspection, overhead, engineering and
design on those projects and on subsequent
claims, if any.
SEC. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds made available to a
military department or defense agency for
the construction of military projects may be
obligated for a military construction project
or contract, or for any portion of such a
project or contract, at any time before the
end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year for which funds for such project were
made available, if the funds obligated for
such project: (1) are obligated from funds
available for military construction projects;
and (2) do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any amount by
which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 117. Subject to 30 days prior notification, or 14 days for a notification provided in
an electronic medium pursuant to sections

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

480 and 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to
the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress, such additional amounts
as may be determined by the Secretary of
Defense may be transferred to: (1) the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated
for construction in ‘‘Family Housing’’ accounts, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same
period of time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of
Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated for construction of military unaccompanied housing in ‘‘Military Construction’’ accounts, to be merged with and to be
available for the same purposes and for the
same period of time as amounts appropriated
directly to the Fund: Provided, That appropriations made available to the Funds shall
be available to cover the costs, as defined in
section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the Department of Defense
pursuant to the provisions of subchapter IV
of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to alternative means of acquiring
and improving military family housing, military unaccompanied housing, and supporting
facilities: Provided further, That the transfer
authority in this provision shall also be applicable to amounts appropriated for construction in ‘‘Family Housing’’ accounts in
section 2002 of Public Law 112–10.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 118. In addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be transferred from the
Department of Defense Base Closure Account
to the fund established by section 1013(d) of
the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to
pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program incurred under
42 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)(A). Any amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available
for the same purposes and for the same time
period as the fund to which transferred.
SEC. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made available in this title
for operation and maintenance of family
housing shall be the exclusive source of
funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing units, including general or flag
officer quarters: Provided, That not more
than $15,000 per unit may be spent annually
for the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer quarters without 30 days
prior notification, or 14 days for a notification provided in an electronic medium pursuant to sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United
States Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, except
that an after-the-fact notification shall be
submitted if the limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated with environmental remediation that could not be reasonably anticipated at the time of the budget submission.
SEC. 120. Amounts contained in the Ford
Island Improvement Account established by
subsection (h) of section 2814 of title 10,
United States Code, are appropriated and
shall be available until expended for the purposes specified in subsection (i)(1) of such
section or until transferred pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 121. During the 5-year period after appropriations available in this Act to the Department of Defense for military construction and family housing operation and maintenance and construction have expired for
obligation, upon a determination that such
appropriations will not be necessary for the
liquidation of obligations or for making au-

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

thorized adjustments to such appropriations
for obligations incurred during the period of
availability of such appropriations, unobligated balances of such appropriations may
be transferred into the appropriation ‘‘Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Construction,
Defense’’, to be merged with and to be available for the same time period and for the
same purposes as the appropriation to which
transferred.
SEC. 122. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds made available
in this Act may be used by the Secretary of
the Army to relocate a unit in the Army
that—
(1) performs a testing mission or function
that is not performed by any other unit in
the Army and is specifically stipulated in
title 10, United States Code; and
(2) is located at a military installation at
which the total number of civilian employees of the Department of the Army and
Army contractor personnel employed exceeds 10 percent of the total number of members of the regular and reserve components
of the Army assigned to the installation.
(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Army certifies
to the congressional defense committees
that in proposing the relocation of the unit
of the Army, the Secretary complied with
Army Regulation 5–10 relating to the policy,
procedures, and responsibilities for Army
stationing actions.
SEC. 123. Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in an account funded
under the headings in this title may be
transferred among projects and activities
within the account in accordance with the
reprogramming guidelines for military construction and family housing construction
contained in Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14–R, Volume 3, Chapter 7, of February 2009, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 124. None of the funds made available
in this title may be obligated or expended for
planning and design and construction of
projects at Arlington National Cemetery.
(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

SEC. 125. Of the unobligated balances available for ‘‘Military Construction, Army’’,
from prior appropriation Acts (other than
appropriations designated by law as being for
contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism or as an emergency requirement), $96,000,000 are hereby rescinded.
(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

SEC. 126. Of the unobligated balances available for ‘‘Military Construction, Air Force’’,
from prior appropriation Acts (other than
appropriations designated by law as being for
contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism or as an emergency requirement), $52,600,000 are hereby rescinded.
(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

SEC. 127. Of the unobligated balances available for ‘‘Military Construction, DefenseWide’’, from prior appropriation Acts (other
than appropriations designated by law as
being for contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism or as an
emergency requirement), $134,000,000 are
hereby rescinded.
(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

SEC. 128. Of the unobligated balances made
available in prior appropriation Acts for the
fund established in section 1013(d) of the
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) (other
than appropriations designated by law as
being for contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism or as an
emergency requirement), $103,918,000 are
hereby rescinded.

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.047

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SEC. 129. For the purposes of this Act, the
term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’
means the Committees on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives and the Senate,
the Subcommittee on Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, and the Subcommittee on Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 130. None of the funds made available
by this title may be used to carry out the
closure or realignment of Lajes Air Force
Base, Azores, and, unless and until the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing to the
congressional defense committees that,
based on operational requirements, Lajes Air
Force Base is not an optimal location for the
Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex, none of
the funds made available by this title may be
used to construct phase two of the Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex Consolidation
at Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom.
SEC. 131. Notwithstanding section 124, for
an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction, Army’’ in this title, $30,000,000 is
provided for advances to the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for construction of access roads as
authorized by section 210 of title 23, United
States Code.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

For the payment of compensation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as authorized by section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code;
pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 61
of title 38, United States Code; and burial
benefits, the Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors, emergency and other officers’ retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and certificates, payment of premiums
due on commercial life insurance policies
guaranteed under the provisions of title IV
of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50
U.S.C. App. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits
as authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and
2106, and chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title
38, United States Code, $166,271,436,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$87,146,761,000 shall become available on October 1, 2016: Provided, That not to exceed
$15,562,000 of the amount made available for
fiscal year 2016 and $16,021,000 of the amount
made available for fiscal year 2017 under this
heading shall be reimbursed to ‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’, and ‘‘Information Technology
Systems’’ for necessary expenses in implementing the provisions of chapters 51, 53, and
55 of title 38, United States Code, the funding
source for which is specifically provided as
the ‘‘Compensation and Pensions’’ appropriation: Provided further, That such sums as
may be earned on an actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to ‘‘Medical
Care Collections Fund’’ to augment the funding of individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized.
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by chapters 21, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35,
36, 39, 41, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United
States Code, $32,088,826,000, to remain available until expended, of which $16,743,904,000
shall become available on October 1, 2016:
Provided, That expenses for rehabilitation

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2589

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

program services and assistance which the
Secretary is authorized to provide under subsection (a) of section 3104 of title 38, United
States Code, other than under paragraphs
(1), (2), (5), and (11) of that subsection, shall
be charged to this account.
VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

For military and naval insurance, national
service life insurance, servicemen’s indemnities, service-disabled veterans insurance,
and veterans mortgage life insurance as authorized by chapters 19 and 21, title 38,
United States Code, $169,080,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $91,920,000
shall become available on October 1, 2016.
VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND

For the cost of direct and guaranteed
loans, such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the program, as authorized by subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title
38, United States Code: Provided, That such
costs, including the cost of modifying such
loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2016, within
the resources available, not to exceed
$500,000 in gross obligations for direct loans
are authorized for specially adapted housing
loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to
carry out the direct and guaranteed loan
programs, $164,558,000.
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM
ACCOUNT

For the cost of direct loans, $31,000, as authorized by chapter 31 of title 38, United
States Code: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That funds made available under this
heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
loans not to exceed $2,952,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses
necessary to carry out the direct loan program, $367,000, which may be paid to the appropriation for ‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’.
NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN
PROGRAM ACCOUNT

For administrative expenses to carry out
the direct loan program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code, $1,134,000.
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL SERVICES

For necessary expenses for furnishing, as
authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans
described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United
States Code, including care and treatment in
facilities not under the jurisdiction of the
Department, and including medical supplies
and equipment, bioengineering services, food
services, and salaries and expenses of
healthcare employees hired under title 38,
United States Code, aid to State homes as
authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United
States Code, assistance and support services
for caregivers as authorized by section 1720G
of title 38, United States Code, loan repayments authorized by section 604 of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–163; 124 Stat.
1174; 38 U.S.C. 7681 note), and hospital care
and medical services authorized by section
1787 of title 38, United States Code;
$969,554,000, which shall be in addition to
funds previously appropriated under this
heading that became available on October 1,
2015; and, in addition, $51,673,000,000, plus reimbursements, shall become available on October 1, 2016, and shall remain available until

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

September 30, 2017: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a
priority for the provision of medical treatment for veterans who have service-connected disabilities, lower income, or have
special needs: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall give priority
funding for the provision of basic medical
benefits to veterans in enrollment priority
groups 1 through 6: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of prescription drugs
from Veterans Health Administration facilities to enrolled veterans with privately written prescriptions based on requirements established by the Secretary: Provided further,
That the implementation of the program described in the previous proviso shall incur no
additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

b 1600
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. HULTGREN).
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $2,031,000)’’.
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $2,031,000)’’.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order on the gentleman’s
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentleman from Arizona and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer an amendment which seeks to
provide additional resources for the
mental health services for our Nation’s
veterans.
By way of background, the VA’s
budget justification for FY16 requests
an increase of $3,231,000 over the enacted fiscal year ’15 levels for its Office
of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, but on the very next page of that
document, the VA only mentions that
it needs ‘‘$1.2 million to address increased congressional and legislative
workload.’’
My amendment simply transfers the
remaining $2,031,000 unaccounted for
from this request and prioritizes it to
address the ongoing problems our veterans face from returning from combat.
Traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic stress disorder have been
consistently contributing to behavioral
issues with our veterans, and, all too
often, these ongoing mental health
issues result in suicide. With an average of 18 to 20 veteran suicides per day,
more resources are desperately needed.
The Congressional Budget Office says
the amendment would have no impact
on the budget authority or outlays.
The VA does not need more money to
hire more paper pushers to send letters
to Capitol Hill to attempt to explain
its inappropriate actions. Instead, let’s

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.047

H29APPT1

H2590

appropriate the money to those whom
the VA was created to serve, and let’s
help improve the mental health of our
Nation’s heroes.
I ask my colleagues to support this
commonsense amendment. I thank
Chairman DENT and Ranking Member
BISHOP for their time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to
speak on the point of order.
The amendment proposes to amend
portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes
to increase the level of outlays in the
bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other
Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
To be considered en bloc pursuant to
clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an amendment
must not propose to increase the levels
of budget authority or outlays in the
bill. Because the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona proposes a
net increase in the level of outlays in
the bill, as argued by the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Appropriations,
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to
address portions of the bill not yet
read.
The point of order is sustained. The
amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
MEDICAL SUPPORT AND COMPLIANCE

For necessary expenses in the administration of the medical, hospital, nursing home,
domiciliary, construction, supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; administrative expenses in support of capital
policy activities; and administrative and
legal expenses of the Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the Department as authorized under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, and the Federal
Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et
seq.), $6,524,000,000, plus reimbursements,
shall become available on October 1, 2016,
and shall remain available until September
30, 2017.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

MEDICAL FACILITIES

For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of hospitals, nursing
homes, domiciliary facilities, and other necessary facilities of the Veterans Health Administration; for administrative expenses in
support of planning, design, project management, real property acquisition and disposition, construction, and renovation of any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of
the Department; for oversight, engineering,
and architectural activities not charged to
project costs; for repairing, altering, improving, or providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of
the Department, not otherwise provided for,
either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees and purchase of materials;
for leases of facilities; and for laundry services, $5,074,000,000, plus reimbursements,
shall become available on October 1, 2016,
and shall remain available until September
30, 2017.
MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

For necessary expenses in carrying out
programs of medical and prosthetic research

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

and development as authorized by chapter 73
of title 38, United States Code, $621,813,000,
plus reimbursements, shall remain available
until September 30, 2017.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, exactly 2
weeks ago, the VA Office of the Inspector General released its report on the
gross mismanagement and claims manipulation that has long corroded the
Philadelphia VA Regional Office. The
issues revealed through that report reflect some of the worst instances of neglect and lack of accountability I have
seen. These issues are unacceptable for
our Nation’s veterans. I have personally seen the consequences firsthand
through my constituency served by the
Philadelphia VA.
This bill takes a number of steps to
address the issues raised by the inspector general and help to ensure that
they will not be repeated at any VA facility. I remain steadfast in my work
to bring accountability and reform to
the VA.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MEEHAN).
Mr. MEEHAN. I want to thank the
gentleman, and I want to thank him
for his hard work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has put together a fiscally responsible piece of legislation
that will support the U.S. military, the
military families, and the veterans who
have served our country.
As you have heard in the discussions
that have taken place with other colleagues, particularly with those from
Pennsylvania, when red tape and mismanagement stand between a veteran
and his or her care, we all have a responsibility to blow the whistle and to
call for appropriate reforms.
The inspector general for Veterans
Affairs released a report 2 weeks ago on
the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Regional Office, as my colleague identified, and the report was even more
scathing than we were led to believe it
would be. It confirmed our worst
fears—that the Philadelphia VA Regional Office is rife with systematic
mismanagement, poor morale, the deliberate manipulation of data, and individuals who are more focused on misleading the Nation than on serving our
veterans.
I would like to thank Chairman MILLER on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee for convening a hearing on
these reports just last week in order to
explore these matters in greater detail.
Out of those hearings, we learned that
the VA isn’t planning on holding anyone responsible until after the completion of yet another report. This may be
the nature of the process, but it is
deeply troubling.
What the VA needs is not an endless
loop of bureaucratic reviews and inquires—it is competent management

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

that is needed, management that will
hold the employees and the other management accountable. While we wait
for the next report, with this bill, Congress has an opportunity to take reform action with VA H.R. 2029, which
will give the VA employees the tools
they need to expedite the veterans benefits and care process.
One of the findings from the IG report that stuck out at me was that, in
Philadelphia, the average response
time for some 31,000 inquiries was 312
days. According to policy, that response should have happened within 5
days. I asked the Director of the VA:
What do you tell the veterans? He had
no answer. That response time is completely unacceptable. The funding in
this bill will provide additional staff to
expedite the processing of these claims
and get those veterans the benefits
they deserve.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT)
for his hard work on this bill. I look
forward to continuing to work with
him, as well as with other colleagues,
to bring about the important reforms
that are needed at the Philadelphia
benefits office.
Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania for his dedication
and determination to right the situation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Chester County, Pennsylvania (Mr. COSTELLO).
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today regarding Congressman DENT’s fiscally responsible
appropriations legislation and the positive impact it will have on the Philadelphia VA Regional Office.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
the gentleman from Chester County,
Pennsylvania (Mr. COSTELLO), who has
been deeply concerned about this issue
of the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs
Regional Office.
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today regarding Congressman DENT’s fiscally responsible
appropriations legislation and the positive impact it will have on the Philadelphia VA Regional Office.
As you know, the Philadelphia VA
has been plagued with a dysfunctional
and toxic work environment, with
management purposefully and blatantly displaying managerial wrongdoing. Mr. Chairman, it is our duty to
right these wrongdoings and to ensure
that the best care is provided to our
veterans. This appropriations bill is a
great start, and it gives Congress the
opportunity to act on behalf of our veterans. Let’s talk about this appropriations bill and the specifics of it.
It fully funds the Veterans Benefits
Management System, which will result

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.043

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

in cutting the average processing time
of a veteran’s filed claim. It fully funds
the Veterans Benefits Administration
with an additional $163 million to allow
for more staffing for the processing of
appeals claims. We have already heard
about the backlog of the claims. This
seeks to address that. It allocates funding for IT to permit the electronic
modernization of appeals claims, and it
allocates full funding for digital scanning and centralized mail. Lastly, this
bill establishes strike force response
teams to bring in experienced managers to implement corrective actions
at struggling and low-performing VA
facilities, like the Philadelphia VA.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for change
at the Philadelphia VA RO, and I am
fully committed to ensuring that there
is
a
course
correction
of
the
wrongdoings there and that we effectively and expeditiously resolve the
problems. I encourage my colleagues to
do the same and support this bill.
I will also want to particularly thank
Congressman DENT for his hard work
on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with you and with
your respective committees to provide
the best for the veterans in our Commonwealth and across the Nation.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION
For necessary expenses of the National
Cemetery Administration for operations and
maintenance, not otherwise provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law;
purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for
use in cemeterial operations; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration
or improvement of facilities under the jurisdiction of the National Cemetery Administration, $266,220,000, of which not to exceed
$26,600,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017.
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

For necessary operating expenses of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including administrative
expenses in support of Department-wide capital planning, management and policy activities, uniforms, or allowances therefor; not to
exceed $25,000 for official reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the
General Services Administration for security
guard services, $336,659,000, of which not to
exceed $10,100,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
funds provided under this heading may be
transferred to ‘‘General Operating Expenses,
Veterans Benefits Administration’’.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCNERNEY

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $15,068,000)’’.
Page 31, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $27,213,000)’’.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2591

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

Page 32, lines 5 and 9, after each dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $135,019,000)’’.
Page 36, line 5, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $177,300,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California.
b 1615
Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank Chairman DENT and
Ranking Member BISHOP for all their
hard work on this year’s military construction and Veterans Affairs funding
bill. I know that both of you had to
make difficult decisions to get under
the current financial constraints.
The President’s budget included $1.4
billion in funding for VA major construction projects. Unfortunately, this
bill only includes $561 million, which is
$582 million less than the request. This
severely impacts access to care for veterans.
My amendment increases the VA
major construction by $177 million, although I would still prefer to restore
full funding for major construction
with the President’s fiscal year 2016
budget request. The amendment is offset by reductions to the VA administration IT accounts, bringing them in
line with the fiscal year 2015 enacted
levels. In addition, the general operating expenses account would be reduced by $27 million.
However, my amendment will ensure
that more VA construction projects are
funded, including the outpatient clinic
and national cemetery in Alameda,
California, and a 187,000-square-foot
community-based outpatient clinic in
French Camp, California.
Without this funding, more than
87,000 veterans in and around my district will have to continue to wait for
the quality medical care that they
have earned. For example, I recently
drove with a veteran to the nearest VA
medical center. His appointment was
only 30 minutes, but including travel,
it took us 8 hours. It took all day. This
cannot continue.
The VA buildings are an average of 60
years old. Since 2004, use of Department facilities has risen 80 percent to
120 percent, while the condition of
these facilities deteriorated over the
same period of time. There are more
than 3,900 infrastructure gaps that will
cost between $54 billion and $66 billion
to close, including $10 billion in activation costs.
Moreover, the Veterans Health Administration has over 21 major construction projects dating to 2007 that
have been only partially funded. To
complete existing projects and to close
future gaps, the VA will need to invest
at least $23 billion over the next 10
years. At current requested funding
levels, it will take more than 67 years
to complete the 10-year capital investment plan of the Department.
Our brave men and women deserve
access to the best healthcare system

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

our Nation has to offer, and that is the
VA healthcare system. Not adequately
funding
our
future
construction
projects is a disservice to our Nation’s
heroes.
Now I share my colleagues’ outrage
at the VA boondoggle in Aurora, Colorado. This is unacceptable to taxpayers, to veterans and their families,
and an embarrassment to the VA.
While we are all frustrated with how
this process has gone, further funding
reductions to major construction does
not help build additional facilities on
schedule, fails to provide additional
oversight of construction projects, and
does nothing to reform VA construction processes. I am pleased that both
the chairman and ranking member recognize the need to address this issue
and have included important language
to that effect, but there is still more
work to be done, and that is something
we plan to address in the Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs.
In addition, the VA announced last
week that it is working with the Army
Corps of Engineers to identify projects
in which the Corps will serve as the
construction agent. The VA and the
Corps are still working on the exact
projects and criteria, but this is a step
in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration, really, but cutting funding
right now to these projects doesn’t
solve the problem. It is hurting our
veterans. We need to think outside of
that box. Let’s focus on improving our
construction process and not punishing
the veterans across the country because of what occurred in Denver. I
urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I must rise
reluctantly in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. I know the gentleman and
others are disappointed that we did not
provide the full administration request
for major construction, but we felt
that it was more important to provide
necessary health services for veterans
than to add to the poorly managed
major construction account. This
amendment, I believe, proves the wisdom of our choice.
To provide enough money for the
French Camp project Mr. MCNERNEY is
interested in, we would have to gut the
VA IT program, which is already $195
million below the request. I don’t think
many Members would be willing to accept the cuts that would need to be
made to the electronic medical records
system or the paperless disability
claims processing system. We can’t afford to sacrifice the good of the many
veterans to accommodate a local or parochial project construction request.
I understand the gentleman’s concern
and frustration, but I do believe that
this request would do a lot of damage
to the IT program and affect a lot of

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.045

H29APPT1

H2592

things that all of us are deeply concerned about in terms of an A-rated
health record, EMR, and other important disability issues.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. MCNERNEY).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $8,000,000) (increased by $8,000,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer an amendment that would transfer $8 million within this bill to hire
and train personnel for the purposes of
reducing
the
veterans’
disability
claims backlog.
By way of background, the VA’s
budget justification for the fiscal year
2016 requests an increase of $12 million
for its Office of General Counsel, but on
the very next page of that document, it
says it needs $4 million to ‘‘address increases in the legal workload.’’
The VA budget justification also says
that the VA’s goal is to have an additional 45 full-time equivalent lawyers
for its Office of General Counsel, which
would take the total number of attorneys up to 757. According to the committee report for the last 5 years, the
committee has fully funded the President’s budget request for additional
full-time equivalents, and yet the
claim backlogs remain.
My amendment seeks to reprogram
money within the Veterans Benefits
Administration from the Office of General Counsel and put it towards the hiring and training of personnel who will
work to reduce the VA claims backlog.
The Congressional Budget Office says
this amendment has no score.
I think most of us can agree that the
appropriations would be better spent
on the VA claims backlog reduction
rather than hiring more lawyers. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I agree with Mr. GOSAR
that eliminating the backlog should be
the VA’s highest priority. The bill provides the entire administration request
for claims processing activities, and I
would support your amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. GOSAR).

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I rise to offer an amendment. It is at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from Nevada and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. TITUS. I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of
my amendment, which is designed to
focus the VA’s attention on a critical
issue, the treatment of our female veterans.
The population of women veterans is
rapidly growing. Today women constitute approximately 20 percent of
new recruits, 14.5 percent of the Active
Duty component, and 18 percent of the
Reserve component. Almost 280,000
women have served post-9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the number of
male veterans is expected to decline by
2020, the number of women veterans is
expected to grow dramatically to 11
percent of the veteran population.
From health care to child care, the
needs of women veterans are different
from those of their male counterparts.
Unfortunately, the VA has faced challenges in meeting these needs. There
are far too few OB/GYNs and a dearth
of women’s healthcare clinics. Where
clinics do exist, many lack sufficient
privacy protections for the patient.
The VA has also struggled to address
shortages in mental health, child care,
and housing services for female veterans.
Too many women who served either
do not identify themselves as veterans
or they lack sufficient information
about the benefits and services that
the VA provides. Fortunately, the VA
has started to put an increased focus
on this population. The VA Center for
Women Veterans is charged with monitoring and coordinating VA’s administration of health care, benefits services, and programs for women veterans,
as well as with raising awareness within the Department for their special
needs.
In 2012 the Women Veterans Task
Force published a report outlining
strategies to meet the needs of our female veterans. The report highlighted
barriers to providing services to women
veterans, including a lack of data collection and analysis. Without knowing
how to best serve and meet expectations of female veterans, the VA will
never be able to give these heroes the
care and support that they earned and
deserve.
My amendment is designed simply to
encourage the VA to fill the two unfunded data collection and analysis positions in the Center for Women Vet-

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

erans to ensure that the VA is able to
identify and fulfill the needs of our Nation’s female heroes.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me on
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair,
thank you for allowing me to respond.
I support the gentlewoman’s efforts to
highlight the importance of women’s
health. The VA women’s center has
been underfunded for the last few
years. As the gentlewoman correctly
pointed out, their most recent working
group recommends that they fill two
statistician positions that have not yet
been filled due to lack of budget.
Without these positions, it is challenging for the VA to get good data
about female veterans, so many programs are shaped using faulty assumptions. I believe that these positions are
very important for the VA when it
comes to providing care for our female
veterans. I support these efforts, and I
urge all Members to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the
time in opposition to the amendment,
but I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I commend the
gentlelady for her work to improve the
services VA provides to our women veterans. You really ought to be commended. I know your work on the authorizing committee is very important
to you. Since women comprise nearly
15 percent of the Active-Duty military
forces, VA must improve its services
and infrastructure to accommodate
gender-specific
needs.
I
certainly
strongly support the gentlelady’s
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to close by asking my other colleagues to support this amendment so
we can send a strong message to our female veterans that the U.S. Congress is
committed to ensuring that the VA is
meeting their unique needs. It is critical that the VA is able to accurately
look forward to the future and shape
their programs so it is welcoming and
supporting of all our veterans. I thank
you for your support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. TITUS).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $2,000,000)’’.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.048

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

Page 30, line 22, after the dollar amount,
insert ‘‘(increased by $2,000,000)’’.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona.
b 1630
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer a straightforward amendment
that would strengthen the ability of
the Board of Veterans Appeals to reduce its backlog.
I applaud the committee for taking
on the difficult task of prioritizing limited resources for our veterans. The
committee rightfully recommends the
budget request level for the Board of
Veterans Appeals, but I will note that
one of the primary concerns I hear
from my casework staff and directly
from the veterans is the need for increased resources to the Board of Veterans Appeals.
According to the committee report
accompanying this bill, ‘‘appeals received by BVA are projected to increase from 49,611 in 2012 to 81,640 cases
in 2016.’’ That is a 65 percent increase
in just 4 short years.
With our troops returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan, it is no wonder why
there is such a significant spike in the
claims and appeals. I simply want to
heed the call of the veterans in my district and across this country and ensure that the Board of Veterans Appeals has the resources necessary to
address the seemingly endless backlog.
CBO says this amendment would
have no impact on budget authority or
outlays.
I encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment. I thank the chairman
and the ranking member for their diligent efforts.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona’s emphasis on
maximizing funding for the Board of
Veterans Appeals. The board will be
facing an enormous increase in caseload as the backlog of initial disability
claims is cleared and veterans appeals
those decisions.
We have provided a $9 million, or 8.6
percent, increase in the board’s funding, as well as additional information
technology funds to help modernize the
board’s paperbound processing system.
I support the gentleman’s amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman
and the ranking member, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. GOSAR).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. SINEMA

Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk, which I will
offer at this time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2593

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

The Clerk read as follows:
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $50,000) (increased by $50,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from Arizona and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, the
Sinema amendment is a commonsense
fix that helps improve the transparency of the VA and the quality of
services provided to veterans.
I appreciate Chairman DENT and
Ranking Member BISHOP for all of the
work that they are doing to pass this
bill and for being so kind about this
amendment.
The underlying bill requires quarterly reports on the financial status of
the Veterans Health Administration.
My amendment requires the VA to include, as part of these quarterly payments, any outstanding payments owed
to contracted entities older than 60
days and a justification for the delay in
payments.
Over the last year, we have seen that
the VA is unable to provide the timely,
high-quality care our veterans deserve
on their own. By leveraging community providers and creating a seamless
relationship between internal VA care
providers and external non-VA care
providers, we can ensure that veterans
receive the timely access to quality
care they deserve.
That is what the Choice Act is trying
to create. That is what the Secretary
hopes to build through the MyVA initiative.
Unfortunately, the VA continues to
struggle with paying its bills in a timely way. In my district, I have heard
from large hospitals and small businesses alike who don’t receive prompt
payments from the VA.
A small business in my district, Interim HealthCare, provides home care,
skilled medical care, and staffing services for the VA. Despite efforts by the
Phoenix VA hospital, the larger VA
system has failed to pay Interim
HealthCare and others in a timely way.
This threatens small businesses and
the care that they provide to Arizona
veterans. Ultimately, this undermines
the seamless care we are attempting to
provide to veterans.
Understanding why the VA struggles
to provide timely payments to contracted service providers will help the
VA address this issue and improve the
quality of services for our veterans.
Additionally, we have learned that in
2014, over 55 percent of all veterans
calling a national hotline for care
never got through to a representative.
Thus far, in 2015, that number has risen
to 59 percent. This amendment would
also allow the VA to provide a report
on how many individuals who reached
the call center are dropped and how
many get the care they receive.
The Sinema amendment, Mr. Chair
and others, which will improve over-

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

sight and accountability at the VA, is
a step towards restoring the trust that
we so dearly owe to our veterans.
I thank the chairman and ranking
member for their support and their
dedication to our Nation’s veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, but I
am not opposed the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I support
the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. SINEMA).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar
amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $3,200,000)’’.
Page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(increased by $3,200,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer an amendment to provide additional resources for the information
technology systems at the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
Updates and upgrades to IT systems
at the VA are paramount to meeting
the goals of veterans claims backlog
reduction.
I applaud the committee for recommending resources above and beyond
last year’s enacted levels, but the recommended levels are significantly beneath the President’s budget request
levels.
Last year, I offered an amendment to
this same appropriation bill, House
amendment 635, which transferred just
over $3.2 million from the general administration account at the VA to the
IT systems account. That amendment
was agreed to by a voice vote. Today, I
offer essentially the same amendment.
I just want to note, as I have before,
that many of our veterans are simply
giving up. They are either giving up on
trying to obtain the benefits they deserve or, worse, some of them are giving up on life altogether. It is a travesty, and this is an appalling trend
that must be reversed.
I appreciate the committee’s hard
work and its acknowledgment of the
importance of reducing the backlog in
this bill. Having said that, I think we
can do more and should focus on

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.055

H29APPT1

H2594

prioritizing funding for efforts that
will lead to timelier care for our Nation’s heroes, as opposed to administrative expenses.
My commonsense amendment proposes redirecting a fraction of the
funds in the general administration account away from things like funding
for conference expenses and bureaucrats and shifting those funds toward
reducing the VA claims backlog.
I urge my colleagues to support this
simple amendment to improve IT systems at the VA.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I understand the gentleman’s focus on providing information
technology resources for the VA in
order to meet the goals of eliminating
the backlog. I have no objection to the
amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. I certainly thank the
distinguished chair and the ranking
member, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. GOSAR).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS

For necessary operating expenses of the
Board of Veterans Appeals, $107,884,000, of
which not to exceed $10,788,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2017.
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES, VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

For necessary operating expenses of the
Veterans Benefits Administration, not otherwise provided for, including hire of passenger
motor vehicles, reimbursement of the General Services Administration for security
guard services, and reimbursement of the Department of Defense for the cost of overseas
employee mail, $2,697,734,000: Provided, That
expenses for services and assistance authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (11) of
section 3104(a) of title 38, United States
Code, that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
determines are necessary to enable entitled
veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain
and maintain suitable employment; or (2) to
achieve maximum independence in daily living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$134,800,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RUIZ

Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Page 31, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by
$5,000,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I will start
off by saying thank you to Chairman

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

DENT and Ranking Member BISHOP for
their hard work on this appropriations
bill.
I rise today to offer an amendment to
H.R. 2029, the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2016. This
amendment is for the brave men and
women who have served and sacrificed
for our country, our veterans.
California is home to almost 2 million veterans, and I am proud to represent more than 54,000 veterans in my
district alone. There are 40,000 veterans
expected to return to California every
year for the next several years, including the fastest growing group of returning veterans, women.
As our troops come home and assimilate back into civilian life, it is critical
that we do not abandon our veterans
when they put down their weapons; instead, we must ensure they have timely access to the critical benefits they
have earned and deserve.
Unconscionably, thousands of veterans who have sacrificed for our country are struggling to access benefits
they have already earned. Due to the
lingering claims backlog at the Veterans Health Administration, veterans
across our Nation are waiting for pensions, prescription drugs, and even lifesaving medical care.
Veterans are still waiting for the VA
to process 448,000 benefit claims, and
176,000 of those veterans have been
waiting longer than 125 days for a decision. Our work to clear this harmful
backlog is not finished, and we owe it
to these courageous men and women to
do so as soon as possible.
These figures are staggering, but the
people this is affecting are not mere
statistics. They are men and women
like retired Air Force Master Sergeant
Andrew Walker and his family from
Beaumont, California.
Mr. Walker and his family waited
years on end without receiving the
critical health care he was promised,
earned, and desperately needed. While I
am heartened that I was able to help
resolve Mr. Walker’s claim, the backlog remains an enduring nightmare for
too many veterans across the country.
Reduced to a claim number and a
seemingly endless line, veterans experience pain, frustration, hopelessness,
and despair. Although the backlog has
shrunk since Congress last passed a
similar appropriations bill, we must
not lose sight of the importance of getting veterans like Andrew Walker their
hard-earned benefits as soon as possible.
As a member of the VA Committee, I
am fighting to change the culture at
the VA from the inside out. By focusing on veteran-centered care and ensuring that the VA continues working to
eliminate this backlog, we can take
much-needed steps in keeping faith
with our veterans and getting them the
benefits they have earned.
That is why I am offering this
amendment to advocate for an additional $5 million to fund the digital

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

scanning of health and benefits files to
reduce the backlog by redirecting funding within the general operating expenses account of the Veterans Benefits Administration.
This amendment simply directs funds
toward the digital scanning of health
and benefit files that will reduce the
claims backlog without any new spending.
As an emergency medicine physician,
I understand the importance of efficiency in health care, and I know how
dangerous such tribulations can be for
a person with PTSD or depression.
By
committing
resources
to
digitizing health and benefits files, we
will further increase VA’s capacity to
tackle the claims backlog, ensuring
veterans receive the benefits they have
earned in a timely manner.
Let us continue to bear in mind that
these men and women have served this
country and they have put their lives
on the line. We must service them by
making certain that Congress focuses
on eliminating the claims backlog for
good.
I encourage my colleagues to stand
up for veterans and support my pragmatic amendment to reduce veterans
claims processing times.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. RUIZ).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 31, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by
$5,000,000)’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Michigan and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to start by thanking subcommittee Chairman DENT and Chairman ROGERS for their work in developing this legislation to address the
current and future needs of our Nation’s veterans.
I rise today to offer an amendment
that highlights the need for veterans
job training as part of this appropriations bill. Simply, my amendment
would designate $5 million within the
general operating expenses of the Veterans Benefits Administration account
to support programs that help our veterans transition to the workforce.
Michigan is home to more than
660,000 veterans who contribute every
day to the vitality of our communities.
b 1645
These men and women have developed marketable skills, from technical
training in mechanics, IT, and health
care, to leadership qualities, ethics,

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.059

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

and problem-solving abilities, yet too
many of them struggle to find employment after they have completed their
service.
Those veterans recently returned
from Iraq and Afghanistan face unique
challenges to finding employment, as
those who served in Active Duty since
September 20, 2001, face a jobless rate
that is 1.7 percentage points higher—7.2
percent veterans versus 5.5 percent national—than the general population.
The House has taken a number of
good steps toward helping veterans
transition to the civilian sector, from
passing the Hire More Heroes Act to remove costly ObamaCare mandates that
discourage the hiring of veterans, to
working with employers to help them
understand the benefits of hiring veterans. We can certainly do more to ensure these brave men and women have
the opportunity for gainful employment when they return to our communities.
The VA should use these designated
funds to focus on difficulties veterans
face translating their valuable skills to
suitable employment in the civilian
sector. For example, as the committee
rightly highlights in their report, the
VA should refine and upgrade its Military Skills Translator tool to more accurately reflect the transferable skills
of transitioning military veterans. The
VA should also increase public awareness and access to this tool for our Nation’s employers.
If we are to develop the 21st century
workforce, our Nation cannot afford to
leave our veterans behind; and if we are
to meet our obligation to those who
have put their lives on the line in service to our country, we must work to
improve the transition from military
service to the career field.
I hope my colleagues will support
this commonsense amendment to help
our veterans get back to work.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I know the gentleman
from Michigan has a deep commitment
to providing job training and employment assistance for our returning veterans, and I support the amendment,
which highlights the importance of VA
programs that provide this assistance.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. WALBERG).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses for information
technology systems and telecommunications
support, including developmental information systems and operational information
systems; for pay and associated costs; and
for the capital asset acquisition of information technology systems, including manage-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2595

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

ment and related contractual costs of said
acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with operations authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
$4,038,363,000, plus reimbursements: Provided,
That $1,115,757,000 shall be for pay and associated costs, of which not to exceed $34,800,000
shall remain available until September 30,
2017: Provided further, That $2,417,863,000 shall
be for operations and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $167,900,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided further, That $504,743,000 shall be for information technology systems development, modernization, and enhancement, and shall remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided further, That amounts made available
for information technology systems development, modernization, and enhancement may
not be obligated or expended until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs submits to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
certification of the amounts, in parts or in
full, to be obligated and expended for each
development project: Provided further, That
amounts made available for salaries and expenses, operations and maintenance, and information technology systems development,
modernization, and enhancement may be
transferred among the three subaccounts
after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an approval is
issued: Provided further, That amounts made
available for the ‘‘Information Technology
Systems’’ account for development, modernization, and enhancement may be transferred among projects or to newly defined
projects: Provided further, That no project
may be increased or decreased by more than
$1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting a request to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress to make the
transfer and an approval is issued, or absent
a response, a period of 30 days has elapsed:
Provided further, That funds under this heading may be used by the Interagency Program
Office through the Department of Veterans
Affairs to define data standards, code sets,
and value sets used to enable interoperability: Provided further, That of the funds
made available for information technology
systems development, modernization, and
enhancement for VistA Evolution, not more
than 25 percent may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, and
such Committees approve, a report that describes: (1) the status of and changes to the
VistA Evolution program plan dated March
24, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Plan’’), the VistA 4 product roadmap dated
February 26, 2015 (‘‘Roadmap’’), and the
VistA 4 Incremental Life Cycle Cost Estimate, dated October 26, 2014; (2) any changes
to the scope or functionality of projects
within the VistA Evolution program as established in the Plan; (3) actual program
costs incurred to date; (4) progress in meeting the schedule milestones that have been
established in the Plan; (5) a Project Management Accountability System (PMAS)
Dashboard Progress report that identifies
each VistA Evolution project being tracked
through PMAS, what functionality it is intended to provide, and what evaluation
scores it has received throughout development; (6) the definition being used for interoperability between the electronic health
record systems of the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
metrics to measure the extent of interoperability, the milestones and timeline associated with achieving interoperability, and the

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

baseline measurements associated with
interoperability; (7) progress toward developing and implementing all components and
levels of interoperability, including semantic
interoperability; (8) the change management
tools in place to facilitate the implementation of VistA Evolution and interoperability;
and (9) any changes to the governance structure for the VistA Evolution program and its
chain of decisionmaking authority: Provided
further, That the funds made available under
this heading for information technology systems development, modernization, and enhancement, shall be for the projects, and in
the amounts, specified under this heading in
the report accompanying this Act.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, to include information
technology, in carrying out the provisions of
the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), $131,766,000, of which not to exceed
$12,600,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017.
CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
For constructing, altering, extending, and
improving any of the facilities, including
parking projects, under the jurisdiction or
for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth
in sections 316, 2404, 2406 and chapter 81 of
title 38, United States Code, not otherwise
provided for, including planning, architectural and engineering services, construction
management services, maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated with
equipment guarantees provided under the
project, services of claims analysts, offsite
utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more than the
amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of
title 38, United States Code, or where funds
for a project were made available in a previous
major
project
appropriation,
$561,800,000, of which $527,800,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2020, and of
which $34,000,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That except for advance
planning activities, including needs assessments which may or may not lead to capital
investments, and other capital asset management related activities, including portfolio development and management activities, and investment strategy studies funded
through the advance planning fund and the
planning and design activities funded
through the design fund, including needs assessments which may or may not lead to
capital investments, and salaries and associated costs of the resident engineers who
oversee those capital investments funded
through this account, and funds provided for
the purchase of land for the National Cemetery Administration through the land acquisition line item, none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be used for
any project which has not been approved by
the Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That funds made available
under this heading for fiscal year 2016, for
each approved project shall be obligated: (1)
by the awarding of a construction documents
contract by September 30, 2016; and (2) by the
awarding of a construction contract by September 30, 2017: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall promptly
submit to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress a written report
on any approved major construction project
for which obligations are not incurred within
the time limitations established above.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. BROWNLEY OF
CALIFORNIA

Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr.
Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.065

H29APPT1

H2596

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

In the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—
Departmental
Administration—Construction, Major Projects’’ account, strike the aggregate
dollar
amount
and
insert
‘‘$1,143,800,000’’.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order on the gentlewoman’s
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentlewoman from California and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr.
Chairman, I rise this afternoon to offer
an amendment to H.R. 2029. My amendment would restore the funding for
major construction projects in the Department of Veterans Affairs to $1.14
billion to meet the level that the VA
has requested.
As ranking member of the House Veterans’
Affairs
Subcommittee
on
Health, I share the outrage of many of
my colleagues over the unacceptable
mismanagement of the VA’s major construction program.
I agree that VA management must be
held accountable for their failure to
manage construction costs for the Denver hospital. Congress must reform the
VA construction program so that it
uses taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. However, we cannot continue
to ignore the sad state of disrepair in
VA hospitals and clinics across our
country which are in desperate need of
funding for modernization and health
and safety improvements.
Most of the VA’s medical infrastructure is old and outdated. The average
building age is approaching 60 years.
Many VA health facilities urgently
need seismic retrofitting or emergency
repairs. Others are too small to accommodate the growing population of veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the aging population of
veterans who served in Vietnam continues to put great stress on the VA.
Many veterans in underserved communities like Ventura County are
counting on us, on Congress, to ensure
that new construction projects are delivered and that their health care needs
will be met. The funding levels in the
bill would delay VA plans to expand
health care facilities in many locations, harming VA’s ability to provide
care to veterans.
If the current funding level in this
bill is made law, the VA would have to
scuttle plans for a rehabilitative therapy building in St. Louis, Missouri,
two outpatient clinics in Alameda and
French Camp in California, and a community living center in Perry Point,
Maryland. Delaying these projects is
not the right way to honor our commitment to our Nation’s veterans.
Mr. Chair, draconian funding cuts to
the VA’s major construction program

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

are not the only way that veterans are
being shortchanged in this bill before
us today. The majority’s bill also fails
to meet the administration’s budget requests in other areas, including medical services, medical facilities, and information technology.
For example, the VA estimates that
at the bill’s current funding level, over
70,000 fewer veterans will receive medical care compared to the administration’s request. In addition, the VA will
not be able to pay for cemetery expansions in St. Louis, Portland, Riverside,
Puerto Rico, and Pensacola, which
would have enabled the Department to
serve 18,000 veterans and their family
members annually.
Veteran
advocates,
including
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America,
and the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
agree that, in the long run, Congress
will be forced to appropriate much
larger sums to enable the VA to catch
up on the deficits being created by this
bill, not only in capital infrastructure,
but in critical investments in other VA
services in health care.
If we really want to change the culture of the VA and ensure that veterans everywhere can get the services
and benefits they have earned, Congress must do its part by investing in
our veterans.
When Congress cuts corners, we put
the health and well-being of the men
and women who have served this country at risk.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that my
amendment is subject to a point of
order, so I intend to withdraw my
amendment, but we must fix this bill
before it moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
For constructing, altering, extending, and
improving any of the facilities, including
parking projects, under the jurisdiction or
for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including planning and assessments
of needs which may lead to capital investments, architectural and engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the project, services of
claims analysts, offsite utility and storm
drainage system construction costs, and site
acquisition, or for any of the purposes set
forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, and chapter
81 of title 38, United States Code, not otherwise provided for, where the estimated cost
of a project is equal to or less than the
amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of
title 38, United States Code, $406,200,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2020,
along with unobligated balances of previous
‘‘Construction, Minor Projects’’ appropriations which are hereby made available for
any project where the estimated cost is
equal to or less than the amount set forth in
such section: Provided, That funds made
available under this heading shall be for: (1)

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

repairs to any of the nonmedical facilities
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department which are necessary because of
loss or damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2) temporary
measures necessary to prevent or to minimize further loss by such causes.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE
EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

For grants to assist States to acquire or
construct State nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, modify, or
alter existing hospital, nursing home, and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to veterans as authorized by
sections 8131 through 8137 of title 38, United
States Code, $80,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VETERANS
CEMETERIES

For grants to assist States and tribal organizations in establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries as authorized by
section 2408 of title 38, United States Code,
$45,000,000, to remain available until expended.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year
2016 for ‘‘Compensation and Pensions’’, ‘‘Readjustment Benefits’’, and ‘‘Veterans Insurance and Indemnities’’ may be transferred as
necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations: Provided, That before a transfer
may take place, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall request from the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
the authority to make the transfer and such
Committees issue an approval, or absent a
response, a period of 30 days has elapsed.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 202. Amounts made available for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal
year 2016, in this or any other Act, under the
‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical Support and
Compliance’’, and ‘‘Medical Facilities’’ accounts may be transferred among the accounts: Provided, That any transfers between
the ‘‘Medical Services’’ and ‘‘Medical Support and Compliance’’ accounts of 1 percent
or less of the total amount appropriated to
the account in this or any other Act may
take place subject to notification from the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of the amount and purpose of the
transfer: Provided further, That any transfers
between the ‘‘Medical Services’’ and ‘‘Medical Support and Compliance’’ accounts in
excess of 1 percent, or exceeding the cumulative 1 percent for the fiscal year, may take
place only after the Secretary requests from
the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress the authority to make
the transfer and an approval is issued: Provided further, That any transfers to or from
the ‘‘Medical Facilities’’ account may take
place only after the Secretary requests from
the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress the authority to make
the transfer and an approval is issued.
SEC. 203. Appropriations available in this
title for salaries and expenses shall be available for services authorized by section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land or
both; and uniforms or allowances therefore,
as authorized by sections 5901 through 5902 of
title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 204. No appropriations in this title
(except the appropriations for ‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’, and ‘‘Construction,
Minor Projects’’) shall be available for the
purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any new hospital or home.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.067

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SEC. 205. No appropriations in this title
shall be available for hospitalization or examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled to such hospitalization or
examination under the laws providing such
benefits to veterans, and persons receiving
such treatment under sections 7901 through
7904 of title 5, United States Code, or the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)),
unless reimbursement of the cost of such
hospitalization or examination is made to
the ‘‘Medical Services’’ account at such rates
as may be fixed by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
SEC. 206. Appropriations available in this
title for ‘‘Compensation and Pensions’’, ‘‘Readjustment Benefits’’, and ‘‘Veterans Insurance and Indemnities’’ shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations
required to be recorded by law against the
corresponding prior year accounts within the
last quarter of fiscal year 2015.
SEC. 207. Appropriations available in this
title shall be available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections
3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United
States Code, except that if such obligations
are from trust fund accounts they shall be
payable only from ‘‘Compensation and Pensions’’.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during fiscal year 2016, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, from the
National Service Life Insurance Fund under
section 1920 of title 38, United States Code,
the Veterans’ Special Life Insurance Fund
under section 1923 of title 38, United States
Code, and the United States Government
Life Insurance Fund under section 1955 of
title 38, United States Code, reimburse the
‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’ and ‘‘Information
Technology Systems’’ accounts for the cost
of administration of the insurance programs
financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from
the surplus earnings accumulated in such an
insurance program during fiscal year 2016
that are available for dividends in that program after claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves have been set
aside: Provided further, That if the cost of administration of such an insurance program
exceeds the amount of surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement
shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings: Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost of administration for fiscal year 2016 which is properly
allocable to the provision of each such insurance program and to the provision of any
total disability income insurance included in
that insurance program.
SEC. 209. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds to reimburse an
account for expenses incurred by that account during a prior fiscal year for providing
enhanced-use lease services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 210. Funds available in this title or
funds for salaries and other administrative
expenses shall also be available to reimburse
the Office of Resolution Management of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under section 319 of title
38, United States Code, for all services provided at rates which will recover actual costs
but not to exceed $43,700,000 for the Office of
Resolution Management and $3,400,000 for
the Office of Employment Discrimination
Complaint Adjudication: Provided, That pay-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2597

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

ments may be made in advance for services
to be furnished based on estimated costs:
Provided further, That amounts received shall
be credited to the ‘‘General Administration’’
and ‘‘Information Technology Systems’’ accounts for use by the office that provided the
service.
SEC. 211. No appropriations in this title
shall be available to enter into any new lease
of real property if the estimated annual rental cost is more than $1,000,000, unless the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits a request to enter into such lease to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress and (1) the Committees approve the
request; or (2) the Committees have not rejected the request before the date that is 15
days after the date on which the request is
received.
SEC. 212. No funds of the Department of
Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or medical
services provided to any person under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, for a
non-service-connected disability described in
section 1729(a)(2) of such title, unless that
person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in such form as the Secretary
may require, current, accurate third-party
reimbursement information for purposes of
section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the
Secretary may recover, in the same manner
as any other debt due the United States, the
reasonable charges for such care or services
from any person who does not make such disclosure as required: Provided further, That
any amounts so recovered for care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be
obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal
year in which amounts are received.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, proceeds or revenues derived
from enhanced-use leasing activities (including disposal) may be deposited into the
‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’ and ‘‘Construction, Minor Projects’’ accounts and be
used for construction (including site acquisition and disposition), alterations, and improvements of any medical facility under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. Such sums as realized
are in addition to the amount provided for in
‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’ and ‘‘Construction, Minor Projects’’.
SEC. 214. Amounts made available under
‘‘Medical Services’’ are available—
(1) for furnishing recreational facilities,
supplies, and equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses,
and other expenses incidental to funerals and
burials for beneficiaries receiving care in the
Department.

gions specified in sections 7(a)(1)–(4) and (7)–
(12) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1606), and those
lands within the Alaska Native regions specified in sections 7(a)(5) and 7(a)(6) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as
amended (43 U.S.C. 1606), which are not within the boundaries of the municipality of Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the
Matanuska Susitna Borough.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 217. Such sums as may be deposited to
the Department of Veterans Affairs Capital
Asset Fund pursuant to section 8118 of title
38, United States Code, may be transferred to
the ‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’ and
‘‘Construction, Minor Projects’’ accounts, to
remain available until expended for the purposes of these accounts.
SEC. 218. None of the funds made available
in this title may be used to implement any
policy prohibiting the Directors of the Veterans Integrated Service Networks from conducting outreach or marketing to enroll new
veterans within their respective Networks.
SEC. 219. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a quarterly report on the financial status of the
Veterans Health Administration.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 220. Amounts made available under
the ‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical Support
and Compliance’’, ‘‘Medical Facilities’’,
‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’, ‘‘General Administration’’, and ‘‘National Cemetery Administration’’ accounts for fiscal year 2016 may be
transferred to or from the ‘‘Information
Technology Systems’’ account: Provided,
That such transfers may not result in a more
than 10 percent aggregate increase in the
total amount made available by this Act for
the ‘‘Information Technology Systems’’ account: Provided further, That before a transfer may take place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress the authority to make the transfer
and an approval is issued.
SEC. 221. Of the amounts made available to
the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal
year 2016, in this or any other Act, under the
‘‘Medical Facilities’’ account for nonrecurring maintenance, not more than 20
percent of the funds made available shall be
obligated during the last 2 months of that
fiscal year: Provided, That the Secretary may
waive this requirement after providing written notice to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 215. Such sums as may be deposited to
the Medical Care Collections Fund pursuant
to section 1729A of title 38, United States
Code, may be transferred to ‘‘Medical Services’’, to remain available until expended for
the purposes of that account.
SEC. 216. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
may enter into agreements with Indian
tribes and tribal organizations which are
party to the Alaska Native Health Compact
with the Indian Health Service, and Indian
tribes and tribal organizations serving rural
Alaska which have entered into contracts
with the Indian Health Service under the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act, to provide healthcare, including behavioral health and dental care. The
Secretary shall require participating veterans and facilities to comply with all appropriate rules and regulations, as established
by the Secretary. The term ‘‘rural Alaska’’
shall mean those lands sited within the external boundaries of the Alaska Native re-

SEC. 222. Of the amounts appropriated to
the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal
year 2016 for ‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical
Support and Compliance’’, ‘‘Medical Facilities’’, ‘‘Construction, Minor Projects’’, and
‘‘Information Technology Systems’’, up to
$266,303,000, plus reimbursements, may be
transferred to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be
used for operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122
Stat. 4500): Provided, That additional funds
may be transferred from accounts designated
in this section to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.063

H29APPT1

H2598

written notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress: Provided further, That section 223 of Title II of
Division I of Public Law 113-235 is repealed.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 223. Of the amounts appropriated to
the Department of Veterans Affairs which
become available on October 1, 2016, for
‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical Support and
Compliance’’, and ‘‘Medical Facilities’’, up
to $265,675,000, plus reimbursements, may be
transferred to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be
used for operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122
Stat. 4500): Provided, That additional funds
may be transferred from accounts designated
in this section to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon
written notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 224. Such sums as may be deposited to
the Medical Care Collections Fund pursuant
to section 1729A of title 38, United States
Code, for healthcare provided at facilities
designated as combined Federal medical facilities as described by section 706 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
110–417; 122 Stat. 4500) shall also be available:
(1) for transfer to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 3571); and (2) for
operations of the facilities designated as
combined Federal medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 Stat.
4500).
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 225. Of the amounts available in this
title for ‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical Support and Compliance’’, and ‘‘Medical Facilities’’, a minimum of $15,000,000 shall be
transferred to the DOD–VA Health Care
Sharing Incentive Fund, as authorized by
section 8111(d) of title 38, United States
Code, to remain available until expended, for
any purpose authorized by section 8111 of
title 38, United States Code.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

SEC. 226. (a) Of the funds appropriated in
title II of division I of Public Law 113–235,
the following amounts which became available on October 1, 2015, are hereby rescinded
from the following accounts in the amounts
specified:
(1) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services’’, $1,400,000,000.
(2) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and Compliance’’, $100,000,000.
(3) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities’’, $250,000,000.
(b) In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act, an additional amount is
appropriated to the following accounts in the
amounts specified to remain available until
September 30, 2017:
(1) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Services’’, $1,400,000,000.
(2) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Support and Compliance’’, $100,000,000.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

(3) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Facilities’’, $250,000,000.
SEC. 227. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of all bid
savings for a major construction project
within 15 days of being identified that total
at least $5,000,000, or 5 percent of the programmed amount of the project, whichever
is less.
SEC. 228. None of the funds made available
for ‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’ may be
used for a project in excess of the scope specified for that project in the original justification data provided to the Congress as
part of the request for appropriations unless
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs receives
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
SEC. 229. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a quarterly report that contains the following information from each Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office: (1) the average
time to complete a disability compensation
claim; (2) the number of claims pending more
than 125 days; (3) error rates; (4) the number
of claims personnel; (5) any corrective action
taken within the quarter to address poor performance; (6) training programs undertaken;
and (7) the number and results of Quality Review Team audits: Provided, That each quarterly report shall be submitted no later than
30 days after the end of the respective quarter.

b 1700
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LAMALFA

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 53, line 2, strike ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon.
Page 53, line 3, insert the following before
the colon: ‘‘; and (8) the number of informal
claims that are unprocessed’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California.
Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Chair, each quarter the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
must submit a report that includes several metrics from every VA regional office to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The report includes the average time to complete a
disability claim, the backlog, error
rates, and other important details.
With this amendment, the Secretary
of VA must also include the number of
informal claims that are unprocessed.
This amendment allows Congress to receive a more complete picture of the
regional office’s workload.
We have seen troubling instances in
Oakland and other VA regional offices
of informal claims not being handled
properly and even waiting decades for
some of those claims to be processed.
Informal claims should be included in
this quarterly report from the Secretary, and this amendment simply requires that that be done; therefore, giving Congress and veterans a better picture of what that load would be and
then we can address that appropriately. So that is the amendment.

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I support the amendment.
Mr. LAMALFA. Again, Mr. Chair, it
is a very simple amendment, and it will
make a clear picture of what the real
backlog is of informal claims, which
has not gotten enough attention in the
work of the VA in recent years. Again,
we keep finding that it is an issue of
importance and one of great concern as
we have discovered what some of the
regional offices have to deal with.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. LAMALFA).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 230. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a reprogramming request if at any point during
fiscal year 2016 the funding allocated for a
medical care program that is not estimated
through the Enrollee Health Care Projection
Model is adjusted by more than $25,000,000
from the allocation shown in the corresponding congressional budget justification. Amounts may only be reprogrammed as
requested under this section if (1) the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress approve the request; or (2) the Committees have not rejected the request before
the date that is 15 days after the date on
which the request is received.
SEC. 231. Of the funds provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year
2016 for ‘‘Medical Services’’ and ‘‘Medical
Support and Compliance’’, a maximum of
$5,000,000 may be obligated from the ‘‘Medical Services’’ account and a maximum of
$154,596,000 may be obligated from the ‘‘Medical Support and Compliance’’ account for
the VistA Evolution and electronic health
record interoperability projects: Provided,
That funds in addition to these amounts may
be obligated for the VistA Evolution and
electronic health record interoperability
projects upon written notification by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress.
SEC. 232. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall provide written notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress 15 days prior to organizational changes which result in the transfer of
25 or more full-time equivalents from one organizational unit of the Department of Veterans Affairs to another.
(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

SEC. 233. (a) There is hereby rescinded an
aggregate amount of $101,000,000 from the
total budget authority provided for fiscal
year 2016 for discretionary accounts of the
Department of Veterans Affairs in—
(1) this Act; or
(2) any advance appropriation for fiscal
year 2016 in prior appropriation Acts.
(b) The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a report specifying the account and
amount of each rescission not later than 20
days following enactment of this Act.
SEC. 234. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall provide on a quarterly basis to the
Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress notification of any single
national outreach and awareness marketing
campaign in which obligations exceed
$2,000,000.

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.063

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SEC. 235. None of the funds available to the
Department of Veterans Affairs, in this or
any other Act, may be used to replace the
current system by which the Veterans Integrated Service Networks select and contract
for diabetes monitoring supplies and equipment.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

SEC. 236. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
upon determination that such action is necessary to address needs of the Veterans
Health Administration, may transfer to the
‘‘Medical Services’’ account any discretionary appropriations made available for
fiscal year 2016 in this title (except appropriations made to the ‘‘General Operating
Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’ account) or any discretionary unobligated balances within the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including those appropriated for fiscal year 2016, that were provided in advance by appropriations Acts: Provided, That transfers shall be made only with
the approval of the Office of Management
and Budget: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this section is in
addition to any other transfer authority provided by law: Provided further, That no
amounts may be transferred from amounts
that were designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985: Provided further, That such authority to transfer may not be used unless
for higher priority items, based on emergent
healthcare requirements, than those for
which originally appropriated and in no case
where the item for which funds are requested
has been denied by Congress: Provided further, That, upon determination that all or
part of the funds transferred from an appropriation are not necessary, such amounts
may be transferred back to that appropriation and shall be available for the same purposes as originally appropriated: Provided
further, That before a transfer may take
place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
request from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer and receive approval of that request.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman
from
California
(Mr.
LOWENTHAL).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I thank
the ranking member and also the
chairman for providing me this time to
speak on the floor.
I am going to go back. My congressional district is home to the Long
Beach Veterans Affairs hospital; the
American Gold Star Manor, which is a
manor that provides affordable housing
for mothers who have lost their sons to
war and for veterans; and my district is
also the home of Los Alamitos Joint
Forces Training Base.
Providing outstanding service to our
veterans has been a top priority
throughout my career. That is why I
am cosponsoring this amendment to
address the disability claims and appeals backlogs and hopefully provide
funding for more full-time employees
to address these issues.
I want to share with you just quickly
my concerns.
There are long delays in Aid and Attendance claims, particularly with re-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2599

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

gard to elderly, frail veterans with rapidly declining health issues. And approval is slow and sometimes comes,
actually, too late, allowing the veterans to suffer for no reason.
This year, I had a 100 percent serviceconnected Purple Heart veteran with
Parkinson’s disease who filed for Aid
and Attendance in July 2013. At that
time, he needed caretaking assistance
at his home but was initially denied.
In March of 2014, I received a call
from his son who informed me that his
father had fallen and broken his shoulder. During this time, my constituent
had to produce multiple pieces of paper
and doctor’s confirmation of disability,
even though he is an amputee. His son
called my office and informed my caseworker in the district that he needed
immediate assistance for his father.
My caseworker called my staffer in
D.C., who ran to the VA Congressional
Liaison’s office here at the Capitol to
see what could be done during this
emergency. I spoke to the VA about
the situation, and my constituent received immediate assistance because I
called. My constituent was finally
awarded Aid and Attendance in May of
2014.
Mr. Chair, our veterans should not
have to wait for medical care and suffer while they are waiting for months
and years. Our veterans deserve better
service than we are giving them. It is
unnecessary for these types of emergencies to occur.
Last year, I encouraged the Department to use its funding to hire additional staff and stated that I do not believe that providing overtime pay for
workers who are already stretched thin
was enough. I am pleased to see there
is funding to hire more full-time employees, but we still need more workers
in order for the VA to respond faster. I
am still concerned that the Veterans
Benefits Administration is not requesting adequate resources to expeditiously
handle the current backlog or new
claims, which are expected to increase.
The VA is still contracting out
claims to other regional offices rather
than the home office. It is making
progress. However, claims are still taking as long as 2 years for resolution.
The VA is encouraging veterans to use
electronic benefits, eBenefits, though
many Vietnam-era veterans need assistance with this technology.
Mr. Chair, in closing, when we ask
America’s veterans to serve their country and sacrifice their lives on our behalf, our Nation needs to make a promise to take care of them throughout
their lives. Ensuring that our veterans
receive the best care after their years
of service to our Nation is a moral responsibility which must happen. I
pledge my continued support to work
with Secretary McDonald and the Department of Veterans Affairs, my colleagues, stakeholder groups, and my
constituents to address these issues.
Mr. Chair, I ask that you support this
amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield back
the balance of my time.

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 237. Amounts made available for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal
year 2016, under the ‘‘Board of Veterans Appeals’’ and the ‘‘General Operating Expenses,
Veterans Benefits Administration’’ accounts
may be transferred between such accounts:
Provided, That before a transfer may take
place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
request from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer and receive approval from such Committees for such request.
(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

SEC. 238. Of the unobligated balances available within the ‘‘DOD–VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund’’, $15,000,000 are hereby
rescinded.
SEC. 239. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
may not reprogram funds among major construction projects or programs if such instance of reprogramming will exceed
$5,000,000, unless such reprogramming is approved by the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress.
(RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

SEC. 240. Of the discretionary funds made
available in Public Law 113-235 for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year
2016, $197,923,000 are rescinded from ‘‘Medical
Services’’, $42,272,000 are rescinded from
‘‘Medical Support and Compliance’’, and
$15,353,000 are rescinded from ‘‘Medical Facilities’’.
SEC. 241. The amounts otherwise made
available by this Act for the following accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs
are hereby reduced by the following
amounts:
(1) ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration—
Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund’’,
$3,098,000.
(2) ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration—
Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program
Account’’, $10,000.
(3) ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration—
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account’’, $25,000.
(4) ‘‘Veterans Health Administration—
Medical and Prosthetic Research’’, $3,109,000.
(5) ‘‘National Cemetery Administration’’,
$1,654,000.
(6) ‘‘Departmental Administration—General Administration’’, $3,877,000.
(7) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Board
of Veterans Appeals’’, $786,000.
(8) ‘‘Departmental Administration—General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits
Administration’’, $36,568,000.
(9) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Information Technology Systems’’, $7,958,000.
(10) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Office
of Inspector General’’, $993,000.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BENISHEK

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 58, after line 25, insert the following:
SEC. 242. Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress
a report that describes the status, including
the timeline for completion, of each Community-Based Outpatient Clinic to be established by the Department of Veterans Affairs, through construction or lease, that is
not yet completed.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a
point of order on the gentleman’s
amendment.

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.069

H29APPT1

H2600

The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentleman from Michigan and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of my amendment to have
the Secretary of the VA report to Congress on the status of VA clinics currently in the leasing or construction
process.
Our rural veterans deserve access to
quality care without having to drive
hundreds of miles. In many areas, like
in northern Michigan, VA clinics can
serve an important role in providing
care to veterans in their communities.
However, no one is served when the VA
takes many years to approve and complete these projects.
In Traverse City, Michigan, an expansion for the VA clinic was approved
and funded by Congress in 2013. After I
sent letters to the Secretary asking for
an explanation, the program was finally approved by the VA in August of
2014. To this day, the VA has yet to
make measurable progress on this facility, and they have told me that it
could be as many as 6 more years before this facility is completed.
Our veterans deserve to know how
many facilities are facing similar
delays. As we work to enforce some accountability at the VA, we can’t ignore
our rural veterans that rely on VA
clinics. The VA must be held accountable for these delays, and I want to
know who in the agency is responsible.
My goal is for all veterans to have a
choice in where they receive care. We
have taken an important step towards
that with the Choice Act, and I look
forward to continuing to work to expand that program. However, it is critical that we do not allow the VA to
hold veterans and taxpayers in limbo
as critical, funded projects sit unfinished.
The money we provided in this bill is
not for plush executive salaries and full
retirement benefits for those that manipulate data. It is for our veterans.
The VA must return to its focus, to its
central mission and remove bureaucratic hurdles that keep veterans from
the care they have earned.
I yield back the balance of my time.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to change existing
law and constitutes legislation in an
appropriation 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 gives affirmative direction in effect.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other
Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment
imposes new duties on the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and
the amendment is not in order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the American Battle Monuments Commission, including the acquisition
of land or interest in land in foreign countries; purchases and repair of uniforms for
caretakers of national cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and
garage space in foreign countries; purchase
(one-for-one replacement basis only) and hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$7,500 for official reception and representation expenses; and insurance of official
motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of such countries, $75,100,000,
to remain available until expended.
FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS ACCOUNT

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the American Battle Monuments Commission, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended, for purposes authorized by section
2109 of title 36, United States Code.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
VETERANS CLAIMS
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for the operation of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by sections 7251
through 7299 of title 38, United States Code,
$32,141,000: Provided, That $2,500,000 shall be
available for the purpose of providing financial assistance as described, and in accordance with the process and reporting procedures set forth, under this heading in Public
Law 102–229.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL
CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for maintenance,
operation, and improvement of Arlington
National Cemetery and Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery, including
the purchase or lease of passenger motor vehicles for replacement on a one-for-one basis
only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception
and
representation
expenses,
$70,800,000, of which not to exceed $5,000,000
shall remain available until September 30,
2017. In addition, such sums as may be necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and
replacement, to be derived from the ‘‘Lease
of Department of Defense Real Property for
Defense Agencies’’ account.
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
TRUST FUND

For expenses necessary for the Armed
Forces Retirement Home to operate and
maintain the Armed Forces Retirement
Home—Washington, District of Columbia,
and the Armed Forces Retirement Home—
Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds
available in the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Trust Fund, $64,300,000, of which
$1,000,000 shall remain available until expended for construction and renovation of

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

the physical plants at the Armed Forces Retirement Home—Washington, District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces Retirement
Home—Gulfport, Mississippi.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. Funds appropriated in this Act
under the heading ‘‘Department of Defense—
Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, Army’’, may be
provided to Arlington County, Virginia, for
the relocation of the federally owned water
main at Arlington National Cemetery, making additional land available for ground burials.
SEC. 302. Amounts deposited during the
current fiscal year into the special account
established under 10 U.S.C. 4727 are appropriated and shall be available until expended
to support activities at the Army National
Military Cemeteries.
TITLE IV
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE
CORPS
For an additional amount for ‘‘Military
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps’’,
$244,004,000 to remain available until September 30, 2020, for projects outside of the
United States: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.

b 1715
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike title IV.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a
point of order on the gentleman’s
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentleman from South Carolina
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
want to read something at the beginning of this:
‘‘Abuse of the overseas contingency
operation global war on terror cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole that
undermines the integrity of the budget
process.’’
It goes on to say that the Budget
Committee will oppose increases above
the levels the administration and our
military commanders say are needed to
carry out operations unless it can be
clearly
demonstrated
that
such
amounts are war related.
That is from last year’s House-passed
budget report. Last year, this body
took a position that we were not going
to use the OCO budget, the global war
on terror budget, in order to get around
the BCA caps.
The appropriations bill, as currently
offered, does exactly that. It spends
about $532 million in the OCO budget
for matters that the Department of Defense admits are not war related. These

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.075

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

are matters that the Department of
Defense included in its original base
defense budget request, but for which
there wasn’t enough money under the
BCA caps.
So what the appropriators have done
is taken those requests which are admittedly not war related and buried it
in this appropriations bill, using the
OCO money in order to violate the
caps.
By the way, the money goes to overseas bases, bases in Italy, Poland, Bahrain, Niger, Djibouti, and Oman, admitted by the Defense Department not to
be war related, yet is in the war budget
today.
All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is this: If we
agree as a body that we cannot live
within the BCA caps and we agree that
the defense of the Nation takes more
money than is permitted under the
BCA caps, then let’s break the caps.
But let’s do it honestly, let’s do it
openly, and let’s tell the people here
why we have to do it and where the
money is going.
The OCO budget has been described
by members of both the Democrat
Party and the Republican Party alike
as a slush fund, as a bad way to do
business. The Defense Department
doesn’t even like using this type of
money because it does not allow them
to budget properly. It is a desperate
act, and it is a dishonest act when it
comes to following the law.
The Budget Control Act is the law of
the land. It passed in the House, it
passed in the Senate, and it was signed
by the President. And this appropriations bill seeks to break the law and
seeks to do it in such a way that isn’t
even honest about how it is going forward.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that folks would
support the Mulvaney-Van Hollen
amendment and strike the OCO-GWOT
money from this particular appropriations bill.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve
the balance of my time.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to amend portions
of the bill not yet read.
Section 17 of chapter 2 of the House
Practice book states in part:
‘‘It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a bill not yet
read for amendment.’’
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other
Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, my
understanding is that this amendment
seeks to strike title IV on page 62,
which is exactly where we are when I
was called to the podium.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other
Member wish to be heard?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I wish
to be heard.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Maryland is recognized.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2601

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My understanding of this is it strikes the provision and, therefore, meets the requirements. After all, this is the first bill we
are debating since the budget was
passed. The budget opens the door wide
to this accounting scam that Republicans on the Budget Committee just
last year said was a gross runaround of
the budget rules.
I want to read, Mr. Chairman, from
the report from the Budget Committee
last year that said that abuse of the
OCO cap adjustment is a backdoor
loophole that undermines the integrity
of the budget process.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
must confine his remarks to the point
of order.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the
Budget Committee itself has indicated
that this violates the budget process.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Maryland must confine his remarks to the point of order.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So it is hard to
understand how this could be a violation of the point of order if the Budget
Committee says that what we are
doing violates the budget process or
undermines the budget process.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other
Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry as to the
point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. Is the point of
order that we have not yet reached the
appropriate time for making this particular amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The point of
order has been stated. The Chair has
not yet ruled.
Mr. MULVANEY. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania restate the
point?
Mr. DENT. The point of order is that
we are not at the appropriate point in
the bill for this amendment to be considered.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, my
understanding is that we are on page
62. That is the page I think on which
title IV is printed. My amendment does
nothing more than strikes all of title
IV. So it seems like this is wholly the
appropriate time to deal with that particular amendment and, in fact, may be
out of order if I don’t offer it right
now.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment strikes title IV.
Only the first paragraph of title IV is
pending.
It is not in order to amend portions
of the bill not yet read for amendment.
The point of order is sustained.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. VAN HOLLEN.
parliamentary inquiry,
stand the ruling.
The Acting CHAIR.
from Maryland may
liamentary inquiry.

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 7634

Mr. Chairman,
just so I underThe gentleman
state his par-

Sfmt 0634

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, as
I understood the ruling, because the
amendment strikes all of this section,
as opposed to the portion of the section
we are currently on, it is being ruled
out of order. Is that correct?
The Acting CHAIR. Only one paragraph is currently pending, and the
amendment sought to strike the entire
title.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary
inquiry: Is there going to be a point in
time when that entire section is pending?
The Acting CHAIR. Only the first
paragraph of title IV is pending.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
understand that the meaning of ‘‘is’’ is
‘‘is.’’ I understand that we are on the
first paragraph.
Parliamentary inquiry: Is there
going to be a point in time when the
entire section is pending, such that
this amendment would then be considered in order since the amendment is
to strike the entire section?
The Acting CHAIR. The bill is being
read paragraph by paragraph.
Mr. MULVANEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. Is the ruling without prejudice as to my ability to offer
the amendment at a later time?
The Acting CHAIR. The paragraph
that has been read is open for amendment at this time.
Mr. MULVANEY. I respect that, Mr.
Chairman. I don’t believe that responds
to my parliamentary inquiry.
Is the Chair’s ruling with or without
prejudice as to my ability to bring the
same amendment at a later time?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair cannot
give an advisory opinion on a future
amendment.
Mr. MULVANEY. I respect that, Mr.
Chairman. I am not asking the Chair
for an advisory opinion. I am asking
the Chair to clarify the ruling the
Chair has already made. Is it with or
without prejudice?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair has
ruled and is ready for other business.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the pending paragraph.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman seek to offer an amendment?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask unanimous
consent to offer an amendment at this
point in time to strike the pending
paragraph.
Mr. DENT. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. If the gentleman
would send his amendment to the desk.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. MULVANEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. Again, I am new at
this. I understand that we are sort of
working our way through this.
Here is my question: If this was the
inappropriate time for me to bring this
amendment, why was I summoned to
the podium?

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.125

H29APPT1

H2602

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair was inquiring as to the purpose the gentleman was seeking recognition.
Mr. MULVANEY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. My amendment
was read.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Strike the pending paragraph.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Maryland and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
am pleased to offer this amendment
with my colleague, Mr. MULVANEY. And
now that we have gotten beyond the
sort of procedural objections, let’s go
to the substance of this.
This is the first appropriations bill
that we have on the floor that raises
the question about the budgets that
were passed in both the House and the
Senate. As I think our colleagues know
well by this point, both those budgets
engage in an incredible accounting
scam with respect to how we fund the
Department of Defense and how we
fund our military operations.
For years, we have distinguished between the moneys that we spend on our
ongoing defense programs, called the
base budget, and the moneys set aside
in the war account, the so-called overseas contingency account funds.
What has happened here is that the
President, on the advice of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and our military leadership, has requested the amount that is
necessary to address our overseas contingency operations. But instead of
abiding by that request and what was
necessary, the Republican budget does
this end-run and ends up using our
overseas contingency account as a
slush fund for funds that have been in
the base defense budget.
As I was indicating earlier, Mr.
Chairman, this accounting scam, the
sleight of hand, was something that
the Republican Budget Committee just
last year strongly objected to and indicated that it violated the budget process.
I am going to read another portion of
the Republican Budget Committee report from last year on this issue where
it says the Budget Committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities
with respect to the use of the OCO, the
overseas contingency account, designation in the budget process, and it will
oppose increases above the level the
administration and our military commanders say are necessary to carry out
operations. And then it goes on, because those are not war related.
So what this House is doing now is
engaging in this incredible sleight of

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

hand, and it is only one big problem in
the budget before us, along with many
other problems.
But on this point, I would like to now
yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. MULVANEY) if he would
like to say a word on this amendment.
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, I will repeat what I said
earlier on the amendment that was
ruled out of order. The BCA is the law.
We agreed that it is. I didn’t vote for
it. By the way, I didn’t like it very
much and was one of the few of my
party who did not vote for it. But it is
the law passed in the House, passed by
the Senate, and signed by the President.
We can change it. We absolutely can
change it if we want to. And if that is
the will of this body, then let’s do it.
But let’s do it by changing the Budget
Control Act. Let’s not go around the
BCA. Let’s not use a back door. Let’s
not use a slush fund, something that is
off-budget.
I hope my friends in the private sector understand the severity of it at this
point. We have spending here that is
off-budget that doesn’t count towards
the budget. And if we can use it for
this, what else can we use it for? We
are using it now for bases in Poland,
Bahrain, Niger, Djibouti, and Oman,
specifically not war related; yet it is in
the war budget.
If we can use it for this, what is to
stop us from using it for anything? If
the law is going to have any meaning,
let’s respect it. And if we want to
change it, let’s change it. But let’s be
forthright about it.
Bring a bill to the floor to change the
Budget Control Act and make the arguments for why we should do that. Let’s
not be disingenuous. Let’s not be deceptive. Let’s not be mischievous with
the budget.
If we really think it is necessary for
the defense of this Nation to spend $532
million on base improvements in these
overseas countries, then have folks
come to the floor and tell us why. Let’s
not slip a line into the MILCON-VA
budget and just say, Well, everybody
always votes for VA anyway. Who can
vote against the vets? Who can vote
against MILCON? Let’s put it in there.
Nobody will notice it.
That is how we get $18 trillion in
debt.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. In fact, I ask unanimous consent
to be added as a cosponsor of Mr. VAN
HOLLEN’s amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment
may not have cosponsors.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent, since the
original amendment was offered by Mr.
MULVANEY, to make this the Mulvaney
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment
may not have a cosponsor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am asking
unanimous consent to make the main
sponsor Mr. MULVANEY.

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman’s
request cannot be entertained.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
am asking unanimous consent.
The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman
seeking to withdraw the amendment?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am willing to
withdraw the amendment but only on
the understanding—parliamentary inquiry—if I withdraw it and substitute
the same amendment in the name of
Mr. MULVANEY, can I do that?
The Acting CHAIR. Any Member may
offer an amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let’s
just keep it. This will be known as the
Van Hollen-Mulvaney amendment.
I thank the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman’s
time has expired.
b 1730
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Van Hollen-Mulvaney
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just want
to say that there has been precedent to
use OCO money on similar projects for
similar purposes in previous years.
Specifically, the Bahrain portion that
is going to the U.S. Navy, there is a
pier replacement, ship maintenance
support facility. We used OCO funds in
fiscal years ’11, ’12, and ’13 for similar
purposes then.
I should also note, too, that if we
were to strike the OCO funding from
this bill, the missile defense in Poland,
the Aegis missile defense complex,
would also be affected. Again, we had
used OCO money for similar purposes
in fiscal year ’15.
I would argue that there is precedent
for using OCO funds for the purposes
contained in this bill. It is appropriate.
I do not agree with the characterization that it is a scam, but it is used as
precedent.
I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. VAN HOLLEN).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland will be
postponed.
Mr. MULVANEY. I have an amendment at the desk to strike the second
paragraph of title IV.
The Acting CHAIR. The reading will
first progress to that next paragraph.
The Clerk will read the next paragraph.
The Clerk read as follows:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
For an additional amount for ‘‘Military
Construction, Air Force’’ $75,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2020, for

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.126

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

projects outside of the United States: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to
section 215(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk. I am
moving to strike the second paragraph
of title IV.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Strike pg. 62, line 15–22.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from South Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, unless Mr. VAN HOLLEN has anything to
add, I believe the same arguments that
we just made on his previous amendment stand for this one, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member
seek time in opposition?
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. VAN HOLLEN).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I
would just observe, in response to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania on the Appropriations Committee, that our military leadership
has said that the funds that are requested for this purpose under OCO are
not OCO funds, that they are not warrelated funds. That is coming from the
Department of Defense. That is coming
from the folks who put together the
budgets for the Department of Defense.
So to just claim that somehow these
expenditures, which have been described by Mr. MULVANEY, are now
somehow part of the war effort as opposed to the ongoing defense budget is
to say to the military leadership that
they don’t understand how their budgets work. I think they do understand
how their budgets work. We are trying
to make sure that we protect the integrity of the process so that people can’t
be using the war account as a slush
fund, which is exactly what this measure does.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose
this amendment. This amendment essentially would strike the OCO funds
that would be provided to the Air
Force, specifically in Oman for the airlift apron. I want to point out that the
President of the United States requested funding for this same project
under OCO in fiscal year 2011 for the
airlift ramp. I am looking at the map
actually of the work. It is on the same
site.
What I am saying is OCO has been
used for this at the request of the

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2603

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

President in fiscal year ’11. We are
talking about using it on the same site
for the same purpose. So, again, I
would argue that the airlift apron in
Oman is part of a facility that is very
much part of our counterterrorism operations in that part of the world.
So again, I would urge rejection of
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
MULVANEY).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE
For an additional amount for ‘‘Military
Construction, Defense-Wide’’, $212,996,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2020, for
projects outside of the United States: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike p. 62 line 23 thru page 63 line 6.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from South Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, this would essentially eliminate OCO funding for
our operation in Djibouti where we
have infrastructure for fuel storage and
distribution facilities.
Again, OCO funds were used for similar purposes in Djibouti in fiscal years
’12 and ’13 through OCO, I believe at
the request of the President at the
time. Again, Djibouti is a key facility
for us strategically and one that is
being used in our fight in the global
war on terror. It is obviously very close
to Somalia, a hotbed of Islamist extremism, as well as close to Yemen, where
there is so much hostile action.

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

So, again, I would urge we reject this
amendment because it will negatively
impact our ability to conduct the global war on terror at a facility right in
that part of the world. And again,
where precedent has been set, like in
these other situations, precedent has
been set for using OCO funds. We are
doing it again this year, and I think it
is appropriate.
I urge rejection of the amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to read a portion of the language we are seeking to strike. It says:
‘‘For an additional amount for ‘Military
Construction
Defense-Wide’,
$212,996,000 to remain available until
September 30, 2020.’’
So not only are we looking to spend
the money today, we are looking to
have the right to spend this money
whenever we want over the next 5
years. I don’t know of any other part of
the budget where we do that.
If this is not a slush fund, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what it is. It was set
up by a previous administration—an
administration, by the way, of my
party—and has been decried by Members of my party as being a slush fund.
In fact, I think JOHN MCCAIN called it
a slush fund, for goodness’ sake. I believe Senator CORKER called it the
same thing. This is one of the reasons.
We have no idea why we are spending
this money. It is available until 2020.
This is a great opportunity, Mr.
Chairman, to say no. The money in the
overseas contingency operation is
there to support the troops who are
overseas fighting a war. It is there to
fight the global war on terror. It is not
there for a slush fund for whatever
bases we happen to think are convenient at the time and for which we can’t
find enough money under the base
budget for that.
I hope we support not only Mr. VAN
HOLLEN’s first amendment, but my two
subsequent amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to respond to my friend from
South Carolina. I do understand how
construction is done.
I do want to point out that many of
these projects are not all funded in one
single fiscal year, but over a period of
years, both domestically and internationally, as is the case here.
So, again, I would rise in opposition
to the amendment and urge its rejection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
MULVANEY).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina
will be postponed.

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.074

H29APPT1

H2604

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read the following:
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
SEC. 502. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used for any program,
project, or activity, when it is made known
to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program,
project, or activity is not in compliance with
any Federal law relating to risk assessment,
the protection of private property rights, or
unfunded mandates.
SEC. 503. All departments and agencies
funded under this Act are encouraged, within
the limits of the existing statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of ‘‘ECommerce’’ technologies and procedures in
the conduct of their business practices and
public service activities.
SEC. 504. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and notifications required by this Act
shall be submitted to the Subcommittee on
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
SEC. 505. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States Government except pursuant
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority
provided in, this or any other appropriations
Act.
SEC. 506. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used for a project or program named for an individual serving as a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the United States House of Representatives.
SEC. 507. (a) Any agency receiving funds
made available in this Act, shall, subject to
subsections (b) and (c), post on the public
Web site of that agency any report required
to be submitted by the Congress in this or
any other Act, upon the determination by
the head of the agency that it shall serve the
national interest.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if—
(1) the public posting of the report compromises national security; or
(2) the report contains confidential or proprietary information.
(c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so only after such report has
been made available to the requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less
than 45 days.
SEC. 508. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or
establish a computer network unless such
network blocks the viewing, downloading,
and exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit
the use of funds necessary for any Federal,
State, tribal, or local law enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal
investigations, prosecution, or adjudication
activities.
SEC. 509. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used by an agency of the
executive branch to pay for first-class travel
by an employee of the agency in contravention of sections 301–10.122 through 301–10.124
of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 510. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used to execute a contract for goods or services, including con-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

struction services, where the contractor has
not complied with Executive Order No. 12989.
SEC. 511. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used by the Department
of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or for an agency’s fleet inventory, except in accordance
with Presidential Memorandum—Federal
Fleet Performance, dated May 24, 2011.
SEC. 512. (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense in this
Act may be used to construct, renovate, or
expand any facility in the United States, its
territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at United States Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the
custody or under the control of the Department of Defense.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall
not apply to any modification of facilities at
United States Naval Station, Guantánamo
Bay, Cuba.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is any individual who, as of June 24,
2009, is located at United States Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and who—
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or
a member of the Armed Forces of the United
States; and
(2) is—
(A) in the custody or under the effective
control of the Department of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United
States Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay,
Cuba.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 512.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment
would strike section 512 of the bill,
which prohibits the use of funds to construct or expand any facility in the
United States to house any individual
detained at the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
b 1745
Simply put, this section is designed
to prevent the closure of Guantanamo.
Mr. Chairman, we are still holding
122 people at Guantanamo, 57 of whom
have been cleared for release. These
people have been found guilty of nothing, are believed to be guilty of nothing, and have been judged not to pose
any danger. Nonetheless, they are not
released. By what claim of right do we
continue to imprison them?
As for the detainees who have not
been cleared for release, this bill is designed to ensure that we will continue
to hold them at Guantanamo indefinitely. We don’t know whether these
people are enemy soldiers or not or are
guilty of anything or not. Some of
them may be, and some of them probably are not. Those facts must be de-

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

termined in a fair proceeding of some
sort, but, at Guantanamo, there are no
proceedings. The military tribunal
process at Guantanamo has been at a
complete standstill for years, and we
cannot hold civilian trials at Guantanamo, so we are holding people for no
purpose with no proceedings, no hearings, no opportunity to determine their
guilt or innocence, and we are holding
them, essentially, forever.
I recall a briefing last year at which
Representative and now-Senator COTTON said that these people had been determined to be guilty by Congress.
Aside from the fact that Congress has
not determined anybody to be guilty
and aside from the fact, if Congress
tried to determine someone to be
guilty of a crime or of anything, that it
would be a violation of the bill of attainder section of the Congress, it is
simply not true. These people have
been determined to be guilty of nothing, and they deserve, like anybody
else, to have a day in court. How long
will we let this shameful episode in
American history continue?
To overcome this challenge to one of
the founding principles of the United
States, which is that no person may be
deprived of liberty without due process
of law and, certainly, may not be deprived of liberty indefinitely without
due process of law, we must close the
detention facility at Guantanamo now
so that they can be properly charged
and tried in a Federal court. This will
afford the detainees no additional constitutional rights. The Supreme Court
has already ruled that detainees at
Guantanamo have the same constitutional rights as they would if they were
to be brought to the United States.
The government should transfer to
Federal court any detainee against
whom it has evidence. The Federal
courts, in contrast to the military tribunals, have an excellent record in
prosecuting and convicting terrorists.
Anyone not charged should either be
classified as a ‘‘prisoner of war’’ and
treated as such or should be released
back to his home country or elsewhere
if that prevents a problem to his life or
safety. This is not a radical suggestion.
It has been our tradition for the entire
history of our country and has been our
unbroken legal practice until now.
The President can and should without delay authorize the Secretary of
Defense to use existing certification
and waiver procedures to repatriate
and resettle abroad all prisoners who
have been cleared for release, and he
should arrange trial in the United
States for all prisoners who are not
cleared for release.
We must close this facility. We must
try and convict and sentence the people who are guilty of acts of terrorism
or aggression against the United States
or, in accord with our moral and constitutional principles, release those
who are not guilty of offenses against
the United States. Only so can we restore our national honor. This amendment is necessary to start this process

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.084

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

April 29, 2015

because without our bringing some of
these prisoners to the United States for
trial, we cannot try them. I urge all of
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, section 512
has been included in the MILCON-VA
bill for several years, and it is part of
the overall policy discussion involving
Guantanamo Bay. Identical language is
also carried in the 2015 appropriations
bill. Again, I respectfully request that
the we reject this amendment.
I would also add that, at Guantanamo Bay, we have about 120 prisoners
there. Among those who are at that facility are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. I
believe he is the man who also confessed that he decapitated Dan Pearl,
the Wall Street Journal reporter. He
was gruesomely executed by Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed. He is a high-value
detainee, and there are other highvalue detainees there. Many of the
prisoners down in Guantanamo are
Yemeni, but we certainly can’t send
them back to Yemen. It is also clear to
me that many of these prisoners are
very difficult to try and too dangerous
to release, so I urge opposition to this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I note
in his opposing this amendment that
the gentleman simply said it is part of
a larger policy discussion about Guantanamo. He is correct. He said that
there is identical language in other
bills. He is correct. He said that we
should remove that language from the
other bills, and he points out that
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other
high-value prisoners are at Guantanamo. He is correct.
We are to bring them to the United
States. We are to try them and convict
them and either sentence them to
death or to life in prison without parole or whatever. That is our tradition.
We don’t simply declare someone is a
bad guy and hold him forever without a
trial. Our Federal courts in the United
States have an excellent record of trying and convicting people accused of
terrorism. In the military tribunals at
Guantanamo, they can’t even run a
trial. It has come to a complete standstill.
It is really missing the point to say
that there are some very bad people at
Guantanamo. Yes, there are. There are
also some perfectly innocent people at
Guantanamo. Those people ought to be
released. The people who we think are
guilty of something should be charged
and tried. To simply say that someone
is not going to be charged and tried but
be held for life imprisonment without a
trial is not what this country is about.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2605

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I believe we need to set the conditions for the closure of the detention
facility at Guantanamo. It is in the
United States national security interests to do so. Guantanamo has become
a rallying cry. It serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and it increases the will of our enemies to fight
while decreasing the will of others to
work with America.
Part of the rationale for establishing
Guantanamo in the first place was the
misplaced idea that the facility would
be beyond the law—a proposition rejected by the United States Supreme
Court. As a result, the continued operation of this facility creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and
our enemies alike that the United
States selectively observes the rule of
law.
There is no reason that we should impose upon ourselves the legal and
moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo. Working through civil courts
since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have
been convicted of terrorism or of terrorism-related offenses and are now
serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody.
For these reasons, I believe that the
time is past due to take the actions
needed to initiate the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would
also like to remind the Members that
Bowe Bergdahl was exchanged for five
detainees at GTMO who have been sent
elsewhere outside the United States
and outside of Guantanamo. It is hard
to keep eyes on these folks who have
been released in exchange for Bowe
Bergdahl, who has actually been
charged with desertion.
I also want to remind Members that,
a few years ago, former Mayor
Bloomberg of New York City agreed to
allow certain detainees to be brought
back to New York City for trial. Then,
apparently, the mayor must have spoken to his police commissioner, who
thought that that was a really bad idea
because it would have choked off much
of southern Manhattan, and it would
have been extraordinarily expensive. It
would have been a mistake.
Again, I urge that we reject this
amendment and maintain the facility
at Guantanamo Bay.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. NADLER).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT

SEC. 513. The amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made
by the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives under section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
exceeds the amount of proposed new budget
authority is $0.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. (1) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay any
bonus or monetary award under chapter 45 or
53 of title 5, United States Code, to an employee of the Chief Business Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs who is responsible for processing emergency medical care
claims until the percentage of emergency
medical care claims processed within 30 days
reaches 90 percent.
(2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
submit quarterly data to Congress on the following:
(A) The total number of emergency medical claims and the total number of billed
charges for such claims.
(B) The total number of emergency medical claims and billed charges for such
claims pending for more than 30 days.
(C) The number of veterans with unpaid
claims under consideration in each Veterans
Integrated Service Network.
(D) The percent of clean claims processed
within 30 days.

Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with the reading of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order on the gentleman’s
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentleman from Louisiana and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, our
veterans deserve better than long,
drawn-out claims processes that inhibit access to high-quality care. This
is just unacceptable.
Since the passage of last year’s landmark VA reform legislation, the VA
has demonstrated disturbingly little
progress on addressing the emergency
medical care claims processing backlog
that is hurting our veterans.
I requested data earlier this year on
the VA’s progress in fiscal year 2015. I
was shocked to find that, as of late
March of this year, only 14 percent of
the claims originating from VISN 16,
including my home State of Louisiana,
have been processed within 30 days.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.087

H29APPT1

H2606

That is abysmal. No employee at any
business in Louisiana or anywhere
around this country would be given a
bonus with such a poor success rate.
Mr. Chairman, it is high time the VA
starts demanding a higher standard
from its employees. My amendment is
fairly simple. It prevents this agency
from granting bonuses to its emergency medical care claims processing
staff until the percentage of emergency
medical care claims processed within
30 days reaches 90 percent.
This is just unacceptable behavior.
Time and time again, we have asked
the VA and have worked and legislated
to get them to clean up their act. Our
veterans are suffering, and this is no
way to treat them. That is why I have
offered this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman has a point of order raised
against the amendment because it violates the House rules of legislating on
an appropriations bill. I just feel compelled to speak out because of the
plight of our veterans, who are at the
mercy of an incompetent agency, and
it has got to change.
I hope that all Members of this House
on both sides of the aisle will work so
that we clean up this mess and treat
our veterans the way they should be
treated because they have gone out and
fought for us.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to my
friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. The amounts otherwise provided
by this Act are revised by reducing the
amount made available for ‘‘Department of
Veterans Affairs—Departmental Administration—Information
Technology
Services’’
(and the amount specified under such heading for operations and maintenance), and by
increasing the amount made available for
‘‘Veterans Health Administration—Medical
Services’’, by $2,000,000.

Ms. JACKSON LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman,
my first task is to thank the ranking
member, Mr. BISHOP, and the chairman
of the subcommittee, Mr. DENT, both of

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

whom I have worked with, and I consider them champions of veterans and
champions of the legislation that we
have before us in terms of the needs
that are there.
b 1800
However, there are many needs that
should be addressed, Mr. Chairman. I
hold in my hand a list of veterans who
have fallen upon hard times, one in
particular who has three grown daughters who are serving in the military.
She, herself, served in the Navy for 5
years, had a divorce, and really needed
to have housing assistance and medical
care, but her options were insufficient.
My amendment is a simple amendment to, again, remind us of the importance of these individuals who still suffer. The Jackson Lee amendment
makes a modest but important improvement to the bill by increasing the
amount of funding for Supportive Services for Veteran Families account by $2
million, offset by a reduction in the
same amount to the $4 billion allocated
to the VA’s information technology
systems.
Today in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans, male and
female, who are homeless on any given
night, and perhaps twice as many—
200,000—experience homelessness at
some point during the course of the
year.
All you need do, Mr. Chairman, is go
home to your district and be able to
engage with your veterans associations
and your own constituents, and you
will find that they will come up to you
because they are homeless.
The VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program helps veterans
and their families who may have fallen
on hard times or hit a rough patch in
life and need help from the country
they selflessly risked their life to defend.
The veterans don’t have to remind us
that we owe them an obligation of support. They don’t have to say it. We
know that. When they put on the uniform, they ask no questions; they are
selfless.
The SSVF program ensures that eligible veteran families receive the outreach, case management, and assistance in obtaining veterans and other
benefits. Many are suffering from
PTSD or traumatic brain injury. They
have lived, and we are grateful for it.
Many Vietnam vets are just being diagnosed. This program is crucial to helping them get an extra step in life.
I would ask my colleagues to be reminded of the kinds of veterans whom
we see every day who are willing to put
on that uniform and sacrifice without
asking one single question. I ask my
colleagues to support the Jackson Lee
amendment.
Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee amendment will enable this vital program to
serve more veteran families in need of
help by providing a bit more funding
for grants to provide nonprofit private
organizations and consumer coopera-

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 9920

tives the ability to provide supportive
services.
The main point is that there is a
need, and I would only say that we
need to follow the words of a veteran
who said, after getting services, ‘‘I
have a home, and I enjoy being inside.’’
Let’s give more of our veterans and
veteran families that very important
quote, ‘‘I have a home, and I enjoy
being inside.’’
I ask my colleagues to support the
Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, before I
begin, let me express my appreciation and
thanks to my good friends, Chairman DENT
and Ranking Member BISHOP, for their hard
and constructive work in shepherding this legislation to the floor.
Chairman DENT and I worked together constructively for many years on the Homeland
Security Committee and has always distinguished himself as one of the most bipartisan
members of the House.
And Ranking Member BISHOP has for years
been one of the ablest Members of this body;
I thank them both for commitment to the important work of ensuring that our veterans receive the care and support they have earned
from a grateful nation.
The Jackson Lee Amendment makes a
modest but important improvement to the bill
by increasing the amount of funding for the
‘‘Supportive Services for Veterans’ Families’’
account by $2 million, offset by a reduction of
the same amount to the $4 billion allocated to
the VA’s ‘‘Information Technology Systems’’
account.
Today, in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans (male and female)
who are homeless on any given night.
And perhaps twice as many (200,000) experience homelessness at some point during the
course of a year.
The VA’s ‘‘Supportive Services for Veterans’
Families’’ Program helps veterans, and their
families, who may have fallen on hard times or
hit a rough patch in life and need a little help
from the country they selflessly risked their life
to defend.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will enable
this vital program to serve more veterans’ families in need of help by providing a bit more
funding for grants to private non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives that provide supportive services to very low-income
veteran families living in or transitioning to permanent housing.
The SSVF Program ensures that eligible
veteran families receive the outreach, case
management, and assistance in obtaining VA
and other benefits.
These services may include health care,
daily living, legal services, fiduciary and payee
services, personal financial planning, child
care, transportation, housing counseling.
The SSVF Program enables VA staff and
local homeless service providers to work together to effectively address the unique challenges that make it difficult for some veterans
and their families to remain stably housed.
Many homeless veterans, including in my
own state of Texas, lack housing because
they lost their job or could no longer afford
rent; many suffer from an untreated mental illness that keeps them from working.
Every day the SSVF program makes a real
difference in the lives of real people.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.091

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

Veterans like the Air Force veteran who,
hoping to utilize the skills he learned in the
service, instead bounced from job to job after
being discharged and found himself sleeping
at night on the cold cement under a bridge in
Chicago.
Through the Thresholds Veterans Project,
funded through the SSVF, this hero received
steady community service support and eventually was placed in his own studio apartment.
He now says, in his own words: I have a
home. I enjoy bein’ inside.’’
Veterans like the one in Texas who because
he lost his job at a manufacturing plant and
was unable to pay the bills, was forced to
seek shelter for himself and his family at a
homeless shelter.
Fortunately, the homeless shelter was a
SSVF grantee and was able to assist the veteran obtain employment and his family in securing affordable low-cost housing.
There are thousands of similar success stories made possible by the SSVF Program that
I could share but all of them share a common
theme: they involve veterans who served their
country proudly, fell down on their luck, picked
themselves back up, and found affordable and
sustainable housing for their families because
of the assistance and support made possible
by the SSVF program.
Ensuring that veterans have a place of their
own to call home is the very least we can do.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson
Lee Amendment and commit ourselves to the
hard but necessary work of ending veteran
homelessness in America.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson
Lee Amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. RODNEY
DAVIS of Illinois). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON LEE).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JOLLY

Mr. JOLLY. I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to carry out the closure or transfer of the United States Naval
Station, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very simple measure. It simply prohibits the relinquishment, the
closure, or the transfer of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay out of the possession of the United States.
In 1903, as a result of the CubanAmerican treaty, the United States
began to occupy Naval Station Guantanamo Bay for at least as long as necessary or in perpetuity for naval operations. The treaty stated that the U.S.
shall exercise complete jurisdiction
and control of the base, while also recognizing the sovereignty of Cuba.
Today, Naval Station Guantanamo is
a front line for our regional security in

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2607

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

the Caribbean. It supports our Navy
logistical work; drug interdiction; DHS
migrant operations; and, importantly,
disaster and humanitarian relief, including responding to the 1980s and
1990s mass migration, as well as the
2010 Haiti earthquake response.
Very importantly is what this measure does not do. This measure does not
touch the detention facility and the
politics of the detention facility. This
focuses solely on the national security
implications of maintaining the Navy
station 90 miles off the shores of Florida. Importantly, it is an issue that has
been brought right now as a result of
the President’s decision to begin to
normalize relations with Cuba.
Also, importantly, this doesn’t take
a position on normalizing relations
with Cuba. In fact, you could make the
argument that normalizing relations
with Cuba actually enhances and improves and increases our national security because it allows us additional
operational units and boots on the
ground at our Navy station there, engaging with the locals, improving our
intelligence, improving our ability to
respond.
The moment the President began to
offer normalized relations, the Castro
regime demanded the return of Guantanamo. This is a matter of our national
security to maintain it. You need not
make this political.
Simply look at the advice and opinions of the previous three commanders
of U.S. Southern Command. Current
General John Kelly has called GTMO
indispensable to the Departments of
Defense, Homeland Security, and
State.
The commander before him, Admiral
Stavridis, said it is of immense strategic value. Prior to him, General
Douglas Fraser, contemplating the
eventual closure of the detention facility said, even absent a detention facility, the strategic capability provided
by U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo
Bay remains essential for executing
the national priorities of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of national security. We have a process for
realigning and closing naval facilities.
This legislation simply says, for purposes of national security, this amendment prohibits any transfer or closure
of Naval Station Guantanamo.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I claim the
time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentleman’s amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think sometimes people get confused about the role of Guantanamo
Bay naval facility’s mission. There is a
joint task force on detainee operations,
and there is the actual facility.
No one has ever floated the idea of
closing the base and giving it back to
Cuba, so when the detainee mission

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

ends, which it will, we will still need to
have this facility. It is the southernmost military facility of the Department.
I don’t support detainee operations,
but I do support the regular mission of
the Guantanamo Bay naval facility,
and therefore, I will not oppose the
gentleman’s amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the time I have remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT),
the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to state, too, that the underlying legislation does not include any
funds to close the naval station at
Guantanamo Bay, a facility I have visited.
I also should point out, as the distinguished ranking member just stated,
Mr. BISHOP, that the naval station is a
key strategic location for SOUTHCOM,
and I would support the gentleman’s
amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chair, I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. JOLLY).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Veterans Health Administration directive 2011-004 (or directive of
the same substance) with respect to the prohibition on ‘‘VA providers from completing
forms seeking recommendations or opinions
regarding a Veteran’s participation in a
State marijuana program’’.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a
point of order on the gentleman’s
amendment. I haven’t seen the amendment yet.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 223,
the gentleman from Oregon and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, 36 States and the District
of Columbia have passed laws that provide legal access to medical marijuana
in some form, and over 1 million patients now use medical marijuana to
treat conditions ranging from seizures,
anxiety, chronic pain, nausea associated with chemotherapy, and posttraumatic stress at the recommendation of their physician.
Over 213 million people reside in
those jurisdictions; yet, according to
Directive 2011–004, the Department of
Veterans Affairs prohibits its medical

E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.099

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H2608

providers
from
completing
forms
brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a
veteran’s participation in a State medical marijuana program.
The amendment I am offering ensures that no funds made available to
the VA can be used to implement this
prohibition. The amendment will not
encourage doctors or patients to recommend or use medical marijuana. It
would not authorize the possession or
use of marijuana at VA facilities.
It would simply free up VA providers
to have an honest conversation about
treatment options and recommend
medical marijuana in accordance with
State law if they think it is appropriate. It would not force veterans to
not work with their primary care provider.
I am joined in offering this bipartisan
amendment by Congressman HECK
from Nevada, Congressman ROHRABACHER, and a series of other Members, some of whom you will hear from.
Over 20 percent of the 2.8 million
American veterans who served in Iraq
and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD and
depression. They should not be forced
outside the VA system to seek a simple
recommendation about a treatment
that might help them manage these
conditions.
I will say, while nobody has ever died
from a marijuana overdose, we are
watching veterans have prescriptions
for opiates who suffer from PTSD, for
example, more than others, and their
suicide rate is high. There is real danger in not being able to provide balanced treatment.
Our VA physicians should not be denied their First Amendment right to
have an honest conversation about options and offer a recommendation they
think could bring relief and well-being
to a patient. Our veterans should not
be treated as second class citizens in
the States that permit medical marijuana.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw
my reservation of a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation
of a point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the
time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in
opposition to my friend’s amendment.
We had a similar debate in the full
committee just last week. The VA
must comply with all Federal laws, including the Controlled Substances Act.
This act designates schedule I drugs,
such as marijuana, as having no currently accepted medical use. There are
criminal penalties associated with the
production, distribution, and possession of these drugs.
The standing VA policy does not
deny veterans who participate in State
marijuana programs from also participating in VA substance abuse or clinical programs. It simply prohibits VA

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

clinicians from completing forms for
their participation in such State programs or for providing or paying for
marijuana authorized by a State program.
Veterans are able to participate in
State programs. They just cannot possess marijuana at VA facilities. Changing the VA directive does not change
the DEA’s interpretation of Federal
law on marijuana.
DEA has advised VA that its doctors
cannot issue anything that could be
construed as a prescription or endorsement of medical marijuana, so the
amendment won’t change the situation
for veterans unless the VA physicians
are willing to risk prosecution.
At this point, again, I would have to
urge opposition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to
strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered
by Mr. BLUMENAUER.
Just recently, in Georgia, Governor
Deal signed legislation that immediately legalized the use of medical
marijuana to treat serious medical
conditions. Georgia became the 36th
State, plus Washington, D.C., to legalize marijuana extracts to treat diseases.
I believe that we should not limit the
Veterans Health Administration in
providing optimal pain care for our
veterans. If medical marijuana is legal
in the State, then the VA should be
able to discuss that treatment option
and allow the veteran to make his or
her own choice.
I believe that the VA’s published policy guidance related to the use of medical marijuana by veteran patients has
become outdated. I believe supporting
a veteran’s right to use alternative
methods to deal with pain is the right
thing to do.
I support the amendment. I urge its
adoption.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. FARR).
b 1815
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you heard
the amendment because it said nothing
about the doctor’s ability to issue a
prescription for use of medical marijuana. This simply lifts a gag order.
Now, these doctors have taken an
oath of office to do no harm. Their
ability is to talk to patients. They can
tell patients that there is medical
marijuana available. They can also tell
patients that you shouldn’t try it, you
shouldn’t use it.
What you want is just an honest dialogue. You want to give doctors their
professional capability to have a discussion with the veteran. That is all
this bill does.
Our veterans are living in a civilian
community. In 33 States, this is legal.

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

When they walk in with admitted problems and they want medical attention,
the doctor cannot have a thorough discussion with them.
That is all this amendment adds. It
says, Let’s let these doctors be like the
civilian doctors in the same offices in
the same States, only maybe those civilian doctors can issue prescriptions
where the veteran doctor can’t.
Because of the reasons that the
chairman talked about of how this
drug is listed, this is very limiting, so
let’s lift the gag order. We owe it to
our veterans to give them complete information when they ask for it, even if
it means discussing medical marijuana.
I ask for an ‘‘aye’’ vote.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I
yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LEE).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong
support of this bipartisan amendment,
which I am very proud to cosponsor
with my colleagues.
This would finally put an end to the
misguided VA policy that keeps our
veterans from receiving the medicine
that they need. To date, 23 States, the
District of Columbia, and Guam have
passed legislation allowing legal access
to medical marijuana.
What is more, similar amendments
saying that the Federal Government
should respect states’ rights and the
will of voters on this issue have passed
the House with bipartisan support.
This amendment represents the will
of more than 70 percent of voters who
support patient access to medical
marijuana and is supported across
party lines.
Veterans should have the benefit of
being able to know what the options
are. So many of our veterans are suffering from PTSD and other medical
problems, and possibly, this would help
in terms of relieving their pain and
providing for the quality of life that
they so deserve.
This amendment would put an end to
the policy that keeps our veterans
from receiving the medicine, counseling, and care they so deserve, and I
hope we have an ‘‘aye’’ vote on this.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. May I inquire of the chair how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Georgia has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. TITUS).
Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I want to say, very simply, that we
shortchange our veterans if we don’t
give them the opportunity to have
every possible medical treatment that
is out there.
We know that certain States have legalized medical marijuana. In those
States, our veterans deserve to have
that as on option. To shortchange them
would just be unconscionable, and I
urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.098

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

April 29, 2015

Mr. BLUMENAUER. May I inquire as
to how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER) has 21⁄2
minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT) has 31⁄2
minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. ROHRABACHER).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman,
the question we are discussing is simply whether Veterans Affairs physicians can recommend the use of marijuana or not recommend the use of
marijuana to their patients.
As Republicans, we supposedly believe in the doctor-patient relationship, but apparently, some of my colleagues believe that that relationship
is not relevant when it comes to VA
doctors and their patients, the patients
who happen to be our Nation’s great
heroes who went off to defend us in
war.
It is criminal that we send our men
and women off to war, where their
minds and bodies are broken, and then
deny them the ability to obtain a medical recommendation from a legitimate
VA doctor upon their return home.
Why is it we have faith in the medical qualifications of Congress to determine the best medical practices rather
than those people who are doctors in
the Department of Veterans Affairs?
I would submit that perhaps marijuana is a better option for some patients—and maybe not—but we should
stop this heavy-handed, top-down approach and allow the Department of
Veterans Affairs physicians and their
patients to determine for themselves
the best use and the best treatment
that they would be able to have.
Let’s respect these people and their
rights. I thought we Republicans believed in the doctor-patient relationship. Either you do or you don’t. If you
vote this down, you don’t believe in the
doctor-patient relationship for our veterans, of all people.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleagues are very sincere in
their attempt. I am sympathetic to at
least listening to the arguments for
medicinal marijuana, but this discussion must be driven by the science.
I would love to hear from the National Institutes of Health, Food and
Drug Administration, and the medical
community formally about their views
on this issue prior to us legislating on
this matter.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland, Dr. HARRIS.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran and a physician and someone who
has treated veterans, I appreciate the
sacrifice our men and women in uniform have made and our duty to give
them the best possible care.
That means care based on real
science, not promise, not hope, not
conjecture, not politics, not as part of
an agenda, but real science.
The chairman says we should wait
for good science and we should wait to

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2609

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

hear from the experts. We don’t need to
wait. We have heard. Dr. Nora Volkow,
the head of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse at the NIH, says medical
marijuana, in the current state of medical knowledge, is not a good idea.
There just isn’t very good science behind what it works for and what it
doesn’t; so I agree, when good science
is in hand, let’s give doctors carte
blanche to discuss that. That science
isn’t available.
Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, this
bill does nothing to advance the knowledge of science on this issue because it
doesn’t say we are going to sign veterans up for research so they can help
other veterans answer the question of
whether or not it helps.
It doesn’t do anything like that. It
doesn’t make it easier for them to enlist in research protocols to address the
scientific questions. Now, the chairman
of the subcommittee asked, Well, we
should hear from the FDA; we should
hear from DEA.
We hear from all of them. They say
medical marijuana is not scientifically
based at this time. I have offered this
to the Members, but the author of the
amendment and I have been to the
NIH. He knows my interest in getting
to the bottom of what works and what
doesn’t.
At this point in time, we are not
doing our veterans a service. We could.
If we asked to engage in more scientific research, we could do them a
service. If this amendment, in fact, encouraged in any way, shape, or form
further research on what works and
what doesn’t, we could be doing them a
service.
Sadly enough, Mr. Chairman, it
doesn’t; and that is why I oppose this
effort—not helping our veterans, but
this specific effort.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT) has 1
minute remaining. The gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER) has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. DENT. At this time, I yield the
balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.
FLEMING.
Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend,
the chairman, for yielding.
As a practicing physician and a veteran myself, the way we approach
health care is not to just allow any
healthcare provider to do whatever he
or she wants to do at the time. That is
simply not the way health care works.
Let’s look specifically at the problem
of PTSD, which is one of the worst
problems that we are dealing with
today among veterans.
What have we found just in the last
year? Smoking pot increases psychotic
episodes by a factor of two to four
times normal. The conversion to schizophrenia, a permanent mental disorder,
is enhanced by pot by a factor of two—
double.

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Why in the world would we give a
drug that is addictive, that is prohibited under schedule I, that is not accepted for any specific mental disease
or disorder and enhances psychosis and
schizophrenia, why are we going to
give that to our veterans, especially
those with PTSD? That is just absolutely insane.
Mr. DENT. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. First, it isn’t
just PTSD that medical marijuana is
used for. There is a whole host of other
conditions that were available.
Second, the marijuana medical train
has left the station. A million Americans have a legal right to use medical
marijuana, and they do so. You want to
treat veterans differently.
Third, medical marijuana is nowhere
near as addictive as what is happening
to our veterans right now. Veterans
seen by agency doctors are dying from
prescription drug overdoses nearly
twice the national average.
Nobody dies from an overdose of
marijuana; and the VA doctors prescribe significantly more opiates,
which are highly addictive, to patients
with PTSD and depression than other
veterans, even though those people suffering those conditions are more at
risk of overdose and suicide.
Get your facts straight. I am happy
to do more research; I have work coming forward, but, in the meantime,
don’t treat these veterans as second
class citizens.
If you want to be concerned, be concerned about the explosion of addictive
drugs that are being prescribed to people who we should be giving more care.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from
Oregon
(Mr.
BLUMENAUER).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oregon will be
postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to carry out the Appraised Value Offer program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer an amendment to terminate the

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.099

H29APPT1

H2610

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

VA’s abused Appraised Value Offer Program so that these funds can be used to
better serve the needs of our Nation’s
veterans, rather than VA bureaucrats.
The VA spent nearly $300,000 of taxpayer money to move a VA employee
140 miles, specifically from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia. That is
$300,000 that could have been used to
care for numerous deserving veterans
who have served this Nation in uniform, but instead was spent to move
someone 140 miles.
At the request of the House Veterans’
Affairs Committee, the Department of
Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector
General is investigating this abuse, and
here is what we have learned so far.
Under the VA’s Appraised Value
Offer Program, the VA paid more than
$80,000 to one of its government employees and $211,000 to a Federal contractor that was tasked with selling
that employee’s home.
At a time when the VA is struggling
to meet the medical needs of our veterans, it is unconscionable that the VA
would waste $300,000 in taxpayer money
to move someone 140 miles.
Unfortunately, this is just another
disturbing example of the lack of
transparency and accountability at the
VA. The folks at the VA are already
under scrutiny for their shocking failure to properly care for veterans, and
now, to spend $300,000 on this is absolutely abusive. Clearly, the VA cannot
be trusted to exercise common sense
with this program, and it is time to
end it.
As a military veteran and a father of
a decorated Navy SEAL, I am deeply
frustrated with the abuse and mismanagement at the VA. Our veterans
must be the VA’s first priority, not its
bureaucrats.
I would like to thank House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman
JEFF MILLER for shedding light on this
important issue and holding the VA accountable for failing to put veterans
first.
I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and to end this outrageous
abuse within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
b 1830
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BABIN. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I just wanted to state I do
not object to the gentleman’s amendment. He raised the Philadelphia issue.
I am very much aware of it and certainly concerned about it, and I understand the purpose.
I also understand the purpose of the
Appraised Value Offer Program, when a
valued employee would otherwise stand
to lose thousands in the sale of a house
to move at the request of their employing agency. But sometimes the cost of
the program seems a little excessive, in
my view.
In conference, we may need to tweak
the language to make sure that we
aren’t jeopardizing VA’s efforts to

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

move talented staff to areas where
they are needed. But as I said, I do not
object to the amendment.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BABIN).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chair, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and
(3), amounts made available under the ‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits
Administration’’ account for fiscal year 2016
may be used by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide discretionary competitive
grants for State and local governments to establish or expand technology systems that
develop a coordinated network of private,
public and nonprofit services and resources
to better serve veterans and their family
members. A State or local government
awarded a grant under this section shall
work with an entity that has experience
working with comprehensive coordinated
networks, protects privacy of veterans and
their families, ensures the quality of providers, and has a metrics system to effectively measure success of the network.
(2) Amounts used as described in paragraph
(1) may not result in a more than 10 percent
aggregate decrease in the total amount made
available by this Act for the ‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’ account.
(3) Each grant made under paragraph (1)
shall be subject to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.

Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr.
Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman’s amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Ms. ADAMS (during the reading). Mr.
Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
we dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank Chairman DENT and Ranking
Member BISHOP for allowing me to
present my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to highlight
the need for better access to resources
and services for our veterans and military families.
The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and other Federal agencies are
providing a vast array of services and
resources that our heroes deserve, but
the Federal Government alone is not
able to address every challenge our
servicemen and -women and their fami-

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

lies are facing and will face in years to
come. Many community providers and
local governments are starting their
own initiatives to assist veterans in applying for benefits with VA and other
organizations.
For those 37,000 veterans living in the
12th Congressional District of North
Carolina, it is important that community-based groups work collaboratively
with local, State, and Federal Government service providers so that recipients know where all of these different
benefits and resources are and how to
access them.
Additionally, we need to make sure
we are holding service providers accountable and that performance measures are in place.
My amendment encourages the VA to
assist with establishing and expanding
technology systems at the local and
State level to create a more unified
network of veteran services. These networks would include private, public,
and nonprofit partners who are qualified to serve veterans and their families.
My amendment directs funding to a
grant program that has not yet been
authorized by law, and will be subject
to a point of order.
I look forward to working with the
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and
with the Appropriations Committee to
make this funding a reality for our
community providers in the future.
The veterans in my district, in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Rowan, Davidson,
Forsyth, and Guilford Counties, have
noted that they have difficulties finding and accessing the services that are
available to them and their families.
As more servicemen and -women
come home from serving overseas, Congress must support innovation and
local solutions to providing services for
our Nation’s veterans.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for allowing me to present
my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to pay a performance award
under section 5384 of title 5, United States
Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
today to stand with our Nation’s veterans and their families. We owe these

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.102

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

April 29, 2015

brave individuals and their loved ones
a debt that can never be repaid. When
our Nation called, they answered. Our
veterans served bravely in theaters
around the world, kept us safe, and
helped to spread American values and
the freedoms that we hold dear.
Our veterans made unimaginable sacrifices to their health, to their wellbeing, and to their families. They fulfilled their commitment to our great
Nation, and we must now uphold the
commitments we made to them. It is
for that reason that I rise in strong
support of the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Act under consideration today. It is
also why this amendment is so important.
For the last 2 years, I have offered
this amendment with the same simple
message: VA senior executives need to
take responsibility, fix the problems,
and do their jobs. As public servants,
these senior executives have a solemn
obligation to ensure that veterans receive the respect, support, and care
that they have earned.
But one only needs to take a quick
survey of the tremendous investigative
work that Chairman MILLER, Congressman MIKE COFFMAN, and the rest of my
colleagues on the Veterans’ Affairs
Committee have been doing to see that,
despite our efforts to reform and improve the agency culture at the VA,
little to nothing has changed.
The VA is still failing veterans in
Pennsylvania and across the country.
Veterans still have difficulty accessing
care, claims and appeals are still backlogged, whistleblowers are still being
retaliated against, and reckless, wasteful spending has reached new levels.
For example, in my home State of
Pennsylvania, the inspector general recently conducted an investigation at
the Philadelphia regional office after
receiving numerous complaints that
there was data manipulation and that
management was mistreating and retaliating against staff. The IG confirmed a number of these allegations
and found tens of thousands of unanswered veteran inquiries.
Many of us are also familiar with the
VA Hospital project in Aurora, Colorado. Over a decade ago, veterans in
Denver were promised a new medical
facility; yet, due to gross mismanagement, the project is well behind schedule and is now going to cost taxpayers
more than $1 billion over budget.
To his credit, Secretary McDonald
has publicly recognized many of his Department’s failings, has spoken of increased transparency and accountability, and acknowledges that a
wholesale culture change will be necessary. But this transformation has not
yet occurred, and accountability is certainly still lacking.
To date, only a few of the senior executives who have been found responsible for the misconduct at the VA
have actually been terminated. Some
have been placed on extended paid
leave, some reassigned, while others
have been promoted.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2611

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

In fiscal year 2013, the VA shelled out
some $2.8 million in bonuses solely to
its executives, an increase from the
previous year, when the agency paid
out $2.3 million.
I have always maintained that taxpayer-funded bonuses to senior executives of an organization with this sort
of abysmal performance record are ridiculous. These dollars would be better
spent providing our veterans with the
first-rate service and care they rightly
deserve.
That is why I am offering this
amendment again this year, to direct
that none of the funds appropriated
may be used to pay for senior executive
bonuses. The amendment was adopted
the last 2 years and was included in
bills that passed out of this Chamber
with wide bipartisan support.
Congress certainly has an important
role to play in reforming the VA. We
need to continue our oversight activities and pass the sorts of reforms that
are included in bills brought to the
floor by Chairman MILLER and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. However,
while we do that, we also need to ensure that not a single dime is spent on
paying bonuses to senior executives
until the problems at the VA are fixed.
I would like to thank Chairman MILLER and Congressmen FITZPATRICK,
KELLY,
TIPTON,
CRAWFORD,
and
HUELSKAMP for their support.
I urge all of my other colleagues to
stand with our Nation’s veterans and
support increased transparency.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHFUS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I just want to say I rise in
support of the amendment.
A number of Members have offered
amendments relating to the VA performance bonus awards. The gentleman’s amendment is the most comprehensive, and I would encourage
other Members to join with Mr.
ROTHFUS rather than offer their own
amendments.
We have all certainly been outraged
by the behavior of some VA employees
and the consequences for veterans’
health and well-being resulting from
incompetence, deceit, and deception. A
ban on all senior executive service performance bonuses is a needed wake-up
call to the VA bureaucracy which, as
we have seen, needs to change its culture to ensure veterans’ needs are their
top priority.
I support the amendment.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman.
I yield my remaining time to the
gentleman
from
Arkansas
(Mr.
CRAWFORD).
Mr. CRAWFORD. I will make it
quick, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of this amendment.
Just last year, the House voted unanimously to strip out funding for bonuses
to Senior Executive Service employees
at the VA because we were appalled by
the heinous treatment of our veterans.
And even though I opposed the legisla-

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

tion, later, both Chambers voted to reinstate many of these bonuses. Some of
these executives are the very people
who contributed to the plight of our
VA hospitals.
We can’t allow this negligent behavior to continue to impact the care of
those who sacrificed so much on behalf
of our Nation’s security. In fact, no
award should be reinstated until significant improvements are made toward transparency.
I want to make this point. In my
home State of Arkansas, $8 million of
Federal funds were used to build solar
panels in a VA parking lot. But those
panels have sat unplugged and inoperable for years, and now some of the
panels are being torn down in order to
make room for a parking garage that
they knew in advance was coming, and
yet they spent that money recklessly
on another project. This is exactly the
type of poor planning and behavior
that shouldn’t be rewarded, even
though it has been.
This amendment makes sure that no
Federal funds in the MILCON-VA Appropriations Act are used to pay performance awards to VA senior officials.
I encourage its passage.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we are all outraged with regard
to the claims backlog and the
incidences of poor quality health services and safety. The current claims
backlog is unacceptable.
There is no question that the VA has
struggled to successfully deliver one of
its key missions: to provide timely ratings of disabilities. However, the VA
has reduced the backlog by 44 percent.
Should we ignore that?
It is also clear that some VA health
facilities have had serious issues that
put the health, safety, and well-being
of our veterans at risk. This, too, is unacceptable. Where these failures have
occurred, it is hard to imagine how VA
leaders of these facilities could have
received high performance ratings and
substantial bonuses.
However, this amendment will not
provide any solution in the short-term
and, in fact, may have long-term consequences and compound the very problems that it attempts to address. This
amendment would make the VA a less
attractive option than other agencies
when it comes to recruiting and retaining quality executive leaders, and it
will not have the very talent that it
needs to solve the problems that it
faces today, like the claims backlog
and the healthcare deficiencies.
Furthermore, SES pay and bonuses
are governed by title 5 of the United
States Code and administered by the
Office of Personnel Management. Any
change to title 5 to address VA would
then also apply to all other Federal
agencies.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.107

H29APPT1

H2612

Attempting to do an across-theboard, one-size-fits-all fix will penalize
those dedicated VA executives who are
working hard and well to find solutions
to the VA’s problems. This is nonsense.
I urge all Members to vote ‘‘no.’’
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from
Pennsylvania
(Mr.
ROTHFUS).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act for benefits for homeless veterans and training and outreach programs
may be used by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs in contravention of subchapter III of
chapter 20 of title 38, United States Code.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee again for the
work, and I raise again a picture of
three ladies who look attractive in this
picture.
Mr. Chairman, and colleagues, these
are homeless vets. These are vets who
bonded with each other in a homeless
shelter.
The good news is that we have made
progress on providing services for
homeless vets. But I want to emphasize, through this amendment, that we
will continue to raise and focus on the
needs of homeless vets.
I offer the Jackson Lee amendment
because I believe reducing and eliminating homelessness among veterans,
those who risked their lives to protect
our freedom, should also be one of the
Nation’s highest priorities. I would like
this bill to have it as its highest priority.
b 1845
Homelessness among the American
veteran population is on the rise in the
United States. We must be proactive in
giving back to those who have given us
so much.
Even though the administration has
done an enormous job, has made great
strides in bringing down the numbers
of homeless vets, for those that they
bring down, then, for some reason—
whether it is the loss of a job or medical issues—vets are becoming homeless every day.
My amendment will help remind us
of our obligation to provide our veterans the assistance needed to avoid
homelessness, which includes adequately funding the program for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing and,

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

as well, to be able to ensure those centers are there for our veterans.
Today in our country, we have mentioned the numbers of veterans that
exist: 100,000 veterans, male and female, are homeless; 200,000 experience
homelessness. In my hometown of
Houston, for example, between the
years of 2010 and 2012, the number of
homeless vets increased from 771 to
1,162.
I want to acknowledge the city of
Houston that has worked on their
Homeless Veterans Project; the George
Hotel that has worked on the Homeless
Veterans Project; many other veteran
organizations; U.S.VETS, who has
worked on the Homeless Veterans
Project; and a grant that came some
years ago to the Houston Housing Authority to work on the Homeless Veterans Project.
But this amendment is to, again, establish in this important legislation
the idea that we must fight for our veterans, and we must ensure that every
year, we take the temperature of the
Nation’s homeless vets, the temperature that says, if it is high, the numbers have been going up; if it is low, we
are doing our job because the numbers
of homeless vets are going down.
Let me thank the many shelters that
deal with our vets, and particularly in
my district, St. John’s United Methodist Church for the work they have
done, along with many other entities
that believe that cutting the numbers
of homeless vets should be the end.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I just wanted to let the
gentlelady know that we support the
amendment, which was accepted last
year. I know the gentlelady is offering
it to reaffirm the congressional obligation to provide veterans the assistance
they need to avoid homelessness.
I accept the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reclaiming my
time, let me thank the chairman. With
that, I thank my colleagues and ask
my colleagues to support the Jackson
Lee amendment to end homelessness
for our veterans here in America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, none of the
funds made available by this Act for the Department of Veteran Affairs—Benefits for
Homeless Veterans and Training and Outreach Programs may be used in contravention
of the title 38, Part II, Chapter 20, Subchapter
II and III of the U.S. Code
This amendment will help ensure that the
rate of homelessness among veterans in the
United States does not increase.
I thank Subcommittee Chairman DENT and
Ranking Member BISHOP for their hard work in
shepherding this important legislation to the
floor.
I offer the Jackson Lee Amendment because I believe reducing and eliminating
homelessness among veterans, those who
risked their lives to protect our freedom,
should also be one of the nation’s highest priorities.
Homelessness among the American veteran
population is on the rise in the United States

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

and we must be proactive in giving back to
those who have given so much to us.
My amendment will help remind us of our
obligation to provide our veterans the assistance needed to avoid homelessness, which
includes adequately funding for programs Veterans Administration Supportive Housing
VASH) that provide case-management services, adequate housing facilities, mental health
support, and address other areas that contribute to veteran homelessness.
VASH is a jointly-administered permanent
supportive housing program for disabled Veterans experiencing homelessness in which VA
medical Centers provide referrals and case
management while Public Housing Agencies
(PHAs) administer the Section 8 housing
vouchers.
Mr. Chair, our veterans deserve the best
services available, and I believe that we could
be doing much more for them.
Today, in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans (male and female)
who are homeless on any given night. And
perhaps twice as many (200,000) experience
homelessness at some point during the course
of a year.
Many other veterans are considered near
homeless or at risk because of their poverty,
lack of support from family and friends, and
dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in
overcrowded or substandard housing.
While significant progress has been made,
ending homelessness among veterans remains a big challenge.
In my hometown of Houston for example,
between the years 2010 and 2012, the number of homeless veterans increased from 771
to 1,162.
We must remain vigilant and continue to
fight for those who put on the uniform and
fought for us.
Providing a home for veterans to come
home to every night is the very least we can
do.
Mr. Chair, programs like VASH have succeeded in changing lives. In 2012 alone,
35,905 veterans lived in the public housing
provided by VASH.
I have seen the impact of such grants in my
home state of Texas, and within my congressional district in Houston, and I am sure that
this funding has positively impacted many
communities across this country.
In Texas, there are committed groups in
Houston, working to eradicate the issue of
homelessness.
For example, the Michael E. DeBakey VA
Medical Center has been involved in changing
veterans’ lives in a mighty way by providing
Veterans and their families with access to affordable housing and medical services that will
help them get back on their feet.
Mr. Chair, we cannot let this issue of homelessness continue.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson
Lee Amendment and commit ourselves to the
hard but necessary work of ending veteran
homelessness in America.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON
LEE).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. ROE OF
TENNESSEE

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I have an amendment at the desk.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.108

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. Not more than $4,400,000 of the
funds provided by this Act under the heading
‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—Departmental Administration—General Administration’’ may be used for the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, and the
amount otherwise provided under such heading is hereby reduced by $1,500,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I am offering this amendment that
would cut $1.5 million from the budget
of the VA’s Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs, or OCLA. The
OCLA is tasked with being the liaison
between Congress and the VA. It is
their job to provide information to
Congress to help with casework and
basic information.
What is unfortunate is that, even
after the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ investigation into the largest
scandal in VA history continues, it is
still the perception that the VA will do
everything in its power to withhold information to prevent negative news
from being made public. Unfortunately,
as many veterans can tell you, timeliness is not a word the VA understands
or cares to learn.
In VA’s budget submission, they assert: ‘‘The mission of OCLA is to improve the lives of veterans and their
families by advancing pro-veteran legislation and maintaining responsive
and effective communications with
Congress.’’
As of April 24, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs had 78 outstanding requests for information with OCLA, and
over half of these have been pending for
over 60 days. On average, it is now taking the OCLA 69 days to respond to the
committee’s requests. There is one
that dates back all the way to 2012.
These numbers do not reflect responsive or effective communications. What
is even more disappointing is that the
requests have gone unanswered despite
the fact that the OCLA’s budget has
gone up by 36 percent since fiscal year
2009.
I understand that other parts of the
Federal Government, such as the Office
of General Counsel, the Office of Management and Budget, and in some
cases, the President’s own staff may be
delaying
Congress’
requests
for
months. However, OCLA is chartered
with being Congress’ connection to the
rest of the VA, and, as such, they bear
the burden of these untimely responses.
The current delays in getting information to Congress is not a new phenomenon, as the VA Committee has
now held three separate hearings that
have exposed VA’s lack of transparency

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2613

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

to Congress and showed that even when
we do receive information we have requested, it is so old or so heavily redacted that it is basically useless.
These requests are critically important to Congress’ role in providing
meaningful oversight over the secondlargest agency in the Federal Government. It is our duty to be a strong
check on the executive branch. While
Secretary McDonald is trying everything he can to change the culture at
the VA, Congress must send a message
that providing answers to our questions 69 days after we have requested it
is simply unacceptable to us, unacceptable to the taxpayers, and, most importantly, it is unacceptable to the veterans. Passage of this amendment
would send that message.
I thank Chairman DENT for his hard
work on this bill.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman’s amendment.
I certainly share Dr. ROE’s frustration with the VA Congressional and
Legislative Affairs Office stalling the
delivery of important information Congress has requested to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.
Frankly, the only time I have seen
that office act with lightning speed was
in its delivery to all Members of the
House last week in an inaccurate and
critical portrayal of this appropriations bill.
So, again, I support your amendment.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. COSTELLO) to speak
on the amendment.
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today in support of
Dr. ROE’s amendment to address the
lack of accountability and transparency at the Department of Veterans
Affairs Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs.
As the gentleman from Tennessee
mentioned, OCLA is meant to serve as
a bridge between Congress and the VA
to help facilitate access to information
that we, as a legislative body, request
in our oversight role.
Since I have been in Congress and a
member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee all of 4 months, it is clear that
more transparency is needed.
Let me give you a clear example of a
pending request, an unusually long
unfulfilled request that is still outstanding. Back in December, as part of
the committee’s continued investigation into malfeasance at the Philadelphia RO, the committee requested copies of all EEO complaints and MSBP
files that have been filed at this location since 2008.
Late last year, we were told that the
files were in boxes and ready to be
shipped to Washington, D.C., for our review. It is now 5 months later, and
after numerous requests, we have only
received a few of the files we requested.

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

The inability of the VA to provide
these documents is mind-boggling. I
don’t know how else to describe it.
The bottom line is: ignoring reasonable, relevant requests is unacceptable.
There has to be accountability. This
amendment does that. It does not impact or diminish in any way the treatment and care of our veterans. I urge
adoption of Dr. ROE’s amendment to
demand accountability.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I claim the
time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I
think that the concerns raised by the
gentleman in offering the amendment
are perhaps well taken from time to
time. But I think this amendment is
punitive. I think it is counterproductive. And I think it is going to
make it much more difficult to get the
results that the gentleman is seeking.
Because of that, I think that the
amendment should be defeated. It is a
bad amendment. And I think it would
be bad for morale for the Department.
And I think it would be bad generally
for the public. I urge opposition and a
‘‘no’’ vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. ROE).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I have an
amendment at the desk.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a
point of order on the gentleman’s
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order
is reserved.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used to withhold any report of an Inspector General from any member of Congress in any case where the member of Congress has requested that such report be provided.

Mr. POCAN (during the reading). Mr.
Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
Mr. DENT. I object to the unanimous
consent. I don’t know which amendment we are talking about here.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Wisconsin.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.112

H29APPT1

H2614

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I thank Subcommittee Chairman DENT and Ranking Member BISHOP for all of their
work on this bill.
This amendment is a simple amendment to make sure that Members of
Congress have access to inspector general reports, should they request one.
We recently came across this issue
when there was a bipartisan field hearing in Tomah, Wisconsin, regarding the
Tomah VA facility.
The Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General had a report regarding the
overprescription of opiates resulting in
multiple deaths in the area. And in this
case, the VA Office of Inspector General completed a report that uncovered
these practices, and they gave the recommendations to the local and regional manager. However, the report
and these recommendations were never
reported to the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald,
any congressional committees of jurisdiction, or the public, as the report was
administratively closed. What is more,
the initial report was requested by a
Member of the House of Representatives, and the VA Office of Inspector
General failed to even provide the completed report to the Member of Congress.
Ultimately, that Member of Congress
had to do a Freedom of Information request, a very unusual request, in order
to get a copy of that report. Instead, it
was left largely to local facilities to
implement the recommended changes
without any oversight from the Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs or from the Members of Congress who had specifically requested
that report. It is all about sunlight. I
think we function better if we could
have that information. And we should
make sure that those reports are available to every Member of Congress. This
amendment would simply make sure
that no funds can be expended in withholding a report, as this report was in
the State of Wisconsin.
I yield back the balance of my time.

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to change existing
law and constitutes legislation in 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 imposes additional
duties.
Therefore, I would request a ruling
from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other
Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
As the Chair ruled on an analogous
amendment on June 13, 2011, this
amendment includes language requiring a new determination by the relevant executive branch official of the
current membership of a body in the

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

legislative branch. The amendment,
therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and
the amendment is not in order.
b 1900
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to end, suspend, or
relocate hospital-based services with respect
to a health care facility of the Department
of Veterans Affairs that is—
(1) the subject of an environmental impact
statement in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.);
(2) designated as a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service; and
(3) located in a highly rural area.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman
from South Dakota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Veterans Affairs is entrusted with the protection of a multitude of historic facilities. As I noted
last year during debate on the VA’s
budget, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation has found serious deficiencies in the manner in which the VA
operates these facilities.
These VA facilities, especially the
medical facilities, are more important
than ever. We are seeing thousands of
veterans returning home after fighting
in conflicts abroad, many suffering
from chronic service-related injuries.
The last thing we want to do is to force
these veterans to travel hundreds of
miles to receive treatment, as is often
the case in rural States like South Dakota.
The health of these historic medical
facilities is directly connected to our
veterans’ health, and this amendment
would prohibit the VA from curtailing
healthcare services at the historic facilities located in rural areas.
I thank the chairman and his staff
for all of their assistance on this
amendment, and I urge everyone’s support for this amendment as well.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentlewoman
yield?
Mrs. NOEM. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I am aware
the South Dakota delegation has been
struggling with the VA’s determination to move services out of historic facilities into a new geographic area. We
had language in last year’s bill forcing
the VA to do a full analysis of the consequences of the facility moving.
I have no objection to including the
amendment Representative NOEM is offering this year.
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman. I
appreciate those words of support. It

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

certainly is important to the veterans
in our State and in many States across
the country that often find it very difficult to travel to local VA facilities,
but now, with the closure of some of
these facilities, they would have to
travel hundreds of miles.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs.
NOEM).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following new section:
SEC. 5ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to enter into a
contract with any person whose disclosures
of a proceeding with a disposition listed in
section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States
Code, in the Federal Awardee Performance
and Integrity Information System include
the term ‘‘Fair Labor Standards Act’’.

Mr. POCAN (during the reading). Mr.
Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, hopefully, the second time is the charm.
This is an amendment on behalf of myself, Representative ELLISON, and the
Congressional Progressive Caucus.
This amendment would bar taxpayer
dollars from going to companies that
have recent wage theft convictions or
civil penalties reported in the government’s contracting database.
No hard-working American should
ever have to worry that their employer
will refuse to pay his or her work, overtime, or take money out of their paycheck, especially if they work for a
Federal contractor.
As a small-business owner who has
had previous contracts, it is not a
right, but an earned responsibility and
privilege to have these contracts, and
any employer that would do wage
theft—which is considered to pay less
than the minimum wage, to be shorting someone their hours, being forced
to work off the clock, not being paid
overtime, or not being paid at all—
should not be able to get these Federal
contracts.
A recent National Employment Law
Project survey found that 21 percent of
Federal contract workers were not paid
overtime, and 11 percent have been
forced to work off the clock. Eighteen
Federal contractors were recipients of
one of the largest 100 penalties issued

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.115

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

April 29, 2015

by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration of the Department of
Labor between 2007 and 2012, and almost half of the total initial penalty
dollars assessed for OSHA violations
were against companies holding Federal contracts in 2012.
Overall, 49 Federal contractors responsible for large violations of Federal labor laws were cited for 1,776 separate violations of these laws and paid
$196 million in penalties and assessments; yet, just in fiscal year 2012,
these same companies were awarded $81
billion in taxpayer dollars.
The Federal Government cannot look
the other way when Federal contractors take advantage of their employees. Those who violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act deserve more than a
slap on the wrist; they don’t deserve to
do business with the government anymore. Those contractors who engage in
wage theft should not be rewarded with
contracts to do business with the Federal Government.
This was included in last year’s appropriation. We would appreciate consideration again in this year’s appropriation, to make sure that we are protecting the workers for these Federal
contractors.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do have
some concerns with this amendment.
As I read it, it appears to be a ‘‘one
strike and you are out’’ type amendment.
Mr. WALBERG. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the concern that my
colleague has on this issue. I know it is
sincere. I think there is every one in
this Chamber that has concerns that
our laborers, our employees, and individual citizens be treated fairly and
treated with respect, safety, and all of
the rest by their employers.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that bad
actors who deny workers basic protections, including wage and overtime
pay, shouldn’t be rewarded with government contracts funded by taxpayer
dollars. That is a given.
There is a suspension and disbarment
process already in place under current
law. If an employer has a history of bad
behavior, Federal agencies know about
it and have the authority to deny that
employer Federal contracts. My question is: Has anyone suggested the current process isn’t working? I don’t believe so, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier this year, we held a joint subcommittee hearing, in fact, on this
issue in relation to the President’s executive order that functions to blacklist Federal contractors for alleged
Federal and State labor law violations,
including the FLSA.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2615

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

The committee received a substantial load of evidence regarding the inherent flaws of the President’s executive order, which, like this amendment,
supersedes agencies’ current authority
to exclude problematic contractors,
causing significant delays and disruption to the Federal procurement system.
There is agreement on both sides of
the aisle that the FLSA is the cornerstone of workers’ wage and hour protections, but in many ways, the regulations implementing the law are flawed
and outdated.
For that reason, we have asked for
consideration with the President, with
the administration, the Department of
Labor, both sides of the aisle, to look
at reforming and fixing the Fair Labor
Standards Act that has been in place
an awful long time before present practices and doesn’t fit with the 21st century workplace.
A report by the Government Accountability Office found that litigation stemming from FLSA claims continues to be a significant problem.
These aren’t all from bad actors, but in
many cases, it comes—if not most
cases—from an employer trying to
keep up with present law, present functions, and present regulations that
don’t even fit with FLSA.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. We
have in place opportunities now that
can and should be used. We even have
instances where the Labor Department
has violated, and, under this amendment that is being offered, they would
be held at risk as well.
It is not an amendment that is needed; it is an amendment that will disrupt the process, and it is an amendment that will not move us forward
and really make changes with FLSA
that can and should be made.
I urge rejection.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to say I agree with the gentleman. I was at the hearing, and I
heard the conversation that was there.
The difference we had is that the hearing—I understand there was a disagreement with the executive order, but I
would hate for us to confuse the disagreement with the executive order
with the action that we can do here in
Congress.
We had concluded this last year in
the appropriations bill, the exact same
language, to the best of my understanding; and I know that, since then,
there has been an executive order that
we are trying to have a conversation
with the executive branch about.
However, it is not fair to the contractors who abide by the law that, when
you bid against someone who doesn’t
abide by the law because they are
shortchanging their employees, that
makes it an unfair practice.
We think the bottom line is we
should be protecting those good contractors; we should be protecting the

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

employees who don’t get their fair pay;
and, despite any disagreement we
might have with the executive branch,
I think we should, at minimum, as a
Congress, stand up for those workers
and for those good contractors.
Mr. Chairman, I have been in business for 28 years as a small-business
owner. I know that, when I bid on
something, I want to know I am at a
fair and even playing field.
We are not making a fair playing
field when you have this number of
people who are getting violations who
already get Federal contracts and are
really getting a slap on the hand, $196
million in penalties versus 81 billion in
taxpayer dollars in contracts awarded.
Clearly, there is an imbalance, and
that becomes a cost to business for a
bad company, but you are punishing
the good companies and the good workers by doing that.
I would certainly hope that we would
support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I will try
to keep it brief.
I do have concerns about the amendment. There is an agreement on both
sides of the aisle that the FLSA is the
cornerstone of workers’ wage and hour
protections, but in many ways, the regulations implementing the law are
flawed and outdated. A report by the
GAO found that litigation stemming
from the FLSA claims continue to be a
significant problem.
These aren’t all bad actors. Often,
they are employers trying to do the
right thing, but are simply tripped up
by an overly complex regulatory structure.
I would urge opposition, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. POCAN).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand
a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin will be
postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following new section:
SEC. 5ll. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan
for, or execute a new or additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. RATCLIFFE) and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.120

H29APPT1

H2616

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to thank Chairman DENT
and Ranking Member BISHOP for their
hard work on behalf of the 57,000 veterans in my district and on behalf of
veterans and servicemembers across
the country.
I am also grateful for the support of
Congressmen MACARTHUR, HURD, and
NORCROSS in offering this bipartisan
amendment, one which would simply
prohibit any funds made available in
this act from being used to propose or
execute a new or additional round of
BRAC.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to represent the Fourth Congressional District of Texas, home to the Red River
Army Depot. The depot has supported
the warfighters since 1941. Although
the depot community has weathered
many changes over the years, their
commitment to mission remains the
same. It is reflected on the placard
placed in each of the vehicles there
which reads, ‘‘We build it as if our lives
depend on it. Theirs do.’’
The Red River Army Depot is a vital
job creator in northeast Texas, and it
is a critical component of our national
defense.
Mr. Chairman, in this fiscal environment, we need to be careful stewards of
taxpayer dollars and focus our limited
resources on addressing critical national security objectives and military
readiness. Having another round of
BRAC won’t help us achieve this goal.
In fact, the Government Accountability Office reports that the last
round of BRAC in 2005 cost the American taxpayers $35.1 billion, which was
67 percent more than the original cost
estimate.
At the same time, the expected savings from the last round of BRAC were
73 percent less than was advertised.
Starting another round of BRAC would
weaken our capabilities and increase
our vulnerability in the face of the
critical threats facing our Nation.
I would like to thank my colleagues
who have supported this amendment.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RATCLIFFE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I want to let the gentleman know I support the amendment.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. I thank the gentleman. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. MACARTHUR).
b 1915
Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Texas.
I have been fighting against BRAC
since January, when I led a bipartisan
letter urging then-Defense Secretary
Hagel to not call for another round of
base closures. But a BRAC was included in the President’s budget, and
here we are today.
Along with the gentleman from
Texas, I am bringing this amendment
and fighting against BRAC for two reasons:
First, BRAC is not cost effective. As
was mentioned, the 2005 BRAC was sup-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

posed to cost $21 billion. Just a few
years later, it has now skyrocketed to
$35 billion. On top of that, the savings
were reduced by 73 percent. So it cost
the taxpayers more and saved them
less. Once more, the Department of Defense won’t even recoup its upfront
costs until 2018, 13 years after it started.
And second, I oppose BRAC because
it destroys local economies. I know
this all too well as Fort Monmouth in
my home State was shuttered in 2005.
That area is still recovering from the
loss.
My district is home to Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, which is responsible for 105,000 local jobs in southern New Jersey. It is a $7 billion impact on just one local community. Like
so many other military bases around
the country, it is the backbone of our
community. If it is closed, the area
would be devastated.
Spending more, saving less, ruining
local economies, and reducing our military capability should not be done
based on what we know today. In closing, I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. HURD).
Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I
am proud to cosponsor this amendment
alongside my colleague from Texas, the
honorable JOHN RATCLIFFE, and my colleague from New Jersey, the Honorable
TOM MACARTHUR.
Government action that both wastes
the taxpayer dollars and hurts local
economies just doesn’t make sense, especially when the same action negatively impacts national security. But
that is precisely what another round of
base realignment and closures would
do.
Laughlin Air Force Base, located
near Del Rio, Texas, in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, is responsible for training more Air Force pilots
than any other base in the world. It is
an integral component of our Nation’s
military readiness, and they are a vital
part of Del Rio’s economy and community. Yet every year they wait to see if
the powers that be up here have decided in their infinite wisdom to put
Laughlin Air Force Base back on the
chopping block, devastating Del Rio
and endangering our Nation’s air superiority.
I encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment, which will prohibit
funds from being used to propose, plan,
or execute another round of BRAC closures. Protecting our military readiness in communities such as Del Rio is
vital.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. RATCLIFFE).
The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of its principals
if the offeror certifies, as required by Federal
Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or
any of its principals:
(A) within a three-year period preceding
this offer has been convicted of or had a civil
judgment rendered against it for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or
performing a public (Federal, State, or local)
contract or subcontract; violation of Federal
or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, tax evasion, violating Federal
criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
(B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise
criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of any of
the offenses enumerated above in subsection
(A); or
(C) within a three-year period preceding
this offer, has been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.

Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is identical to other
amendments that were inserted by
voice vote into every appropriations
bill that was considered under an open
rule during the 113th Congress. My
amendment expands the list of parties
with whom the Federal Government is
prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on the part of the
contractors.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. GRAYSON).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HURD OF TEXAS

Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used in contravention of
subtitle D of title VIII of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.123

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman,
one thing we can all agree on is our
veterans deserve better. For far too
long, our Nation’s veterans have failed
to receive the health care they have
earned and the health care they have
needed.
One of the reasons is due to the VA’s
inability to join the 21st century when
it comes to information technology.
Something as simple as allowing a veteran’s medical records to be available
digitally to their health care providers
shouldn’t be something beyond the capabilities of the greatest Nation in the
world.
My amendment ensures the Department of Veterans Affairs and their
chief information officer will take the
appropriate steps and get the VA moving in the right direction. It will create
accountability with their acquisition
and use of information technology.
Let’s do what is right and make sure
the VA is using the right technology to
ensure that our veterans are getting
timely, quality care.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HURD).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROE OF
TENNESSEE

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to pay an award or
bonus under chapter 45 or 53 of title 5, United
States Code, to any employee of the Office of
Construction and Facilities Management of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I am offering an amendment that
would prevent bonuses from being
awarded to the Office of Construction
& Facilities Management, the branch
of the Department of Veterans Affairs
in charge of all construction projects
costing more than $10 million and
which is perhaps the least deserving of
performance bonuses in the entire
agency.
In January, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee held a hearing to examine the enormous shortcomings of
this office. We found that construction
of a VA hospital in Denver—Aurora, to
be specific—is projected to outpace the
budget by $1 billion. This project that
started supposedly in 2010 was supposed
to be completed in 2013. The original
budget was $600 million, with a $10 million change order. Now they estimate
the completion date is 2017.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2617

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

Mr. Chairman, the Romans built the
Colosseum in 8 years, and I don’t think
they were $1 billion over budget. That
is $1,700 a square foot to build this hospital. Can you imagine how many veterans the VA could have treated with
$1 billion. That is 1,000 million dollars.
How many doctors and nurses could
have been hired with $1 billion that the
VA’s Office of Construction & Facilities Management has set fire to? The
answer is: a lot.
The Denver project, if that was just
it, that would be fine, but it is not an
isolated incident.
In Orlando, a hospital project initially estimated to cost $254 million is
almost 5 years behind schedule and
projected to be $372 million over budget. That is 143 percent overrun.
In New Orleans, a major hospital
being built to replace a VA facility lost
to Hurricane Katrina was initially estimated to cost $625 million and is just
over halfway completed, running 66
percent over budget at a cost of a
whopping $1.035 billion.
And in Las Vegas, a hospital initially
projected to cost $325 million is almost
complete after being delayed for more
than 7 years, coming in $260 million
over budget.
These four projects alone have wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer
money and delayed the delivery of
health care to veterans for almost 14
years.
If this is the performance we should
expect, the VA really has no business
being in the construction industry. My
friend, Congressman COFFMAN, who
chairs the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee Oversight and Investigation
Subcommittee and represents the Denver area, has introduced legislation
that would allow construction to continue at Denver while placing the responsibility of any further future VA
construction projects over $10 million
in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have a great track record,
I might add.
I hope that we are able to consider an
approach like Mr. COFFMAN’s and clean
up this mess once and for all. But in
the interim, it is critical that we send
a message to this office that business
as usual can’t be tolerated.
The VA branch responsible for these
cost overruns and delays should not
have jobs in the construction realm,
much less receive performance bonuses. This amendment would see that
the taxpayer does not pay for performance bonuses to an office that has
caused more harm than good.
I urge adoption of this amendment,
Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the gentleman’s
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think we are all very, very dis-

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

turbed by what has happened with Denver, and we are also disturbed about
the practices of the construction office.
But I just wanted to take this opportunity to maybe kind of clarify what
has happened in response to try to
mitigate the situation.
In January, Deputy Secretary Sloan
Gibson announced the restructuring of
the Office of Construction & Facilities
Management, having them report directly to the Deputy Secretary through
the Office of Management.
The VA also initiated an administrative investigative board in January to
find the truth and to document the
misconduct on the project. Secretary
Gibson has included the VA Office of
General Counsel in the review, and the
administrative investigative board is
expected to complete its review and
make recommendations to the Deputy
Secretary this month.
Additionally, the U.S. Corps of Engineers is conducting a separate review
of the VA’s Construction office to
evaluate the structure and the processes so that changes can be made in
the future.
I just thought that the RECORD ought
to be set straight that everyone is disgusted with the way that these
projects have been handled and that we
are taking steps, and the Department
is taking steps, to make sure that this
bad situation is corrected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,
I would say—and I agree with that; I
am on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee—I have been involved personally in four hospitals being built in my
hometown. All came in on time, under
budget.
When you have a bank, a lender,
lending you money, they will stop you
from going this much over budget.
That is exactly what we didn’t have
here. I cannot imagine spending $1 billion more to build a facility and then
maybe offering someone a bonus.
There are some measures being put
in right now, but right now I think—
and I appreciate the gentleman not objecting to this amendment—we need to
make sure this never happens again to
waste the taxpayers’ money.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. ROE).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to pay the salary of
any employee of the Department of Veterans
Affairs who is a member of an Amputee Clinic Team (as described in VHA Handbook
1173.3, ‘‘Amputee Clinic Teams and Artificial
Limbs’’, dated June 4, 2004) and who is not
credentialed in accordance with VHA Directive 2012-030, ‘‘Credentialing of Health Care
Professionals’’, issued on October 11, 2012.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.132

H29APPT1

H2618

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Ohio and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Ohio.
b 1930
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
today in support of my amendment,
which would help ensure that VA
orthotists and prosthetists, who are responsible for caring for our veterans,
are fully qualified and are able to perform the duties entrusted to them.
This February, the CBS affiliate in
Columbus, Ohio, ran a story exposing
flaws at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center, which serves
constituents from my district. The
story revealed that dozens of veterans—and possibly many more—who
have not come forward had received ineffective
care
by
uncertified
prosthetists. One veteran was even told
that his fitting was supposed to be
painful. After several unsuccessful visits, he turned to a non-VA provider,
Willow Wood, which is near Columbus,
Ohio, where he was immediately provided with a successful, pain-free fitting.
The VA does claim to be following a
credentialing directive, which is VA directive 2012–030. Mr. Chairman, I will
soon be introducing comprehensive legislation to address this issue, but in
the meantime, this amendment would
force the VA to honor its word by ensuring that no salaries are paid to
uncertified prosthetists and orthotists.
Our veterans have made tremendous
sacrifices for our country, and they deserve the best.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DENT. I support the amendment.
Mr. STIVERS. That was easy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. STIVERS).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to transfer any
funds from the Veterans Choice Fund established by section 802 of the Veterans Access,
Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–146; 128 Stat. 1802).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
today to offer an important clarifying
amendment that will help ensure our

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

Nation’s veterans have the choices
they deserve when seeking medical
care.
Last year, Congress passed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. In addition to many important reforms, this bill created a VA
Choice Card program. Under the law,
veterans who are experiencing wait
times of more than 30 days or who live
more than 40 miles from a VA facility
can seek private care. This was great
news for veterans all across the Nation
who had been stuck in a backlog or
who lived a significant distance from a
VA clinic. Like many of my colleagues,
I praised this legislation as a major
step forward. Unfortunately, due to a
self-serving interpretation, the VA has
put up barriers that restrict veterans’
access to private care.
First, the VA calculated the 40-mile
requirement in a straight line, or as
the crow flies, instead of calculating
based on driving distance. After much
pushback from veterans’ organizations
and from Members of Congress, the VA
recently changed the interpretation to
driving distance. I applaud the VA for
making that change. However, the VA
is still misinterpreting the law. The
VA says, if a veteran lives 40 miles
from a VA facility of any kind regardless of what services are offered, then
he is not eligible for private care. My
district paints a good picture of why
this is problematic.
We have a VA outpatient clinic in
Mobile that only provides minimal
services, but the VA claims that, since
that clinic is there, our veterans cannot seek private care even if the services they need are not provided by the
local clinic. That is especially frustrating because Mobile is home to a
number of large, first class hospitals
which could provide adequate care to
our veterans. For example, if a veteran
needed orthopedic surgery, he would be
forced to travel to Pensacola or to Biloxi to seek that care even though he
could get that surgery done right in his
hometown. That is not how the legislation was intended to work.
Recently, VA Secretary Bob McDonald asked Congress for the ability to
shift money away from the VA Choice
Card program into other accounts. I
am disappointed that the Secretary
would already be giving up on this program while it is still in its infancy. It
is even more frustrating considering
that one of the biggest obstacles to the
program’s success is the VA’s own selfserving interpretation. My simple
amendment would clarify that the VA
cannot move money out of the Choice
Program account. We need to give this
program time to work and allow veterans access to private care instead of
forcing them to travel hundreds of
miles out of the way to receive care.
Additionally, I have introduced
stand-alone legislation, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats
from 15 different States, that would
correct the VA’s interpretation and
make clear that veterans are eligible

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

for private care when they live more
than 40 miles from a VA facility that
provides the care the veterans need.
I am optimistic that the House will
act on this commonsense bill. Today, I
urge my colleagues to support my
amendment. Let’s prevent the VA from
transferring funds away from the
Choice Card program, and let’s work
together to give our veterans the
choices they need and deserve when
seeking medical treatment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. BYRNE).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to—
(1) carry out the memorandum from the
Veterans Benefit Administration known as
Fast Letter 13-10, issued on May 20, 2013; or
(2) create or maintain any patient recordkeeping system other than those currently
approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office in Washington, D.C.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, last year,
in the midst of the explosive allegations about the Phoenix VA’s keeping
secondary unofficial records of claims
and appointment requests, I offered a
similar amendment that passed this
body which prohibited funds from being
used to create or to maintain unofficial
recordkeeping systems at the Department of Veterans Affairs. This year, I
am proud, once again, to offer this
commonsense policy with the support
of my friend and colleague from Georgia.
As many of you know, several whistleblowers came forward with allegations that the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Healthcare System had been using
secondary unofficial records of veterans claims and appointment requests
to misrepresent the actual wait times
that veterans faced as they sought
health care. Some employees within
the VA even received bonuses as a result of these manipulations. It is unfortunate that, over the past year, many
of these once unthinkable allegations
have become substantiated.
Recently, an inspector general’s investigation uncovered actual memos
from VA leadership that encouraged
this type of behavior. This is outrageous. The memo I speak of is known
as the ‘‘Fast Letter 13–10,’’ and it was
handed down directly from the Office
of the Director of Veterans Benefits
Administration to the Philadelphia VA
Regional Office.
I am appalled but not totally surprised to learn of this memo. I have

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.136

H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

April 29, 2015

said this before, but it is sad that we
have to pass amendments to prevent
this type of behavior. When government bureaucrats don’t use good judgment or common sense, Congress must
address these issues. No matter what
the investigation shows and no matter
who was involved, this practice must
be prevented in the future.
This amendment would prohibit the
practice of altering or falsifying veterans wait-time data pursuant to the
Fast Letter or any other purpose. We
should have only one, uniform patient
recordkeeping system within the VA in
order to provide accountability as well
as uniformity and to prevent employee
manipulation.
I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I thank the distinguished Chair and ranking member.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I do not think any of us
wants to allow the VA funds to be used
in any way that would falsify records
on the claims backlog. I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. CARTER).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, veterans continue to be one of the
most neglected groups in our country.
These men and women have sacrificed
their lives to ensure that our values
and principles remain true; yet we still
have people within the VA system who
neglect these sacrifices and who disregard these men and women.
As my colleague from Arizona mentioned, this flawed guidance from the
VA headquarters is wrong and completely disrespectful to our country’s
veterans. The memo that was issued by
the VA, commonly known as ‘‘Fast
Letter 13–10,’’ was a deliberate attempt
to make VA bureaucrats appear as if
they were delivering services and benefits to veterans faster than they really
were. Through these internal actions,
some VA offices were ‘‘eliminating’’
the backlog of benefit claims with a
stroke of a pen.
Just because you lie about the details does not make the problem disappear. With one memo, the VA managers disregarded every performance
measure that had been put in place to
protect our veterans and their benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this brings up
a large point—the problems within the
Federal civil service and, as an employee within the VA stated, the dysfunctional culture of management corruption.
For the time being, we must address
this issue. I join my friend from Arizona in offering this amendment. We
must ensure that VA managers care for
our veterans in a timely and effective
manner. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2619

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. GOSAR).
The amendment was agreed to.

this fiscal year, allowing Congress the
additional time to conduct oversight
and allowing the VA to ensure that
this program is effective.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HILL

b 1945
It is essential that we demand accountability and transparency when
utilizing taxpayer dollars for these
kinds of government projects. I urge
the passage of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the
time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the amendment.
I feel the gentleman’s amendment is a
bit too broad. It is overly broad, in my
view. I understand the gentleman’s
frustration with the VA’s delay in getting the Little Rock solar panel project
up and running. I certainly support the
inspector general investigation into
the problems.
I am concerned that blocking all renewable energy projects, currently
budgeted at $86 million for fiscal year
2016, would have the unintended impact
of blocking some worthwhile projects
that would save money, reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
I would respectfully suggest maybe
the gentleman would consider withdrawing the amendment, and we will
try to work with him to get this
amendment in a better form, one that
we might be able to support. I just
want to put that out there for his consideration at this time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILL. I thank the chairman for
his comments. I appreciate his consideration. I would be happy to work with
the gentleman to revise my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak to this
amendment. The VA Green Management Program is a sustainability program that integrates energy and water
conservation, environmental compliance, vehicle fleet management, sustainable building design and operation,
greenhouse gas management, and climate change adaptation.
Since its inception in 2007, the VA
Green Management Program has reduced VA’s energy costs from $504 million in 2010 to $459 million in 2014, despite significant growth in mission. Additionally, the Green Management Program has put in place energy performance contracts requiring no appropriated funds that will save VA over $9

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title) add the following new section:
SEC. 5ll. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out any
new Key Renewable VA Energy Project
under the Department’s Green Management
Programs.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Arkansas and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arkansas.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, in 2012, an
award of $8 million was provided to design and build a 1.8-megawatt solar
system at the John L. McClellan VA
Medical Center in Little Rock, Arkansas. It has been almost 2 years since
that planned activation was to begin
operating. However, reports in our
local media have indicated that there
is additional engineering and that it is
not functioning and not operational.
Further, sections of the solar panels
for this system are now being torn
down in order to be relocated to make
way for a parking deck that was
planned before the installation had
begun of the solar panels. Many questions remain unanswered about this
project and when the VA plans to fully
implement this supposed cost-saving
system to provide energy for the facility.
Further, I found from the VA’s own
Web site a list of 40 key energy projects
that are designated as ‘‘works in
progress’’ by the VA under its key renewable energy program. Some of these
date back to 2010; yet they have not
been completed and have not been
made operational. There are over 90
solar projects that have been funded
under this program and 198 projects
that have been funded under the VA’s
Green Management Program. Some of
these projects individually have cost
the taxpayers up to $20 million. The
Little Rock project is only projected to
save $150,000 annually in energy costs,
which would make the payback on that
$8 million investment some 50 years.
On April 8, I sent a letter to Secretary McDonald, asking for answers
about these solar systems, in Little
Rock particularly, about the relocation
of the panels at the facility, and about
the activation date. Senator JOHN
BOOZMAN and I have called for an IG investigation into this project and into
other aspects of the key renewable energy program to ensure that the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are safeguarded.
This amendment would simply prevent any new funding for these projects

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.141

H29APPT1

H2620

million annually. Other significant
achievements include it reduced VA
energy use per square foot by 21 percent since 2003, reduced VA water consumption per square foot by 28 percent
since 2007, increased VA’s vehicle fleet
to 55 percent alternatively fueled vehicles, and reduced VA-generated greenhouse gases 12 percent since the 2008
baseline.
In the absence of the Green Management Program funding, a number of
programs, processes, and projects will
not be carried out. These activities
save taxpayers significant amounts of
money; improve indoor and outdoor environments at VA facilities for the benefit of veterans, for visitors, employees, and surrounding communities; and
help assure the VA compliance with
Federal laws, with regulations, with
executive orders, Presidential memoranda.
I would urge Members to oppose it. I
am happy that the gentleman has withdrawn the amendment. I think his concerns are well placed, and I join the
chairman in agreeing to work with him
to see if we can’t address those specific
concerns in his location.
I yield back the balance of my time.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to pay the salary of
any employee of the Department of Veterans
Affairs who received an unsatisfactory work
performance review in fiscal year 2015.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman,
my amendment is very straightforward. If an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs has received a
work performance review rated as unsatisfactory in the last fiscal year, he
will not be able to receive a salary for
this fiscal year 2016.
Mr. Chairman, there have been all
sorts of media reports about how Secretary McDonald has been trying to reform the VA but has been having trouble getting rid of the bad apples. This
is one way we could help him do that.
For instance, the VA employees in the
27th Congressional District of Texas
that I represent and across the Nation
continue to provide vital care to our
veterans. In the 27th District, our local
medical center is well below the national standards for both customer
service and phone standards.
Mr. Chairman, an official report from
the VA inspector general found that
about 1,700 veterans were in need of
care and were at risk of being lost or
forgotten after being kept off official
waiting lists. Schedulers for the Vet-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

erans Affairs were instructed to change
the dates for which veterans had requested an appointment in order to
hide delays. At the Phoenix VA, official data showed that veterans waited
an average of 24 days for an appointment when in reality the average wait
was 115 days. That is absolutely unacceptable.
The VA OIG reported in May of 2014
that 17 veterans deaths had occurred
while waiting for VA treatment in the
Phoenix VA, and on June 5 of that
same year, the VA reported they had
identified an additional 18 deaths. People are dying because of unsatisfactory
performance at the VA.
Earlier this month it was reported
that out of 280,000 employees working
for the VA, only eight had been ‘‘punished’’ for any of the offenses. In fact,
the only person who has actually been
fired is Sharon Helman. She wasn’t
fired immediately for unsatisfactory
work performance. Instead, she was on
paid administrative leave for over 7
months before they finally got around
to firing her. She was that former VA
person in Phoenix and was only fired
after it was discovered she was accepting gifts from a lobbyist. We have no
way of dealing with the problems, and
we are looking for a solution to this.
Mr. Chairman, the VA OIG found
that, under Ms. Helman’s leadership, 35
veterans had died, and it took us 7
months to fire her for an unrelated offense. The VA still is struggling with
this.
Clearly, Congress needs to find a better approach to help root out the bad
apples in the VA. My amendment is
one way we can do this. If you are receiving the worst possible performance
review, you ought not to be getting
paid with taxpayer money for your unsatisfactory work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the
time in opposition to the amendment,
though I am not necessarily opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate
the gentleman for raising this important issue. I certainly share his concern about the service our veterans are
receiving from VA employees. However, I do have some concerns with the
breadth of this amendment. It seems,
again, a little bit overly broad.
If the gentleman would withdraw his
amendment, I will continue to work
with him to ensure greater accountability for poor-performing employees.
Again, I thank the gentleman for highlighting this important issue, but I just
think the amendment is a little overly
broad. The breadth is a bit more than I
think is necessary at this moment, but
we might be able to work this out.
Would the gentleman consider withdrawing the amendment?
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I understand the concerns that the chairman of the subcommittee has. The

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

breadth was necessary in order to get
by the requirement to not be legislating within an appropriations bill. If
the chairman is willing to work with
me on finding a scalpel rather than an
ax to prune these bad apples out of the
tree, I am willing to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. DENT. I will do that.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LAMALFA

Mr. LAMALFA. I have an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec.ll. For an additional amount for
‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—Departmental Administration—General Operating
Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’, there is hereby appropriated, and the
amount otherwise provided by this Act for
‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—Departmental Administration—General Administration’’ is hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California.
Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Chairman, first
of all, let me thank those who have
helped with this legislation here, my
colleagues from California, Mr. COSTA,
Mr. RUIZ, and my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. MOULTON, on helping
bring this forward. I also thank the
chairman and the members of the committee as well as the desk staff here tonight in helping to make this happen.
Again, this bill simply reduces the
amount budgeted for the general administration of Veterans Affairs to instead be posted toward the Veterans
Benefits Administration; therefore,
helping to take a bite out of the huge
backlog that we have of veterans waiting to have their claims processed after
having served with us. This $5 million
shift, I think, will be helpful in that
backlog, as we already know that the
VA is at least 171,000 claims behind in
their process. These 171,000 claims are
behind by more than 125 days, which is
unacceptable.
Of course, the VA’s top priority
should be making sure that veterans
have their claims processed and are receiving the benefit they should be getting. Our veterans should not have had
to return from fighting a war and have
to instead fight a bureaucracy at home.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I do not oppose this
amendment. I am prepared to accept it.
Mr. LAMALFA. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, again, this will be an
important step towards helping reduce

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.145

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

that backlog and getting our veterans
claims processed and the service they
deserve. I ask for an ‘‘aye’’ vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. LAMALFA).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JODY B. HICE OF
GEORGIA

Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to pay a Federal employee for any period of time during which
such employee is using official time under
section 7131 of title 5, United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment that will help our Nation’s
veterans increase efficiency in the Federal workforce and uphold the integrity of tax dollars. Title 5 of the U.S.
Code allows for a practice in which
Federal employees are permitted to engage in union-related activities while
at work while not doing the job for
which they were hired. This practice is
known as official time, and it costs the
taxpayers literally millions of manhours every year and hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
The Department of Veterans Affairs
is one of the agencies with the most
egregious use of official time. This
agency is singlehandedly responsible
for almost one-third of all the reported
official time usage in the entire Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, this one agency has
more than 250 individuals who do nothing but operate on official time. That
is to say, 100 percent of their time at
work is used doing union activity rather than what they were hired to do,
which is to help our veterans. That is
unacceptable. It costs the taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, as
of April 1, there were some 431,000 veterans who have been waiting for over 30
days to get an appointment at a VA
medical facility. In my home State
alone, more than 20,000 veterans have
waited more than 30 days for appointments, be it in Atlanta, Augusta, or
Dublin. We have veterans literally begging for access to health care, and yet
they are being told while waiting in
line that people appreciate their service to our country, appreciate the fact
that they have been willing to lay their
lives down for our country, but when it
comes to their medical conditions,
they will have to wait because of lack
of resources.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2621

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

b 2000
Mr. Chairman, to allow hundreds of
VA employees to give 100 percent of
their work hours to union activity
while telling veterans that we do not
have the resources to provide for their
medical needs is inexcusable.
We need to stop this practice that allows VA employees to prioritize their
union over our veterans. The day that
veterans are put in second place to
union activities is the day that Congress must get involved, and that has
day come.
According to the most recent OPM
report, the VA spends over $45 million
taxpayer dollars every year on this
practice. That is $45 million that could
go to serve the medical needs of our
veterans.
Mr. Chairman, what we have before
us is a tremendous opportunity to help
our veterans while, at the same time,
saving taxpayer dollars and increasing
the overall efficiency of our Federal
workforce.
This
amendment
cuts
through all the bureaucratic red tape
and the sweetheart deals for unions
and helps our Nation’s deserving veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an
opportunity to put our veterans first,
above special interests, and I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. COLLINS of
Georgia). The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I believe
that this amendment really serves no
purpose but to erode collective bargaining rights for civil service Federal
employees, and it may violate collective bargaining agreements that have
been negotiated between workers and
these agencies.
The VA employs some 342,000 people,
and to complain because 200 of them
spend their time representing and making sure that the conditions of employment within the scope of employment
of their coworkers under collective
bargaining agreements are maintained,
I believe, is just punitive.
Federal unions are legally required
to provide representation to all members of a bargaining unit, whether or
not the workers elect to pay voluntary
unions dues. Representation for employees working their way through administrative procedures is a cost-effective process for administering and adjudicating agency policies.
The alternative to official time is for
government agencies to pay for costly
third-party attorney and arbitrator
fees. Eliminating official time would
increase cost, time, and effort for the
agencies, the workers, and the taxpayers.
Official time is essential to maintaining workplace safety. Union representatives use official time to set
procedures to protect employees from
on-the-job hazards. Official time is also

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

used to allow employees to participate
in work groups with the management
team to improve the processes.
Under current law, official time may
not be used to solicit membership, to
conduct internal union meetings, elect
union officers, or to engage in any partisan political activities. The notion
that official time is used for these purposes is just false.
I would urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this
amendment. I think that it is punitive,
and it has no purpose but to erode collective bargaining rights for civil service Federal employees.
I think that is not consistent with
the laws of the United States of America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
has 11⁄2 minutes remaining.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I understand my colleague’s
concerns, but to say it is unnecessary
is a bit beyond my understanding.
Yes, there are some 259 individuals at
the VA that dedicate 100 percent of
their time to union activity when they
were hired to do veterans work, but
there are hundreds of others who don’t
give 100 percent of their time, but hundreds of additional hours on a regular
basis.
We have reached out. After I introduced H.R. 1658, the Federal Employee
Accountability Act, we literally heard
from veterans all across the country.
Many of these fine men and women,
being veterans now, also were and are
employees at the VA. With one unified
voice, they expressed that they had
deep frustration and disappointment
with how they have seen veterans
treated.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote
just one of those individuals who
served in our Air Force and is a current
employee at the VA. He said, ‘‘The
union is the number one obstacle to
providing care to vets.’’
I just see, ultimately, Mr. Chairman,
that the choice before us is clear. Members of this body can stand with union
bosses, or they can stand with the people who have stood on the front line to
defend our liberties and our freedom,
the Nation’s veterans.
I choose to stand with our brave veterans, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that
many of the employees—as a matter of
fact, I think the number is 34 percent—
at the Department of Veterans Affairs
are, indeed, veterans.
They are people who, in fact, put
their lives on the line and have given
and served and sacrificed for this country. Of course, they are now continuing
to work for their colleagues and their
coworkers on the job in their capacity
as bargaining representatives in the
VA.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.148

H29APPT1

H2622

I would point out that, under the law,
they have the right to do this. The law
supports them in doing this. We should
not interfere with that because too
many of them—34 percent—are, in fact,
veterans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JODY B.
HICE).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia will be
postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. KING OF
IOWA

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

At the end of the bill, before the short
title, add the following new section:
SEC. 514. None of the funds made available
by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing wage requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of
title 40, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
House Resolution 223, the gentleman
from Iowa and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment is an amendment that I
brought up in previous appropriation
cycles.
What it does is defunds and eliminates the Davis-Bacon federally mandated wage scale components in the
construction of MILCON on this underlying bill. It recognizes a whole series
of history that has been built since the
early thirties on the Davis-Bacon Act.
I have spent my life in the construction business, Mr. Chairman. I started
a construction business in 1975. We are
celebrating our 40th year in business,
and, almost every one of those 40 years,
we have dealt with Davis-Bacon wage
scales. I have made out, personally,
that payroll over and over again.
I have also seen the inefficiencies
that are created. The net effect is a de
facto union scale. It is not a prevailing
wage, but a de facto union scale. The
net effect is it creates inefficiencies,
and it increases and inflates the cost of
our construction projects.
Our records, over the years that I
have been in business, show that DavisBacon wage scales—the federally mandated wage scales—range between an
additional 8 percent up to 38 percent;
so I just bring that back to a bit of a
moderate, careful average, and we have
a 20 percent increase.
The bottom line on this is that, if
you want to build 5 miles of road, re-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

April 29, 2015

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

Jkt 049060

peal Davis-Bacon. If you are willing to
accept 4 miles of road, accept a federally mandated union scale. That is true
with whatever else we might be doing
in all of our military construction and
everything else.
This is a substantial savings on this
bill, and I would point out that this is
the last Jim Crow law that I recall
that is still on the books. It was designed to lock Black construction
workers out of the construction work
in New York back in the thirties during the Great Depression.
When there was a Federal building
contract that was let and the contractor went to Alabama and brought
in African Americans to do that work,
undercutting the essentially White
labor union forces within New York,
two New Yorkers—both of them Republicans, Davis and Bacon—got together
and brought this Jim Crow law. Now,
we are dealing with union scale mandates.
I would point out I used to have this
debate with the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. He would make
the argument that two consenting
adults should be able to agree to whatever it is those two can do.
I would say I agree, and there is no
reason for the Federal Government to
be involved in a relationship between
an employer and employee that agree
to a wage scale.
We pay prevailing wages. They are
not union scale wages, as a rule; but
they are prevailing wages. We do that
because we want to hire the best people. We do the best work that we can
do under the plans and specifications
offered to us—government work and
private sector work altogether—for 40
years.
We are about to hear that the quality
of the work isn’t that, that the government knows best, and government
should intervene between a relationship between two consenting adults.
We are about to hear some kind of response on why we shouldn’t get rid of
the last Jim Crow law on the books.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple
concept and a fair one. What the DavisBacon Act does is protect the government, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying decent
wages on government contracts.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires that
workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the
wages paid in the community for similar work. It requires that every contract for construction to which the
Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining the ‘‘minimum wages’’ paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics.
Mr. Chairman, the House has taken
numerous votes on this issue, and on

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

every vote, this body has voted to
maintain Davis-Bacon requirements
because it makes good sense, it saves
the taxpayers money, and it is useful.
Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this, and it is my
hope that we stop attacking the working class and defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more important matters.
I urge all Members to vote ‘‘no’’ on
this, as we have repeatedly year after
year.
At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE).
Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we have been through
this fight before. Thankfully, we have
been able to prevail with help on both
sides of the aisle.
The gentleman referred to the 1930s.
Anybody who is a student of history
and a student of the U.S. economy
knows that it was the period following
the 1930s that we finally saw a steady
progress toward greater wage equality
in this country and we saw the middle
class emerge and the strongest period
of economic growth and income equality in our history, a period which is at
risk right now.
I would urge the gentleman to take a
look at the period that followed the enactment of Davis-Bacon, how the middle class was born, and I would also
urge us to consider that, if not the Federal Government, who can we expect to
set the example that a decent wage
should be paid for a decent day’s work.
That is all this law does, and I support
it wholeheartedly and urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Again, let’s
avoid including divisive language like
this. This is a policy rider that is unnecessary. We have defeated it over and
over again.
Davis-Bacon saves the government
money. It requires quality work and
quality labor be done on Federal contracts, and it pays a fair day’s wages
for a fair day’s work.
I urge all Members to vote ‘‘no’’ and
reject this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
first, in response to the gentleman’s argument of a fair wage for a fair day’s
pay, that is determined by supply and
demand in the marketplace. This is the
United States of America, and on the
flashcard the USCIS puts out, they say:
What is the American system of America? It is free enterprise capitalism.
You have to pay the going rate to get
the people to do the job. That has been
the case for a long time. I have done
that for 40 years, and the quality of the
work is there, and we are proud of the
work that we do.

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.151

H29APPT1

April 29, 2015

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

I don’t know how anyone argues that
the Federal Government has got to intervene in setting the marketplace for
wages on construction projects $2,000
or more, but not intervene in the price
of gas or the price of electricity or the
price of some of the commodities that
we are dealing with on a regular basis.
If we are going to have a robust economy, we have got to get a value received for the work that is done, and
that value received is determined by
supply and demand in the marketplace,
not by a de facto mandated union
scale. I know how these scales are
reached. I know how these conferences
go.
Mr. Chairman, we want to save the
taxpayers money. We want to build 5
miles of road, not 4. We want to build
five bases, not four. We want to put
five different components out there, instead of four, and get a return on the
taxpayers’ dollar so that we maximize
the utilization of the hard-earned tax
dollars that come from some of the
people that are working on these
projects.
b 2015
They want a return on their investment, too. You can’t argue that there
is fiscal responsibility in this country
if we are going to impose an additional
20 percent on every dollar that is spent
to produce construction projects on
MILCON in America.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. KING).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman I yield to
my colleague from New Jersey (Mr.
PAYNE) for a colloquy.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to thank Chairman DENT and
Ranking Member BISHOP for your work
on this bill. And congratulations to
Congressman DENT on the work he has
done on H.R. 2029, his first bill as chairman of the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee.
I admire Chairman DENT’s and Ranking Member BISHOP’s commitment to
our veterans of America. They have
demonstrated day-to-day that they are
here for our people in the armed services.
I would like to especially acknowledge this bill’s provisions relating to

VerDate Sep 11 2014

10:13 Apr 30, 2015

H2623

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 049060

the importance of early detection and
treatment of colorectal cancer. As the
bill notes, the VA has made screening
patients for colorectal cancer a priority, and I am encouraged by the steps
that this bill would take to ensure that
the VA continues to dedicate the resources and attention to this important issue which it deserves.
Almost every family in America, including our veterans, including Members of Congress, including people all
over this Nation, have been touched by
cancer. My father, former Congressman
Donald Payne, who served New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District for 23
years, prior to me coming here and
taking his place, succumbed to this
preventable and treatable disease.
Chairman DENT, thank you for your
partnership on this issue. I am looking
forward to continuing to work together
to advance the fight against colorectal
cancer and lessen the needless loss of
life.
The committee report encourages the
VA to support additional research and
development in the field, including investigating a less costly blood test for
colorectal cancer. I applaud this language, and I also understand that both
the FDA and CMS have approved a new
DNA,
noninvasive,
stool-based
colorectal cancer screening test that is
pending review with the Federal supply
services for availability in the VA
health system.
For clarity, does this committee also
encourage the VA to consider and review such stool-based test screening?
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Congressman
PAYNE, for your shared interest in this
very important topic.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for his steadfast support of
colorectal cancer awareness research,
prevention, and treatment efforts. As
the second leading cause of death in
men and women in the United States,
we have both seen the personal toll
that colorectal cancer can have on
family members and loved ones. Congressman PAYNE obviously lost his father; I lost my brother-in-law. It was
very painful for all of us. We lost them
all too soon.
It has been a privilege to work together with you on an issue that has
raised awareness and increased preventive screenings. This is an issue that
affects far too many of our veterans
and, as you mentioned, this bill takes
steps to support the VA’s prevention
and treatment efforts.
The report’s language should not be
misconstrued as only focusing on blood
tests, and I certainly encourage the VA
to expedite its review of alternative
colorectal cancer screening tests, including DNA stool-based noninvasive
tests. We certainly want to encourage
the VA in that regard.
I look forward to continuing to work
with on you these important matters.
Again, I want to really commend Congressman PAYNE for his determination
and steadfast interest in advancing
therapies and treatments for colorectal
cancer.

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
NEWHOUSE) having assumed the chair,
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2029) making
appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2016, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 1732, REGULATORY INTEGRITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2015;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S.
CON. RES. 11, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016; AND PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J.
RES. 43, DISAPPROVAL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NON-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014
Mr. WOODALL, from the Committee
on Rules, submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 114–98) on the resolution (H.
Res. 231) providing for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1732) to preserve existing
rights and responsibilities with respect
to waters of the United States, and for
other purposes; providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S.
Con. Res. 11) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2016 and
setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025;
and providing for consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of
Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination
Amendment Act of 2014, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
f

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2028,
and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 and rule

E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.153

H29APPT1



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.6
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 50
Has XFA                         : No
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 5.0-jc003 DEBUG-12.345678, Tue Aug 22 14:57:52 EDT 2017
Creator Tool                    : Federal Digital System, U. S. Government Publishing Office
Create Date                     : 2017:08:23 16:11:59Z
Modify Date                     : 2017:08:23 12:13:10-04:00
Metadata Date                   : 2017:08:23 12:13:10-04:00
Producer                        : iText 2.1.4 (by lowagie.com)
Document ID                     : uuid:41b4bd4c-d149-2d3c-7c65-23e372c02341
Instance ID                     : uuid:9eeb758e-2940-2d95-7385-23e372c02341
Format                          : application/pdf
Modification Permissions        : No changes permitted
Field Permissions               : Disallow changes to specified form fields
Form Fields                     : USGPOSignature
Signing Authority               : Superintendent of Documents
Signing Location                : US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
Signing Reason                  : GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Signer Contact Info             : Superintendent of Documents
Signing Date                    : 2017:08:23 12:13:10-04:00
Creator                         : Federal Digital System, U. S. Government Publishing Office

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools