H2574 CREC 2015 04 29 Pt1 Pg 3

User Manual: H2574

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

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2574 April 29, 2015

TABLE 16.—ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY

SENATE COMMITTEES OTHER THAN APPROPRIATIONS—Continued

[Fiscal year 2016, $ billions]

2016 2016–2020 2016–2025

Outlays ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,891.005 9,512.616 20,901.395

Includes entitlements funded in annual appropriations acts.

RICE

ODD

OKITA

ARIO

IAZ

-B

ALART

IANE

LACK

OHN

R. M

OOLENAAR

Managers on the Part of the House.

ICHAEL

B. E

NZI

HUCK

RASSLEY

EFF

ESSIONS

IKE

RAPO

INDSEY

RAHAM

ORTMAN

ATRICK

J. T

OOMEY

OHNSON

ELLY

YOTTE

OGER

F. W

ICKER

ORKER

AVID

ERDUE

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL

SERVICES

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-

fore the House the following resigna-

tion as a member of the Committee on

Financial Services:

ONGRESS OF THE

NITED

TATES

OUSE OF

EPRESENTATIVES

Washington, DC, April 27, 2015.

Attn: Trevor Kolego,

Hon. J

OHN

OEHNER

Speaker, House of Representatives,

The Capitol, Washington, DC.

EAR

. S

PEAKER

: 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 Com-

mittee. 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,

OBERT

J. D

OLD

Member of Congress.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without

objection, the resignation is accepted.

There was no objection.

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 consider-

ation.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-

lows:

H. R

. 229

Resolved, That the following named Mem-

bers be, and are hereby, elected to the fol-

lowing standing committees of the House of

Representatives:

OMMITTEE ON

OUSE

DMINISTRATION

: Mr.

Walker.

OMMITTEE ON

AYS AND

EANS

: Mr. Dold.

The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND

VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RE-

LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-

TIONS ACT, 2016

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-

mous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days in which to re-

vise 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.

RAVES

of Louisiana). Is there objec-

tion to the request of the gentleman

from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-

ant 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 consider-

ation of the bill, H.R. 2029.

The Chair appoints the gentlewoman

from Florida (Ms. R

-L

EHTINEN

) to

preside over the Committee of the

Whole.

b1430

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 Vet-

erans Affairs, and related agencies for

the fiscal year ending September 30,

2016, and for other purposes, with Ms.

-L

EHTINEN

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. D

ENT

) and the gentleman from

Georgia (Mr. B

ISHOP

) each will control

30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield my-

self 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 Af-

fairs and Related Agencies Appropria-

tions bill, to the House of Representa-

tives.

I present this bill alongside my good

friend and ranking member on the sub-

committee, S

ANFORD

ISHOP

from

Georgia, who has been an essential

partner all along the way. I greatly ap-

preciate 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, de-

veloped questions, held oversight hear-

ings to hear directly from members of

all the services, the Department of De-

fense leadership, the Secretary of the

VA, the VA inspector general, and the

directors of four related agencies. We

received over 700 requests from Mem-

bers—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 pro-

ceed 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 R

OGERS

and Mrs.

OWEY

. 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, Tra-

cey 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 com-

mitment to fully supporting the Na-

tion’s veterans and servicemembers.

Our investment of nearly $77 billion for

military construction and Veterans Af-

fairs 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 sys-

tems 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 prom-

ise 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 fund-

ing, an increase of $904 million. That is

nearly 12 percent above the enacted fis-

cal year 2015 level and $755 million

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.045 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2575 April 29, 2015

below the President’s request. This

funding meets DOD’s most critical

needs, including priorities for the com-

batant 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 pro-

gram, which is $30 million over the

budget request.

On the Veterans Affairs side, the leg-

islation includes a total of $163.2 billion

in combined discretionary and manda-

tory funding for the Department of

Veterans Affairs. Discretionary fund-

ing 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 environ-

ment, but this committee did, showing

again the level of bipartisan commit-

ment 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

VA electronic health record and in-

cludes language restricting funding

until the VA demonstrates progress on

the system’s functionality and inter-

operability. 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, Repub-

lican and Democrat, want to see fixed.

On construction issues, major con-

struction within the VA is funded at

$562 million, which is the same level as

fiscal year 2015. The bill provides fund-

ing 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 mil-

lion 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 Monu-

ments Commission, the Armed Forces

Retirement Home, Arlington National

Cemetery, and the U.S. Court of Ap-

peals for Veterans Claims at the re-

quested funding levels.

In closing, this is a very solid bipar-

tisan 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 near-

ly 6 percent increase. Not a cut. We

have provided for our military and vet-

erans to the very best level we can.

Did we fund every last dime re-

quested? No. Not every idea has merit,

and not every project is mission crit-

ical. We did not fund some projects. We

cut some requested increases, and we

rescinded funds. These were fair deci-

sions and part of our responsibility as

appropriators.

We have received a lot of criticism

for the actions we have taken very re-

cently. It started with an email cam-

paign from the VA legislative affairs

office; then a Statement of Adminis-

tration Policy; and last, some of the

VSOs have joined in. Let me tell you,

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 manage-

ment, not too little money. Poor man-

agement, not too little money. I will

say that again. The problems we en-

counter 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 some-

one 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 particu-

larly 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 manage-

ment 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 per-

cent increase over last year, it is gen-

erous. On behalf of our servicemem-

bers, 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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.026 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2576 April 29, 2015

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

Insert offset folio 408/1 here EH29AP15.001

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

onstruc

1on,

TITLE

DEPARTMENT

DEFENSE

construction,

Army.

litary

ilitary

i l

itary

i l

itary

construction,

Navy

and Marine

Corps.

construction,

Air

Force.,.

construction,

Defense-Wide.

Total,

Active

components.

ilitary

construction,

Army

National

Guard

....

ilitary

construction,

Air

National

Guard

......

ilitary

construction,

Army

Reserve

.........

ilitary

construction,

Navy

Reserve

...........

ilitary

construction,

Air

Force

Reserve

........

,,.

Total,

Reserve

components. ,

...

, . ,

................

Total,

Military

construction

....

North

Atlantic

Treaty

Organization

Security

Investment

Program.

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

Army.

maintenance,

Army

...

Navy

and Marine Corps

maintenance,

Navy

and

Air

Force.

maintenance,

Air

Force

maintenance,

Defense-Wide

Department

Defense

Family Housing Improvement

Fund

Total,

Family

housing.

Chemical

demilitarization

construction,

Defense-Wide

Department

Defense

Base

Closure

Account

Military

130)''

ADMINISTRATIVE

PROVISIONS

Construction

fiscal

year

2014

(Sec.

127).

Construction

fiscal

year

2015

(Sec.

128).

Construction.

Army

(Sec.

125)

...

Construction,

Navy

and Marine Corps

(Sec.

Defense

Access

Roads

(Sec.

131).

Military

Construction,

Air

Force

(Sec.

126)

,,,,.

Military

Construction,

Defense-Wide

(Sec.

127).

NATO

Security

Investment

Program

(Sec.

132)

USC

3374

(Sec.

128)

Total,

Administrative

Provisions.

Appropr·i

ions.

Rescissions

Total.

title

Department

Defense.

Appropriations.

Rescissions.

TITLE

DEPARTMENT

VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Veterans

Benefits

Administration

Compensation and

pensions

Advance

appropriation,

2017

...

gencies

Appropriat1ons

Act,

thousands)

2015

Enacted

528,427

1,018,772

811,774

1,991,690

4,350,663

128,920

92,663

103,946

,528

49,492

~-¥-~~-·~~~~--

426,549

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

4,777,212

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

199,700

78,609

350,976

16,412

354,029

327,747

'100

,662

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

1,190,535

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

38,715

315,085

125,000

117'

000

-49,533

-25,522

-41,392

-25,000

-63,800

36,753

(242,000)

(-205,247)

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

6,558,000

(6,763,247)

(-205,247)

79,071,000

2016

Request

743,245

'669 '239

'389'

185

300

,767

6,102,436

197,237

138,738

113,595

36,078

65,021

----

550,669

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

653'

105

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

120,000

99,695

393,511

16,541

353,036

160,498

331,232

58,668

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

1,413,181

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

251

'334

8,437,620

(8,437,620)

79,124,675

87'

146.761

663,245

'349'

678

1,237,055

1,931,456

5,181,434

167,437

138,738

104'

295

36,078

65,021

511,569

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

5,693,003

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

150,000

99,695

393,511

16,541

353,036

160

'498

331,232

58,668

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

'413,

181

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

251,334

-96,000

30,000

-52,600

134,000

-103,918

356,518

(30,000)

386,518)

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

151

'000

(7,537,518)

(-386,518)

79,124,675

87,146,'761

H.R. 2029)

Bill

vs.

Enacted

+134,818

+330,906

+425,281

-60,234

-- - --- - --

----

+830 771

+38,517

+46,075

+349

-15,450

+15,529

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

+85,020

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

+915,791

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

-49,700

+21

'086

+42,535

+129

-993

+160,498

+3,485

-2,432

-1

'662

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

+222,646

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

38,715

-63,751

-125,000

-117,000

-46,467

+25,522

+30,000

-11

'208

-134,000

+25,000

-40'

118

-393,271

(-212,000)

( -181

'271)

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

+593,000

(+774,271)

( -181

'271)

+53'

675

+87'

146,761

vs.

Request

-80,000

-319.561

-152'

130

-369,311

-921

'002

-29,800

-9,300

-39,100

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

-960'

102

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

+30. 000

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

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

-96,000

+30,000

-52,600

134,000

103.91-8

-356,51,S

(+30,000)

(-386,518)

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

1,286,62-J

(-900,

102)

(-386,518)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2577 April 29, 2015

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011 H29APPT1

Insert offset folio 408/2 here EH29AP15.002

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Military

Construction,

Veterans

Affairs,

and

Agencies

Appropriations

Act,

2016 (H.R. 2029)

(Amounts

thousands)

Readjustment

benefits.

Advance

appropriation,

2017.

Veterans

insurance

and

indemnities.

Advance

appropriation,

2017.

Veterans

housing

benefit

program

fund:

(indefinite).

(Limitation

direct

loans)

Administrative

expenses

Vocational

rehabilitation

loans

program

account

......

(Limitation

direct

loans).

Administrative

expenses.

Native

American

veteran

housing

loan

program

account.

Total,

Veterans

Benefits

Administration.

Appropriations,

...

Advance

appropriations,

2017.

Veterans

Health

Administration

Medical

services:

Advance from

prior

year.

Current

year

request.

Advance

appropriation,

2017.

Subtotal.

Medical

support

and

compliance:

Advance from

prior

year

.........................

Current

year

request.

.........

Advance

appropriation,

2017

Subtotal

Medical

facilities:

Advance from

prior

year.

........

Current

year

request

Advance

appropriation,

2017

Subtota

1 .

Medical and

prosthetic

research.

Medical

care

cost

recovery

collections:

Offsetting

collections

Appropriations

(indefinite)

...

Subtotal

..............

DoD-VA

Joint

Medical

Funds

(transfers

out)

..........

DoD-VA

Joint

Medical

Funds

(by

transfer)

............

DoD-VA

Health

Care

Sharing

Incentive

Fund

(Transfer

out).

DoD-VA

Health

Care

Sharing

Incentive

Fund (by

transfer).

Total,

Veterans

Health

Administration

Appropriations

Advance

appropriations,

2017.

Advances

from

prior

year

appropriations.

National

Cemetery

Administration

National

Cemetery

Administration

2015

Enacted

14,997,136

63.257

(500)

160,881

(2,877)

361

'130

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

94,293,775

(94,293,775)

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

(45,015,527)

209'

189

47,603,202

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

47,812.391

(5,879,700)

144'

000

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

144'

000

(4,739,000)

4,915,000

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

4,915,000

588.922

-2,456,000

2,456,000

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

(-276,251)

(276,251)

(-15,000)

(15,000)

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

59,460,313

(798,111)

(58,662,202)

(55,634,227)

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

256,800

2016

Request

15,344,922

16,743,904

77'

160

'920

(500)

164,558

(2,952)

367

'134

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

198,695,432

(94,712,847)

(103,982,585)

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

(47,603,202)

'124.

197

51,673,000

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

52'

797'

197

(

144

'000)

69,961

6,524,000

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

6,593,961

(4,915,000)

105'

132

5,074,000

-----

----

179,132

621

'813

-2,445,000

2,445,000

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

(-286,000)

(286,000)

(-15,000)

(15,000)

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

65'

192'

103

'921

'103)

(63,271

,000)

(58,662,202)

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

266,220

Bi1l

15,344,922

16,743,904

77'

160

'920

(500)

164'

558

(2,952)

367

'134

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

198,695,432

(94,712'

847)

(103,982,585)

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

(47,603,202)

969,554

'673'

000

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

52,642,554

( 6 . 1 44 '

000)

6.524,000

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

6,524,000

(4,915,000)

5,074,000

--------

-----

5,074,000

621

'813

-2.445,000

2,445,000

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

("286,000)

(286,000)

(

-15,

000)

(15,000)

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

64,862,367

( 1 .

591

'367)

(63,271

,000)

(58,662,202)

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

266,220

Bill

vs.

Enacted

+347,786

+16,743,904

+13,903

+91,920

+3'

677

+21

(+75)

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

+104,401,657

(+419,072)

(+103,982,585)

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

(+2,587,675)

+760,365

+4,069,798

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

+4.830,

163

(+264,300)

+380,000

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

+380,000

(+176, 000)

+159, 000

-----

"--

+159,000

+32,891

+11

'000

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

(-9,749)

(+9

,749)

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

+5,402

,054

(+793

'256)

(+4,608,

798)

(+3,027,975)

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

+9,420

8111

Request

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

-154.

643

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

-154.643

-69,961

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

-69,961

-105.132

---------

-105.

132

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

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

-329,736

(-329.736)

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

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2578 April 29, 2015

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011 H29APPT1

Insert offset folio 408/3 here EH29AP15.003

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Military

Construction,

Veterans

Affairs,

and

Agencies

Appropriations

Act,

2016 (H.R 2029)

(Amounts

thousands)

Departmental

Administration

General

administration

....

...........

Board

Veterans

Appeals

.. '

.......

General

operating

expenses,

VBA.

.................

Information

technology

systems

. '. '

....

Office

Inspector

General

Construction,

major

projects.

Construction,

minor

projects.

Grants

for

construction

State

extended

care

facilities.

Grants

for

the

construction

veterans

cemeteries.

Total,

Departmental

Administration.

Administrative

Provisions

Medical

services

(Rescission).

Medical

support

and

(Rescission).

Medical

facilities.

(Rescission)

Section

226

compliance.

Bonus

limit

rescission

(Sec.

233).

JIF

rescission

(Sec.

238).

Contract

disability

exams.

Payraise

absorption

(Sec.

240 and

241)

Total.

Administrative

Provisions

Total,

title

II.

Appropriations.

Rescissions.

Advance

Appropriations.

2017:

Mandatory.

Discret·ionary

Advances

from

prior

year

appropriations:

Mandatory.

................

Discretionary.

(limitation

direct

loans).

Discretionary

............

Advances

from

prior

year

less

2017

advances

Net

discretionary.

Mandatory

....

Advances from

prior

year

less

2017

advances

Net

mandatory

Total

mandatory

and

discretionary.

TITLE

III

AGENCIES

American

Battle

Monuments Commission

Salaries

and

expenses.

2015

Enacted

321

'591

99,294

2,534,254

3,903,344

126,411

561

'800

495,200

90,000

46,000

177'

894

'400'

000

-1

'400'

000

100,000

-100,000

250,000

-250,000

-41

'000

15,000

40,000

--.

~ ~

-16,000

162' 172'

782

(105,316,580)

(

-1

806'

000)

(58,662,202)

(55,634,227)

(3'

377)

(

68'

041

'389)

(-3,027,975)

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

(65,013,414)

(94,

131

,393)

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

(

94'

' 393)

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

159'

144'

807

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

74'

100

2016

Request

346,659

107,884

2,697,734

4,133,363

126,766

'143'

800

406,200

80,000

45,000

9,087,406

'400 '000

-1

'400'

000

100,000

-100,000

250,000

-250,000

:::::::::::::;:;:;::;:::::::::::-:::::::::::::::::::-:::::::::;:

273,241

'161

(107,737,576)

(

-1

,750.

000)

103,982,585

(63,271

,000)

(58,662,202)

(3,452)

(74,711,819)

(-4,608,798)

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

(70,103,021)

(198,529,342)

(

103,982,585)

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

(94,546,757)

164,649,778

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

75,100

Bill

336,659

107,884

2,697,734

4,038,363

131

,766

561

'800

406,200

80,000

45,000

8,405,406

1,400,000

-1,400,000

100,000

-100,000

250,000

-101

'000

-15,000

-313,626

- - - - - * - -

- -

-429,626

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

271,799,799

(106,

412'

214)

(-1.866,000)

103,982,585

(63,271

,000)

(58,662,202)

(3,452)

(73,270,457)

(

-4'

608

,798)

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

(

68'

661

'659)

(198,529,342)

(-103,982,585)

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

(94,546,757)

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

163,208,416

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

75'

100

Bill

vs.

Enacted

+15,068

+8,590

+163,480

+135,019

+5,355

89,000

-10,000

-1

'000

+227,512

-60,000

-40,000

-313,626

-413,626

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

09.

627'

017

(+1

,095,634)

(-60,000)

+103.982,585

(+4,608,798)

(+3

.027,975)

(+75)

(+5,229,068)

(-1

,580,823)

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

(+3,648,245)

(+104,397,949)

(-103,982,585)

----------

(+415,364)

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

+4,063,609

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

+1. 000

(

I I vs

Request

-10,000

-95,000

+5,000

-582,000

-682,000

-101

'000

15,000

-313,

626

------

---

-429,626

-1,441,362

'325'

362)

(-116,000)

(-1,441,362)

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

(-1,441.362)

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

-1,441.362

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

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2579 April 29, 2015

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.011 H29APPT1

Insert offset folio 408/4 here EH29AP15.004

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Military

Construction,

Veterans

Affairs,

and

Agencies

Appropriations

Act.

2016 (H.R. 2029)

(Amounts

thousands)

Foreign

currency

fluctuations

account.

Total,

American

Battle

Monuments Commission

....

U.S.

Court

Appeals

for

Veterans

Claims

Salaries

and

expenses

Department

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

OVERSEAS

CONTINGENCY

OPERATIONS

Military

Construction.

Navy

and Marine

Corps.

, , , .

Military

Construction,

Air

Force.

Military

Construction,

Defense-Wide

. ' . ' ' ' . ' ' . . ' .

European

Reassurance

Initiative

Military

Construction.

Total,

title

IV.

Grand

total

...

Appropriations

....

Rescissions

...

Advance

appropriations,

2017

Overseas

contingency

operations.

Advances from

prior

year

appropriations

....

(By

transfer).

(Transfer

out).

.........

(Limitation

direct

loans).

2015

Enacted

'900

-----

--- ---

76,000

'386

65,800

62.400

'000

63,400

236,586

46,000

175,000

221

'000

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

169,188,368

(112,316,413)

(-2,011

,247)

(58.662,202)

(221,000)

(55,634,227)

(291

'251)

( -291

'251)

(3'

377)

2016

Request

2,000

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

77,100

32'

141

70,800

63,300

'000

64,300

244,341

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

281

'923'

122

(116,419,537)

(

1,750,000)

(167,253,585)

(58,662,202)

(301

,000)

( -301

'000)

(3,452)

Bill

2,000

---

77'

100

32'

141

70,800

63,300

,000

64,300

244,341

244,004

75,000

212,996

532,000

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

279

'727'

140

(114,

194,073)

(-2,252,518)

(167,253,585)

(532,000)

(58,662,202)

(301,000)

( -301

'000)

(3,452)

Bill

Enacted

+100

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

'100

+755

+5,000

+900

+7,755

+244,004

+75,000

+166,996

-175,000

+311,000

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

+110,538,772

(+1

'877'

660)

( -241

'271)

(

08'

591

'383)

(+311

,000)

(+3,027,975)

(+9,749)

(

-9,749)

(+75)

Bill

Request

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

+244,004

+75.000

+212

,996

+532, 000

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

-2,195,982

(-2,225,464)

(-502.518)

(+532,000)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2580 April 29, 2015

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield my-

self such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, let me say that I am

delighted to have the opportunity to

work with Chairman D

ENT

of the sub-

committee 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 cen-

tralized mail initiative which consoli-

dates 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 for-

mat. I believe that these are all posi-

tive steps to making the VA function

better.

Furthermore, Chairman D

ENT

has

avoided including contentious legisla-

tive riders, which is very much appre-

ciated. 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 fail-

ure to provide relief from these budget

caps—which were established in 2011

and later adjusted in 2013—the chair-

man was forced to make some tough

choices due to the allocation that he

was given.

While military construction is pro-

vided $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 re-

quest. The inadequate fiscal year 2016

allocation again forced the chairman

to slice the request for military con-

struction by $582 billion. That is hos-

pital construction.

Furthermore, the bill includes lan-

guage that directs that only replace-

ment, safety, and security projects can

receive budgeted funding. This is trou-

bling language, and it eliminates all

national cemetery projects for fiscal

year 2016 and puts several other

projects in jeopardy.

b1445

The majority claims they reduced

the construction account because the

half-built Veterans Affairs Denver hos-

pital 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 Den-

ver hospital were allocated within the

MILCON-VA bill.

Additionally, I am not aware of any

similar issues with any of the other re-

quested projects in the bill for FY12,

including replacement, clinic construc-

tion, seismic improvements, or ceme-

tery construction.

I believe the majority’s budget caps

and resulting inadequate allocation—

not the problems in Denver—led to cut-

ting construction in half. I am con-

cerned 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 an-

nual Strategic Capital Investment pro-

gram process.

Madam Chair, this committee can no

longer afford to function under the

Budget Control Act caps. The reduc-

tions 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 discre-

tionary cap next year, so this problem

will only get worse. Certainly, the De-

partment 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 run-

ning 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 han-

dle 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 D

ENT

crafted

the best bill he could with the alloca-

tion 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 construc-

tion 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 mili-

tary construction without using budget

gimmicks. At the appropriate time, I

will offer an amendment to do that.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I re-

serve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. R

ERS

), the full committee chairman, and

I want to thank him for all his support

and leadership in putting this bill to-

gether.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair-

man, 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

ENT

, the new chairman of this sub-

committee. 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. B

ISHOP

, 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 Mili-

tary 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 servicemem-

bers 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 re-

sources they need to care for every sin-

gle qualified veteran, including meet-

ing 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 eligi-

ble patients, providing mental health

care, helping prevent suicide, and sup-

porting research into prosthetics and

traumatic brain injuries, among nu-

merous other health initiatives. How-

ever, 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,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.028 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2581 April 29, 2015

and so this bill provides the oversight

that will hold the Department account-

able for its mistakes and takes the nec-

essary steps to address and correct

these problems.

For instance, the bill keeps a close

eye on how the VA is spending its con-

struction 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.

OWEY

), the full committee ranking

member.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, before I

begin, I would like to thank Sub-

committee Chairman D

ENT

and Rank-

ing Member B

ISHOP

, who worked so

well together, and full Committee

Chairman R

OGERS

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 im-

possible to provide the funding nec-

essary in the 12 appropriations bills to

grow our economy and give hard-work-

ing Americans the opportunity to suc-

ceed.

Democrats preferred the approach

taken by the President, calling for an

end to sequestration and more reason-

able and realistic budgeting that can

help families afford college, a home,

and a secure retirement.

Refusing to adopt a sufficient overall

allocation for discretionary invest-

ments 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 re-

sources 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 alloca-

tion’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 vet-

erans 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 con-

tingency 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 mili-

tary families and veterans, forcing a

$2.7 billion cut below what the Presi-

dent says is necessary, including $754

million less for military construction,

$155 million less for medical services,

$70 million less for medical support and

compliance, $105 million less for med-

ical facilities, and $582 million less for

VA construction projects.

These cuts, which hurt those who

have sacrificed for our country, are un-

acceptable. 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, includ-

ing reporting requirements for elec-

tronic health records and prioritizing

the elimination of the veterans claims

backlog.

It is imperative that, as the bill pro-

gresses toward enactment, improve-

ments 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 gentle-

woman from Alabama (Mrs. R

OBY

), who

has been a tireless advocate for the

needs of the veterans in her commu-

nity in Alabama.

Mrs. ROBY. First, I thank the chair-

man 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 Mili-

tary Construction and Veterans Affairs

and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act.

This bill undeniably provides much-

needed 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-need-

ed dollars for our military families at

this post and this base, and also fund-

ing for a new squadron operations facil-

ity at Dannelly Field.

These are all extremely important to

our critical military functions in Ala-

bama. Anybody who has been on post

at Rucker or at the base at Maxwell

knows that these schools are in dis-

repair 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 im-

prove 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 morn-

ing, Madam Chair. I was extremely dis-

appointed, alongside my colleagues, to

see that the President, yet again, has

threatened to veto this bill.

This bill provides critical, much-

needed funding for our military fami-

lies and our veterans, and the Presi-

dent should not play around with that.

b1500

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 in-

crease 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 Republican-

led 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 re-

sponsibility, 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 pro-

vide 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 posi-

tion 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.

), a member of the Subcommittee

on Military Construction and Veterans

Affairs.

Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, let me

thank the ranking member for yield-

ing, for his unwavering leadership for

our veterans on this committee, and

for your friendship. Thank you very

much, Mr. B

ISHOP

Let me also thank Chairman D

ENT

in addition to Ranking Member B

ISHOP

really for working very hard in a bipar-

tisan way on a variety of issues facing

our veterans, including empowering

our vets in their transition back to ci-

vilian life and ensuring adequate and

accessible access to care.

As the daughter of a veteran, I under-

stand the enormous sacrifices that our

servicemembers and their families

make to serve our Nation, so this sub-

committee is extremely important.

I want to thank the ranking member

and chair for working with me and my

colleagues on the subcommittee to in-

clude important report language on the

backlog at the Oakland VA regional of-

fice, which is, of course, one of the

worst in the Nation.

I want to thank our ranking member,

Congresswoman B

ROWN

, who is here

today, for her leadership on the com-

mittee in shedding some light also on

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.029 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2582 April 29, 2015

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 back-

logged 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 alloca-

tions 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 allo-

cated in this bill is totally insufficient

and, yes, it undermines the responsi-

bility 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 in-

cludes the initial phase of construction

for the state-of-the-art Alameda Point

outpatient clinic in my own congres-

sional district, which serves thousands

of veterans in the northern California

area.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentle-

woman 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 limi-

tation language in the report with re-

gard to major construction funds for

the VA does not preclude clinics like,

for example, the Alameda Point out-

patient clinic.

Addressing the limitation language

and restoring funding to the Presi-

dent’s request level for major construc-

tion 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 vet-

erans. We can’t afford to allow this

dangerous and harmful impact of se-

questration 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. D

ENHAM

) 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 Vet-

erans 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

and the American public. The $930 mil-

lion 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 Admin-

istration.

I am particularly concerned that the

complete failure of project manage-

ment of the Denver hospital is nega-

tively impacting veterans in my dis-

trict. 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 appro-

priated under this bill. The Committee

report includes language requiring the

funding provided for major construc-

tion to be used for new hospital con-

struction 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 pro-

vide 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 dis-

trict for even routine health care.

Madam Chairman, does the Liver-

more 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 gen-

tleman 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 Liver-

more.

In this report, we simply made clear

the priority for funding hospital con-

struction and seismic corrections.

Within the funds provided in the bill,

unallocated major construction fund-

ing remains available, and the VA has

the ability to allocate those funds to-

wards French Camp as well as other

projects in the budget request. The re-

port instructs the VA to make that de-

termination and provide a list of

projects to this committee.

I have heard similar concerns from

other Members, including the gentle-

lady, Ms. L

, who just spoke a few

moments ago, who have projects in-

cluded in this request, such as Alameda

Clinic and a rehabilitative therapy

clinic in St. Louis, which the adminis-

tration could also choose to fund.

I appreciate these concerns and the

opportunity to provide some clarity. I

hope that is helpful. But nothing pre-

cludes funding.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance

of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam

Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentle-

woman from Florida (Ms. B

ROWN

), 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 Con-

struction and Veterans Affairs Appro-

priations bill.

After taking steps forward with the

new Choice Act program, this Repub-

lican budget takes two steps back with

its cuts to veterans health care, just

another example of Republicans talk-

ing 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 vet-

erans, every one of them is opposing

this bill.

The national commanders of the Vet-

erans of Foreign Wars said the fol-

lowing 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 Re-

publicans would put them on the menu.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield my-

self such time as I may consume, and I

just want to respond to the gentle-

woman 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 per-

cent increase. We provided for a 6 per-

cent 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 seri-

ous oversight over a department that

has failed in many respects. And Mem-

bers on both sides of the aisle agree

with that, given the problems of Den-

ver, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Oakland,

and elsewhere. I can go through a long

list.

But some of the oversight mecha-

nisms in this bill, I should mention, in-

clude 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 re-

programming. We have also rescinded

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.031 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2583 April 29, 2015

$415 million from VA pay accounts,

that is pay and bonuses, limiting the

amount of money available for pay in-

creases and bonuses.

Should we reward failure at the VA?

I mean, there are management prob-

lems 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 gen-

tleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentle-

woman.

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 ade-

quately meets—more than adequately

meets—the needs of our servicemem-

bers and our veterans and their fami-

lies.

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 im-

portant legislation. It is the right

thing to do. We have no further speak-

ers at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. All time for general de-

bate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the 5-

minute rule.

During consideration of the bill for

amendment each amendment shall be

debatable for 10 minutes equally di-

vided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent and shall not be sub-

ject to amendment. No pro forma

amendment shall be in order except

that the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Appro-

priations or their respective designees

may offer up to 10 pro forma amend-

ments each at any point for the pur-

pose of debate. The Chair of the Com-

mittee of the Whole may accord pri-

ority in recognition on the basis of

whether the Member offering an

amendment has caused it to be printed

in the portion of the C

ONGRESSIONAL

ECORD

designated for that purpose.

Amendments so printed shall be con-

sidered read.

The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2029

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives 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:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, A

RMY

For acquisition, construction, installation,

and equipment of temporary or permanent

public works, military installations, facili-

ties, and real property for the Army as cur-

rently authorized by law, including per-

sonnel in the Army Corps of Engineers and

other personal services necessary for the

purposes of this appropriation, and for con-

struction and operation of facilities in sup-

port 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, archi-

tect and engineer services, and host nation

support, as authorized by law, unless the

Secretary of the Army determines that addi-

tional obligations are necessary for such pur-

poses and notifies the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress of the

determination and the reasons therefor.

b1515

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

BISHOP OF

GEORGIA

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam

Chairman, I rise to offer an amend-

ment.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the

amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, in-

sert ‘‘(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)’’.

Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, in-

sert ‘‘(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, in-

sert ‘‘(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, in-

sert ‘‘(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 unani-

mous consent to dispense with the

reading.

The CHAIR. Is there objection to the

request of the gentleman from Geor-

gia?

There was no objection.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I re-

serve a point of order on the gentle-

man’s amendment.

The CHAIR. A point of order is re-

served.

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 offer-

ing should be supported by every Mem-

ber of this House. Very simply, it

would restore the Military Construc-

tion and Veterans Affairs funding bill

to the full amount requested by the ad-

ministration and to the full amount

deemed necessary by the affected agen-

cies.

Last night, the Veterans of Foreign

Wars, one of the largest veterans serv-

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 Para-

lyzed Veterans of America, and Vet-

erans of Foreign Wars, expressed seri-

ous 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 en-

tire $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 com-

promised.

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 amend-

ment 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 in-

creases 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 transi-

tion 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 de-

mand is ensuring that the Department of Vet-

eran’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 esti-

mated medical care collections and $95.3 bil-

lion 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 pro-

posal cuts $1.4 billion from the President’s

budget request. This is simply a desperate at-

tempt to balance our nation’s budget on the

backs of our veterans, and it is not accept-

able.

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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.032 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2584 April 29, 2015

nations’ veterans and support this amendment

to appropriately fund the VA and provide serv-

ices to our veterans that they earned from

their years of service.

[April 28, 2015]

VFW C

ALLS

VA A

PPROPRIATIONS

ILL

‘B

AD FOR

ETERANS

’

ASHINGTON

.—The national commander of

the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United

States said the U.S. House of Representa-

tives 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 con-

fidence 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 Auxil-

iaries. ‘‘That’s why the VFW is demanding

that the House amend this bill to appro-

priate 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 im-

pose its own sequester on a federal depart-

ment 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 na-

tional commander. ‘‘This bill is bad for vet-

erans and any vote for it is unconscionable,

which is why we want veterans and advo-

cates everywhere to get involved by urging

their elected officials to fully fund the VA.’’

RAQ AND

FGHANISTAN

ETERANS OF

MERICA

April 28, 2015.

Hon. J

OHN

OEHNER

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. N

ANCY

ELOSI

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

EAR

. S

PEAKER AND

ADAM

INORITY

EADER

: 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 ad-

ministration, 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. Re-

form of the VA, its facilities and its infra-

structure are monumental tasks. Unfortu-

nately 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 Vet-

erans (SAV) Act was a huge bipartisan vic-

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 re-

quest 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,

ATTHEW

M. M

ILLER

Chief Policy Officer, Iraq and

Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

NDEPENDENT

UDGET

April 27, 2015.

Hon. J

OHN

OEHNER

Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington,

DC.

Hon. N

ANCY

ELOSI

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

EAR

. S

PEAKER AND

ADAM

INORITY

EADER

: As partner organizations in the

Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, we

write to express our concerns about the re-

sults of the Committee on Appropriations’

April 22, 2015 markup and vote on the De-

partment of Veterans Affairs (VA) appropria-

tions bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016.

Over the expressed objections of the Ad-

ministration, 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, in-

cluding reducing VA’s ability to activate

new and replacement facilities with suffi-

cient staff and equipment and to adequately

maintain facility infrastructure.

In the separate capital infrastructure ac-

counts (for major and minor projects as well

as for state veterans home construction

grants), the Committee reduced the Admin-

istration’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 address-

ing the overdue and over-budget medical

center construction project in Denver, doz-

ens of other VA centers are much older and

in poorer condition than the Colorado facil-

ity that is being replaced, but no funds

would be made available in the FY 2016 ap-

propriation to begin these priority projects.

Also, lack of maintenance, repairs, and im-

provements 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, Con-

gress 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 sev-

eral high priority construction authoriza-

tions 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.

Strangling the VA’s appropriated accounts

for infrastructure, but refusing to allow any

flexibility in the use of funds already pro-

vided 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 Sec-

retary McDonald said last week, this situa-

tion will ‘‘harm veterans.’’ We agree.

On the topic of VA’s Medical and Pros-

thetic 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 Pro-

gram, delaying the benefits of precision med-

icine to veterans. Also, these funds will be

used for completion of genetic studies on

functional disability in schizophrenia and bi-

polar disorder; to initiate studies aimed at

finding the root cause of a known genetic

susceptibility to post-traumatic stress dis-

order; and, to conduct new studies aimed at

predicting susceptibility to opioid abuse. De-

spite this good news, as advocates we are

concerned that these funds were shifted in an

unprecedented manner from the VA informa-

tion technology (IT) account—an appropria-

tion 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 sup-

pressing 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 re-

duce VA funding, even when it appears that

the bill would be providing higher levels at

the top line. For example, if this administra-

tive language is adopted by Congress, VA

will find itself in the odd position come Jan-

uary 2016 of needing to decide (in the Com-

mittee’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 com-

parability increases discretionary once the

President announces the comparability rate.

In the research program, for example, the ap-

propriation 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 re-

quested level. Other administrative provi-

sions have similar effects, all deleterious to

any VA flexibility in funding its many re-

quirements in FY 2016. In fact the total re-

scissions from these administrative provi-

sions would be more than $400 million, with

nearly $200 million directed at the Medical

Services account atop the $600 million dis-

cussed 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 cru-

cial VA accounts so that the institution can

meet its Congressional mandate next year.

To that end, we ask the Leadership of the

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.059 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2585 April 29, 2015

House to restore VA’s overall funding at

least to the level recommended by the Ad-

ministration in its FY 2016 budget, although

even that level is almost $1.4 billion below

our joint recommendations in the Inde-

pendent Budget for next year.

When the nation sends our soldiers and

Marines into live combat in hostile terri-

tory, 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 appre-

ciate 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,

TEWART

M. H

ICKEY

National Executive Di-

rector, AMVETS.

OMER

S. T

OWNSEND

, J

Executive Director,

Paralyzed Veterans

of America.

ARRY

J. A

UGUSTINE

Executive Director,

Washington Head-

quarters, DAV (Dis-

abled American Vet-

erans).

OBERT

E. W

ALLACE

Executive Director,

Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the United

States.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I make

a point of order against the amend-

ment because it proposes to amend por-

tions 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 re-

quested and veterans earned. The Na-

tional 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.

ISHOP

) amendment does just that.

The VFW went on to say the bill

‘‘drastically underfunds medical care,

major construction, and information

technology accounts. . . . The VA can-

not 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.

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 appro-

priations among objects in the bill. Be-

cause 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 ap-

peared 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 de-

vice, and there were—ayes 237, noes 180,

not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 178]

AYES—237

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)

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

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

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

Adams

Aguilar

Ashford

Bass

Beatty

Becerra

Bera

Bishop (GA)

Blumenauer

Bonamici

Boyle, Brendan

Brady (PA)

Brown (FL)

Brownley (CA)

Bustos

Butterfield

Capps

Capuano

´rdenas

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

Duckworth

Edwards

Ellison

Engel

Eshoo

Esty

Farr

Fattah

Foster

Frankel (FL)

Fudge

Gabbard

Gallego

Garamendi

Graham

Grayson

Green, Al

Green, Gene

Grijalva

Gutie

´rrez

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)

Luja

´n, Ben Ray

(NM)

Lynch

Maloney,

Carolyn

Maloney, Sean

Matsui

McCollum

McDermott

McGovern

McNerney

Meng

Moore

Moulton

Murphy (FL)

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)

´nchez, Linda

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

´zquez

Visclosky

Walz

Wasserman

Schultz

Waters, Maxine

Watson Coleman

Welch

Wilson (FL)

Yarmuth

NOT VOTING—14

Beyer

Cleaver

Guinta

Hastings

Meeks

Palazzo

Payne

Peterson

Poe (TX)

Rangel

Roskam

Royce

Rush

Smith (WA)

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.062 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2586 April 29, 2015

b1545

Mr. QUIGLEY changed his vote from

‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Messrs. HURT of Virginia, MEAD-

OWS, 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:

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, N

AVY AND

ARINE

ORPS

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, includ-

ing personnel in the Naval Facilities Engi-

neering Command and other personal serv-

ices necessary for the purposes of this appro-

priation, $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 author-

ized 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.

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, A

ORCE

For acquisition, construction, installation,

and equipment of temporary or permanent

public works, military installations, facili-

ties, 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, plan-

ning, 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 Ap-

propriations of both Houses of Congress of

the determination and the reasons therefor.

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, D

EFENSE

-W

IDE

(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 author-

ized by law, $1,931,456,000, to remain avail-

able 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 pur-

poses, and for the same time period, as the

appropriation or fund to which transferred:

Provided further, That of the amount appro-

priated, not to exceed $160,404,000 shall be

available for study, planning, design, and ar-

chitect and engineer services, as authorized

by law, unless the Secretary of Defense de-

termines that additional obligations are nec-

essary 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 mili-

tary construction projects until the Com-

mander of the Special Operations Command

has certified in writing and submits to the

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 con-

struction requirements for facilities that

provide healthcare services or support fit-

ness activities.

(2) A description of the decision-making

process used to determine whether a mili-

tary construction project that provides

healthcare facilities or supports fitness ac-

tivities should be funded by the USSOCOM

or the military departments.

(3) Provides a schematic of the human per-

formance centers by installation, a listing of

the planned equipment related to training

and resiliency and a description of the mis-

sion-critical benefit of each item, an expla-

nation of why the unique physical and psy-

chological health services incorporated could

not be provided by the Defense Health Agen-

cy or military services, and a planned staff-

ing 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 Reso-

lution 223, the gentlewoman from New

York and a Member opposed each will

control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentle-

woman from New York.

Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, I

would like to thank the gentleman

from Pennsylvania (Mr. D

ENT

) and his

staff for allowing this important dis-

cussion of an east coast missile defense

site, as well as the gentleman from

Ohio (Mr. T

URNER

) for his continued ef-

forts and support.

Madam Chair, my amendment would

provide for the planning, design, and

construction of an additional missile

defense site. Simply put, missile de-

fense shields our Nation from hostile

incoming warheads. And with the esca-

lation of threats of rogue nations like

North Korea and Iran, the United

States must be ready not just to retali-

ate, but to actually stop an attack. We

must be able to defend our Nation and

shoot it down. North Korea does, in-

deed, have a nuclear weapons capa-

bility 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 Na-

tion’s readiness, and an east coast mis-

sile defense site provides increased bat-

tle space, more decision time, in-

creased 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 Na-

tion’s defense capability against those

very real threats.

Madam Chair, this amendment pro-

vides for the security and protection

that our Nation needs.

I yield such time as he may consume

to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. T

NER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, I want

to thank Congresswoman S

TEFANIK

and

also Chairman D

ENT

for their support

for this amendment providing funding

for the planning, design, and construc-

tion of an additional missile defense

site capable of protecting the home-

land from a long-range ballistic missile

attack.

As Congresswoman S

TEFANIK

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 Presi-

dent 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 Presi-

dents 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 Mid-

dle 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 op-

portunity to engage and defeat those

threats.

I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentlewoman

yield?

Ms. STEFANIK. I yield to the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I rise in

support of the gentlewoman’s amend-

ment.

With advantages in launch capabili-

ties, we should explore protecting the

east coast from our adversaries, as Mr.

URNER

and Ms. S

TEFANIK

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 gentle-

woman from New York (Ms. S

TEFANIK

The amendment was agreed to.

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, as the des-

ignee of the ranking member, I move to

strike the last word.

The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from

California is recognized for 5 minutes.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.037 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2587 April 29, 2015

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I am first

seeking clarity from Chairman D

ENT

on what the committee intends with

the major construction account fund-

ing 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 pro-

vide 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 re-

port 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 gen-

tleman for this clarification, and I

yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, A

RMY

ATIONAL

UARD

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 Sep-

tember 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 author-

ized by law, unless the Director of the Army

National Guard determines that additional

obligations are necessary for such purposes

and notifies the Committees on Appropria-

tions of both Houses of Congress of the deter-

mination and the reasons therefor.

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, A

ATIONAL

UARD

For construction, acquisition, expansion,

rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities

for the training and administration of the

Air National Guard, and contributions there-

for, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,

United States Code, and Military Construc-

tion Authorization Acts, $138,738,000, to re-

main available until September 30, 2020: Pro-

vided, 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, un-

less 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.

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, A

RMY

ESERVE

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 Sep-

tember 30, 2020: Provided, That of the amount

appropriated, not to exceed $9,318,000 shall be

available for study, planning, design, and ar-

chitect 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

Houses of Congress of the determination and

the reasons therefor.

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, N

AVY

ESERVE

For construction, acquisition, expansion,

rehabilitation, and conversion of facilities

for the training and administration of the re-

serve components of the Navy and Marine

Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title

10, United States Code, and Military Con-

struction 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, un-

less the Secretary of the Navy determines

that additional obligations are necessary for

such purposes and notifies the Committees

on Appropriations of both Houses of Con-

gress of the determination and the reasons

therefor.

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, A

ORCE

ESERVE

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 Mili-

tary Construction Authorization Acts,

$65,021,000, to remain available until Sep-

tember 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 author-

ized by law, unless the Chief of the Air Force

Reserve determines that additional obliga-

tions are necessary for such purposes and no-

tifies the Committees on Appropriations of

both Houses of Congress of the determina-

tion and the reasons therefor.

ORTH

TLANTIC

REATY

RGANIZATION

ECURITY

NVESTMENT

ROGRAM

For the United States share of the cost of

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Se-

curity Investment Program for the acquisi-

tion and construction of military facilities

and installations (including international

military headquarters) and for related ex-

penses for the collective defense of the North

Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by sec-

tion 2806 of title 10, United States Code, and

Military Construction Authorization Acts,

$150,000,000, to remain available until ex-

pended.

AMILY

OUSING

ONSTRUCTION

, A

RMY

For expenses of family housing for the

Army for construction, including acquisi-

tion, replacement, addition, expansion, ex-

tension, and alteration, as authorized by

law, $99,695,000, to remain available until

September 30, 2020.

AMILY

OUSING

PERATION AND

AINTENANCE

, A

RMY

For expenses of family housing for the

Army for operation and maintenance, includ-

ing debt payment, leasing, minor construc-

tion, principal and interest charges, and in-

surance premiums, as authorized by law,

$393,511,000.

AMILY

OUSING

ONSTRUCTION

, N

AVY AND

ARINE

ORPS

For expenses of family housing for the

Navy and Marine Corps for construction, in-

cluding acquisition, replacement, addition,

expansion, extension, and alteration, as au-

thorized by law, $16,541,000, to remain avail-

able until September 30, 2020.

AMILY

OUSING

PERATION AND

AINTENANCE

, N

AVY AND

ARINE

ORPS

For expenses of family housing for the

Navy and Marine Corps for operation and

maintenance, including debt payment, leas-

ing, minor construction, principal and inter-

est charges, and insurance premiums, as au-

thorized by law, $353,036,000.

AMILY

OUSING

ONSTRUCTION

, A

ORCE

For expenses of family housing for the Air

Force for construction, including acquisi-

tion, replacement, addition, expansion, ex-

tension, and alteration, as authorized by

law, $160,498,000, to remain available until

September 30, 2020.

AMILY

OUSING

PERATION AND

AINTENANCE

, A

ORCE

For expenses of family housing for the Air

Force for operation and maintenance, in-

cluding debt payment, leasing, minor con-

struction, principal and interest charges, and

insurance premiums, as authorized by law,

$331,232,000.

AMILY

OUSING

PERATION AND

AINTENANCE

, D

EFENSE

-W

IDE

For expenses of family housing for the ac-

tivities and agencies of the Department of

Defense (other than the military depart-

ments) for operation and maintenance, leas-

ing, and minor construction, as authorized

by law, $58,668,000.

EPARTMENT OF

EFENSE

ASE

LOSURE

CCOUNT

For deposit into the Department of De-

fense 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.

DMINISTRATIVE

ROVISIONS

. 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 De-

fense setting forth the reasons therefor.

. 102. Funds made available in this title

for construction shall be available for hire of

passenger motor vehicles.

. 103. Funds made available in this title

for construction may be used for advances to

the Federal Highway Administration, De-

partment of Transportation, for the con-

struction of access roads as authorized by

section 210 of title 23, United States Code,

when projects authorized therein are cer-

tified as important to the national defense

by the Secretary of Defense.

. 104. None of the funds made available

in this title may be used to begin construc-

tion of new bases in the United States for

which specific appropriations have not been

made.

. 105. None of the funds made available

in this title shall be used for purchase of

land or land easements in excess of 100 per-

cent 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 Fed-

eral court; (2) purchases negotiated by the

Attorney General or the designee of the At-

torney 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.

. 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 hous-

ing for which funds have been made available

in annual Acts making appropriations for

military construction.

. 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 Con-

gress.

. 108. None of the funds made available

in this title may be used for the procurement

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.041 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2588 April 29, 2015

of steel for any construction project or activ-

ity for which American steel producers, fab-

ricators, and manufacturers have been de-

nied the opportunity to compete for such

steel procurement.

. 109. None of the funds available to the

Department of Defense for military con-

struction or family housing during the cur-

rent fiscal year may be used to pay real

property taxes in any foreign nation.

. 110. None of the funds made available

in this title may be used to initiate a new in-

stallation overseas without prior notifica-

tion to the Committees on Appropriations of

both Houses of Congress.

. 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 At-

lantic 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.

. 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 for-

eign contractor: Provided, That this section

shall not be applicable to contract awards

for which the lowest responsive and respon-

sible bid of a United States contractor ex-

ceeds 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 mili-

tary construction on Kwajalein Atoll for

which the lowest responsive and responsible

bid is submitted by a Marshallese con-

tractor.

. 113. The Secretary of Defense shall in-

form the appropriate committees of both

Houses of Congress, including the Commit-

tees 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 construc-

tion, either temporary or permanent, are an-

ticipated to exceed $100,000.

. 114. Funds appropriated to the Depart-

ment of Defense for construction in prior

years shall be available for construction au-

thorized for each such military department

by the authorizations enacted into law dur-

ing the current session of Congress.

. 115. For military construction or fam-

ily housing projects that are being com-

pleted with funds otherwise expired or lapsed

for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may

be used to pay the cost of associated super-

vision, inspection, overhead, engineering and

design on those projects and on subsequent

claims, if any.

. 116. Notwithstanding any other provi-

sion 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 appro-

priated for such project, plus any amount by

which the cost of such project is increased

pursuant to law.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 117. Subject to 30 days prior notifica-

tion, 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, such additional amounts

as may be determined by the Secretary of

Defense may be transferred to: (1) the De-

partment of Defense Family Housing Im-

provement Fund from amounts appropriated

for construction in ‘‘Family Housing’’ ac-

counts, to be merged with and to be avail-

able for the same purposes and for the same

period of time as amounts appropriated di-

rectly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of

Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing

Improvement Fund from amounts appro-

priated for construction of military unac-

companied housing in ‘‘Military Construc-

tion’’ 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 appro-

priations 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 guaran-

tees 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, mili-

tary unaccompanied housing, and supporting

facilities: Provided further, That the transfer

authority in this provision shall also be ap-

plicable to amounts appropriated for con-

struction in ‘‘Family Housing’’ accounts in

section 2002 of Public Law 112–10.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 118. In addition to any other transfer

authority available to the Department of De-

fense, 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 Home-

owners Assistance Program incurred under

42 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)(A). Any amounts trans-

ferred shall be merged with and be available

for the same purposes and for the same time

period as the fund to which transferred.

. 119. Notwithstanding any other provi-

sion 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 fam-

ily 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 gen-

eral or flag officer quarters without 30 days

prior notification, or 14 days for a notifica-

tion provided in an electronic medium pursu-

ant to sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United

States Code, to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress, except

that an after-the-fact notification shall be

submitted if the limitation is exceeded sole-

ly due to costs associated with environ-

mental remediation that could not be rea-

sonably anticipated at the time of the budg-

et submission.

. 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 pur-

poses specified in subsection (i)(1) of such

section or until transferred pursuant to sub-

section (i)(3) of such section.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 121. During the 5-year period after ap-

propriations available in this Act to the De-

partment of Defense for military construc-

tion and family housing operation and main-

tenance 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-

thorized adjustments to such appropriations

for obligations incurred during the period of

availability of such appropriations, unobli-

gated balances of such appropriations may

be transferred into the appropriation ‘‘For-

eign Currency Fluctuations, Construction,

Defense’’, to be merged with and to be avail-

able for the same time period and for the

same purposes as the appropriation to which

transferred.

. 122. (a) Except as provided in sub-

section (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 employ-

ees of the Department of the Army and

Army contractor personnel employed ex-

ceeds 10 percent of the total number of mem-

bers of the regular and reserve components

of the Army assigned to the installation.

(b) E

XCEPTION

.—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.

. 123. Amounts appropriated or other-

wise 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 con-

struction and family housing construction

contained in Department of Defense Finan-

cial Management Regulation 7000.14–R, Vol-

ume 3, Chapter 7, of February 2009, as in ef-

fect on the date of enactment of this Act.

. 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)

. 125. Of the unobligated balances avail-

able 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 emer-

gency requirement), $96,000,000 are hereby re-

scinded.

(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

. 126. Of the unobligated balances avail-

able 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 emer-

gency requirement), $52,600,000 are hereby re-

scinded.

(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

. 127. Of the unobligated balances avail-

able for ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-

Wide’’, from prior appropriation Acts (other

than appropriations designated by law as

being for contingency operations directly re-

lated to the global war on terrorism or as an

emergency requirement), $134,000,000 are

hereby rescinded.

(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

. 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 De-

velopment Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) (other

than appropriations designated by law as

being for contingency operations directly re-

lated to the global war on terrorism or as an

emergency requirement), $103,918,000 are

hereby rescinded.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.047 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2589 April 29, 2015

. 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 Sub-

committee on Military Construction and

Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appro-

priations of the House of Representatives.

. 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 Sec-

retary 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 In-

telligence Analysis Complex Consolidation

at Royal Air Force Croughton, United King-

dom.

. 131. Notwithstanding section 124, for

an additional amount for ‘‘Military Con-

struction, Army’’ in this title, $30,000,000 is

provided for advances to the Federal High-

way Administration, Department of Trans-

portation, for construction of access roads as

authorized by section 210 of title 23, United

States Code.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

ETERANS

ENEFITS

DMINISTRATION

COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For the payment of compensation benefits

to or on behalf of veterans and a pilot pro-

gram for disability examinations as author-

ized 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 Pro-

gram for Survivors, emergency and other of-

ficers’ retirement pay, adjusted-service cred-

its 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 re-

main available until expended, of which

$87,146,761,000 shall become available on Oc-

tober 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 Op-

erating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Admin-

istration’’, and ‘‘Information Technology

Systems’’ for necessary expenses in imple-

menting 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’’ appropria-

tion: Provided further, That such sums as

may be earned on an actual qualifying pa-

tient basis, shall be reimbursed to ‘‘Medical

Care Collections Fund’’ to augment the fund-

ing of individual medical facilities for nurs-

ing home care provided to pensioners as au-

thorized.

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

For the payment of readjustment and reha-

bilitation 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 avail-

able until expended, of which $16,743,904,000

shall become available on October 1, 2016:

Provided, That expenses for rehabilitation

program services and assistance which the

Secretary is authorized to provide under sub-

section (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 indem-

nities, service-disabled veterans insurance,

and veterans mortgage life insurance as au-

thorized 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 sub-

chapters 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 au-

thorized by chapter 31 of title 38, United

States Code: Provided, That such costs, in-

cluding the cost of modifying such loans,

shall be as defined in section 502 of the Con-

gressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided fur-

ther, That funds made available under this

heading are available to subsidize gross obli-

gations 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 pro-

gram, $367,000, which may be paid to the ap-

propriation for ‘‘General Operating Ex-

penses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’.

NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

For administrative expenses to carry out

the direct loan program authorized by sub-

chapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United

States Code, $1,134,000.

ETERANS

EALTH

DMINISTRATION

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 repay-

ments authorized by section 604 of the Care-

givers and Veterans Omnibus Health Serv-

ices 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 re-

imbursements, shall become available on Oc-

tober 1, 2016, and shall remain available until

September 30, 2017: Provided, That notwith-

standing any other provision of law, the Sec-

retary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a

priority for the provision of medical treat-

ment for veterans who have service-con-

nected disabilities, lower income, or have

special needs: Provided further, That notwith-

standing any other provision of law, the Sec-

retary 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 au-

thorize the dispensing of prescription drugs

from Veterans Health Administration facili-

ties to enrolled veterans with privately writ-

ten prescriptions based on requirements es-

tablished by the Secretary: Provided further,

That the implementation of the program de-

scribed in the previous proviso shall incur no

additional cost to the Department of Vet-

erans Affairs.

b1600

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an

amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. H

ULTGREN

The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, in-

sert ‘‘(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 en-

acted fiscal year ’15 levels for its Office

of Congressional and Legislative Af-

fairs, but on the very next page of that

document, the VA only mentions that

it needs ‘‘$1.2 million to address in-

creased 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 vet-

erans face from returning from combat.

Traumatic brain injuries and post-

traumatic 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 aver-

age 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.047 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2590 April 29, 2015

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 D

ENT

and Ranking Member

ISHOP

for their time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-

ance 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 consid-

ered 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 administra-

tion of the medical, hospital, nursing home,

domiciliary, construction, supply, and re-

search activities, as authorized by law; ad-

ministrative expenses in support of capital

policy activities; and administrative and

legal expenses of the Department for col-

lecting and recovering amounts owed the De-

partment 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.

MEDICAL FACILITIES

For necessary expenses for the mainte-

nance and operation of hospitals, nursing

homes, domiciliary facilities, and other nec-

essary facilities of the Veterans Health Ad-

ministration; for administrative expenses in

support of planning, design, project manage-

ment, real property acquisition and disposi-

tion, construction, and renovation of any fa-

cility under the jurisdiction or for the use of

the Department; for oversight, engineering,

and architectural activities not charged to

project costs; for repairing, altering, improv-

ing, or providing facilities in the several hos-

pitals and homes under the jurisdiction of

the Department, not otherwise provided for,

either by contract or by the hire of tem-

porary employees and purchase of materials;

for leases of facilities; and for laundry serv-

ices, $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

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 Inspec-

tor General released its report on the

gross mismanagement and claims ma-

nipulation that has long corroded the

Philadelphia VA Regional Office. The

issues revealed through that report re-

flect some of the worst instances of ne-

glect and lack of accountability I have

seen. These issues are unacceptable for

our Nation’s veterans. I have person-

ally 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 inspec-

tor general and help to ensure that

they will not be repeated at any VA fa-

cility. I remain steadfast in my work

to bring accountability and reform to

the VA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. M

HAN

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 fis-

cally 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 col-

leagues, particularly with those from

Pennsylvania, when red tape and mis-

management stand between a veteran

and his or her care, we all have a re-

sponsibility 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 Re-

gional Office, as my colleague identi-

fied, 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 Re-

gional Office is rife with systematic

mismanagement, poor morale, the de-

liberate manipulation of data, and in-

dividuals who are more focused on mis-

leading the Nation than on serving our

veterans.

I would like to thank Chairman M

LER

on the Veterans’ Affairs Com-

mittee 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 any-

one responsible until after the comple-

tion 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 in-

quires—it is competent management

that is needed, management that will

hold the employees and the other man-

agement accountable. While we wait

for the next report, with this bill, Con-

gress has an opportunity to take re-

form action with VA H.R. 2029, which

will give the VA employees the tools

they need to expedite the veterans ben-

efits and care process.

One of the findings from the IG re-

port 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 re-

sponse 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 com-

pletely 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 gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. D

ENT

)

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 situa-

tion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gen-

tleman from Chester County, Pennsyl-

vania (Mr. C

OSTELLO

Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, I rise today regarding Con-

gressman D

ENT

’s fiscally responsible

appropriations legislation and the posi-

tive impact it will have on the Phila-

delphia 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. C

OSTELLO

), 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 Con-

gressman D

ENT

’s fiscally responsible

appropriations legislation and the posi-

tive impact it will have on the Phila-

delphia VA Regional Office.

As you know, the Philadelphia VA

has been plagued with a dysfunctional

and toxic work environment, with

management purposefully and bla-

tantly displaying managerial wrong-

doing. 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 vet-

erans. Let’s talk about this appropria-

tions bill and the specifics of it.

It fully funds the Veterans Benefits

Management System, which will result

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.043 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2591 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 fund-

ing for IT to permit the electronic

modernization of appeals claims, and it

allocates full funding for digital scan-

ning and centralized mail. Lastly, this

bill establishes strike force response

teams to bring in experienced man-

agers 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 effec-

tively 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 D

ENT

for his hard work

on this bill. I look forward to con-

tinuing to work with you and with

your respective committees to provide

the best for the veterans in our Com-

monwealth 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:

ATIONAL

EMETERY

DMINISTRATION

For necessary expenses of the National

Cemetery Administration for operations and

maintenance, not otherwise provided for, in-

cluding uniforms or allowances therefor;

cemeterial expenses as authorized by law;

purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for

use in cemeterial operations; hire of pas-

senger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration

or improvement of facilities under the juris-

diction of the National Cemetery Adminis-

tration, $266,220,000, of which not to exceed

$26,600,000 shall remain available until Sep-

tember 30, 2017.

EPARTMENTAL

DMINISTRATION

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary operating expenses of the

Department of Veterans Affairs, not other-

wise provided for, including administrative

expenses in support of Department-wide cap-

ital planning, management and policy activi-

ties, uniforms, or allowances therefor; not to

exceed $25,000 for official reception and rep-

resentation 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. M

NERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I

have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port 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, in-

sert ‘‘(reduced by $27,213,000)’’.

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.

b1615

Mr. M

NERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I

want to thank Chairman D

ENT

and

Ranking Member B

ISHOP

for all their

hard work on this year’s military con-

struction 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 con-

struction projects. Unfortunately, this

bill only includes $561 million, which is

$582 million less than the request. This

severely impacts access to care for vet-

erans.

My amendment increases the VA

major construction by $177 million, al-

though I would still prefer to restore

full funding for major construction

with the President’s fiscal year 2016

budget request. The amendment is off-

set by reductions to the VA adminis-

tration IT accounts, bringing them in

line with the fiscal year 2015 enacted

levels. In addition, the general oper-

ating expenses account would be re-

duced 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 dis-

trict 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 Depart-

ment 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 activa-

tion costs.

Moreover, the Veterans Health Ad-

ministration has over 21 major con-

struction 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 invest-

ment plan of the Department.

Our brave men and women deserve

access to the best healthcare system

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, Colo-

rado. This is unacceptable to tax-

payers, 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 construc-

tion processes. I am pleased that both

the chairman and ranking member rec-

ognize 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 frus-

tration, 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 be-

cause 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 amend-

ment.

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 wis-

dom of our choice.

To provide enough money for the

French Camp project Mr. M

ERNEY

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 ac-

cept the cuts that would need to be

made to the electronic medical records

system or the paperless disability

claims processing system. We can’t af-

ford to sacrifice the good of the many

veterans to accommodate a local or pa-

rochial 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.045 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2592 April 29, 2015

things that all of us are deeply con-

cerned about in terms of an A-rated

health record, EMR, and other impor-

tant disability issues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from California (Mr. M

NEY

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar

amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $8,000,000) (in-

creased 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 trans-

fer $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 in-

creases in the legal workload.’’

The VA budget justification also says

that the VA’s goal is to have an addi-

tional 45 full-time equivalent lawyers

for its Office of General Counsel, which

would take the total number of attor-

neys up to 757. According to the com-

mittee report for the last 5 years, the

committee has fully funded the Presi-

dent’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 Gen-

eral Counsel and put it towards the hir-

ing 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 amend-

ment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I agree with Mr. G

OSAR

that eliminating the backlog should be

the VA’s highest priority. The bill pro-

vides 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 gen-

tleman from Arizona (Mr. G

OSAR

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS

TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I rise to offer an amend-

ment. It is at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar

amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $500,000) (in-

creased 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 gentle-

woman 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 vet-

erans.

The population of women veterans is

rapidly growing. Today women con-

stitute 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 Afghan-

istan 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 chal-

lenges 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 vet-

erans.

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 moni-

toring and coordinating VA’s adminis-

tration of health care, benefits serv-

ices, and programs for women veterans,

as well as with raising awareness with-

in the Department for their special

needs.

In 2012 the Women Veterans Task

Force published a report outlining

strategies to meet the needs of our fe-

male veterans. The report highlighted

barriers to providing services to women

veterans, including a lack of data col-

lection and analysis. Without knowing

how to best serve and meet expecta-

tions 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 un-

funded data collection and analysis po-

sitions in the Center for Women Vet-

erans to ensure that the VA is able to

identify and fulfill the needs of our Na-

tion’s female heroes.

I thank the chairman and the rank-

ing 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 chal-

lenging for the VA to get good data

about female veterans, so many pro-

grams are shaped using faulty assump-

tions. 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 amend-

ment.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objec-

tion, 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 vet-

erans. You really ought to be com-

mended. I know your work on the au-

thorizing 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 col-

leagues to support this amendment so

we can send a strong message to our fe-

male veterans that the U.S. Congress is

committed to ensuring that the VA is

meeting their unique needs. It is crit-

ical 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 gen-

tlewoman from Nevada (Ms. T

ITUS

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar

amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $2,000,000)’’.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.048 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2593 April 29, 2015

Page 30, line 22, after the dollar amount,

insert ‘‘(increased by $2,000,000)’’.

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.

b1630

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to

offer a straightforward amendment

that would strengthen the ability of

the Board of Veterans Appeals to re-

duce its backlog.

I applaud the committee for taking

on the difficult task of prioritizing lim-

ited 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 in-

creased resources to the Board of Vet-

erans Appeals.

According to the committee report

accompanying this bill, ‘‘appeals re-

ceived by BVA are projected to in-

crease 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 dis-

trict and across this country and en-

sure that the Board of Veterans Ap-

peals 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 dili-

gent efforts.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I agree with the gen-

tleman from Arizona’s emphasis on

maximizing funding for the Board of

Veterans Appeals. The board will be

facing an enormous increase in case-

load 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 fund-

ing, as well as additional information

technology funds to help modernize the

board’s paperbound processing system.

I support the gentleman’s amend-

ment.

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 gen-

tleman from Arizona (Mr. G

OSAR

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 15, after the first dollar

amount, insert ‘‘(reduced by $50,000) (in-

creased 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 gentle-

woman from Arizona.

Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, the

Sinema amendment is a commonsense

fix that helps improve the trans-

parency of the VA and the quality of

services provided to veterans.

I appreciate Chairman D

ENT

and

Ranking Member B

ISHOP

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 quar-

terly reports on the financial status of

the Veterans Health Administration.

My amendment requires the VA to in-

clude, as part of these quarterly pay-

ments, 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 commu-

nity 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 ini-

tiative.

Unfortunately, the VA continues to

struggle with paying its bills in a time-

ly way. In my district, I have heard

from large hospitals and small busi-

nesses alike who don’t receive prompt

payments from the VA.

A small business in my district, In-

terim HealthCare, provides home care,

skilled medical care, and staffing serv-

ices 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 con-

tracted 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-

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 bal-

ance 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 gen-

tlewoman from Arizona (Ms. S

INEMA

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 re-

port 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, in-

sert ‘‘(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 addi-

tional 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 recom-

mending resources above and beyond

last year’s enacted levels, but the rec-

ommended levels are significantly be-

neath 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 ad-

ministration 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 de-

serve or, worse, some of them are giv-

ing up on life altogether. It is a trav-

esty, 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.055 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2594 April 29, 2015

prioritizing funding for efforts that

will lead to timelier care for our Na-

tion’s heroes, as opposed to administra-

tive expenses.

My commonsense amendment pro-

poses redirecting a fraction of the

funds in the general administration ac-

count away from things like funding

for conference expenses and bureau-

crats and shifting those funds toward

reducing the VA claims backlog.

I urge my colleagues to support this

simple amendment to improve IT sys-

tems at the VA.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I understand the gentle-

man’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 gen-

tleman from Arizona (Mr. G

OSAR

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 other-

wise provided for, including hire of passenger

motor vehicles, reimbursement of the Gen-

eral Services Administration for security

guard services, and reimbursement of the De-

partment of Defense for the cost of overseas

employee mail, $2,697,734,000: Provided, That

expenses for services and assistance author-

ized 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 fea-

sible, to become employable and to obtain

and maintain suitable employment; or (2) to

achieve maximum independence in daily liv-

ing, shall be charged to this account: Pro-

vided further, That of the funds made avail-

able under this heading, not to exceed

$134,800,000 shall remain available until Sep-

tember 30, 2017.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

RUIZ

Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an

amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 31, line 9, after the dollar amount, in-

sert ‘‘(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

ENT

and Ranking Member B

ISHOP

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 Agen-

cies 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 mil-

lion veterans, and I am proud to rep-

resent 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, includ-

ing the fastest growing group of re-

turning veterans, women.

As our troops come home and assimi-

late back into civilian life, it is critical

that we do not abandon our veterans

when they put down their weapons; in-

stead, we must ensure they have time-

ly access to the critical benefits they

have earned and deserve.

Unconscionably, thousands of vet-

erans who have sacrificed for our coun-

try are struggling to access benefits

they have already earned. Due to the

lingering claims backlog at the Vet-

erans Health Administration, veterans

across our Nation are waiting for pen-

sions, prescription drugs, and even life-

saving 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 deci-

sion. 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 back-

log remains an enduring nightmare for

too many veterans across the country.

Reduced to a claim number and a

seemingly endless line, veterans expe-

rience 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 get-

ting veterans like Andrew Walker their

hard-earned benefits as soon as pos-

sible.

As a member of the VA Committee, I

am fighting to change the culture at

the VA from the inside out. By focus-

ing on veteran-centered care and ensur-

ing 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 addi-

tional $5 million to fund the digital

scanning of health and benefits files to

reduce the backlog by redirecting fund-

ing within the general operating ex-

penses account of the Veterans Bene-

fits Administration.

This amendment simply directs funds

toward the digital scanning of health

and benefit files that will reduce the

claims backlog without any new spend-

ing.

As an emergency medicine physician,

I understand the importance of effi-

ciency 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 prag-

matic amendment to reduce veterans

claims processing times.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-

ance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from California (Mr. R

UIZ

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 31, line 9, after the dollar amount, in-

sert ‘‘(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 sub-

committee Chairman D

ENT

and Chair-

man R

OGERS

for their work in devel-

oping this legislation to address the

current and future needs of our Na-

tion’s veterans.

I rise today to offer an amendment

that highlights the need for veterans

job training as part of this appropria-

tions bill. Simply, my amendment

would designate $5 million within the

general operating expenses of the Vet-

erans Benefits Administration account

to support programs that help our vet-

erans transition to the workforce.

Michigan is home to more than

660,000 veterans who contribute every

day to the vitality of our communities.

b1645

These men and women have devel-

oped marketable skills, from technical

training in mechanics, IT, and health

care, to leadership qualities, ethics,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.059 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2595 April 29, 2015

and problem-solving abilities, yet too

many of them struggle to find employ-

ment 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 na-

tional—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 re-

move costly ObamaCare mandates that

discourage the hiring of veterans, to

working with employers to help them

understand the benefits of hiring vet-

erans. We can certainly do more to en-

sure these brave men and women have

the opportunity for gainful employ-

ment when they return to our commu-

nities.

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 Mili-

tary Skills Translator tool to more ac-

curately reflect the transferable skills

of transitioning military veterans. The

VA should also increase public aware-

ness and access to this tool for our Na-

tion’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 serv-

ice 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 gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I know the gentleman

from Michigan has a deep commitment

to providing job training and employ-

ment assistance for our returning vet-

erans, and I support the amendment,

which highlights the importance of VA

programs that provide this assistance.

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chair-

man.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Michigan (Mr. W

ALBERG

The amendment was agreed to.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will

read.

The Clerk read as follows:

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses for information

technology systems and telecommunications

support, including developmental informa-

tion systems and operational information

systems; for pay and associated costs; and

for the capital asset acquisition of informa-

tion technology systems, including manage-

ment and related contractual costs of said

acquisitions, including contractual costs as-

sociated with operations authorized by sec-

tion 3109 of title 5, United States Code,

$4,038,363,000, plus reimbursements: Provided,

That $1,115,757,000 shall be for pay and associ-

ated 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 avail-

able until September 30, 2017: Provided fur-

ther, That $504,743,000 shall be for informa-

tion technology systems development, mod-

ernization, and enhancement, and shall re-

main available until September 30, 2017: Pro-

vided further, That amounts made available

for information technology systems develop-

ment, modernization, and enhancement may

not be obligated or expended until the Sec-

retary of Veterans Affairs or the Chief Infor-

mation Officer of the Department of Vet-

erans 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 ex-

penses, operations and maintenance, and in-

formation technology systems development,

modernization, and enhancement may be

transferred among the three subaccounts

after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs re-

quests from the Committees on Appropria-

tions of both Houses of Congress the author-

ity to make the transfer and an approval is

issued: Provided further, That amounts made

available for the ‘‘Information Technology

Systems’’ account for development, mod-

ernization, and enhancement may be trans-

ferred 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 re-

quest 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 head-

ing 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 interoper-

ability: 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 ex-

pended until the Secretary of Veterans Af-

fairs submits to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress, and

such Committees approve, a report that de-

scribes: (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 Esti-

mate, dated October 26, 2014; (2) any changes

to the scope or functionality of projects

within the VistA Evolution program as es-

tablished in the Plan; (3) actual program

costs incurred to date; (4) progress in meet-

ing the schedule milestones that have been

established in the Plan; (5) a Project Man-

agement Accountability System (PMAS)

Dashboard Progress report that identifies

each VistA Evolution project being tracked

through PMAS, what functionality it is in-

tended to provide, and what evaluation

scores it has received throughout develop-

ment; (6) the definition being used for inter-

operability between the electronic health

record systems of the Department of Defense

and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the

metrics to measure the extent of interoper-

ability, the milestones and timeline associ-

ated with achieving interoperability, and the

baseline measurements associated with

interoperability; (7) progress toward devel-

oping and implementing all components and

levels of interoperability, including semantic

interoperability; (8) the change management

tools in place to facilitate the implementa-

tion of VistA Evolution and interoperability;

and (9) any changes to the governance struc-

ture for the VistA Evolution program and its

chain of decisionmaking authority: Provided

further, That the funds made available under

this heading for information technology sys-

tems development, modernization, and en-

hancement, 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 In-

spector 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 Sep-

tember 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, architec-

tural and engineering services, construction

management services, maintenance or guar-

antee period services costs associated with

equipment guarantees provided under the

project, services of claims analysts, offsite

utility and storm drainage system construc-

tion costs, and site acquisition, where the es-

timated 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 pre-

vious 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 assess-

ments which may or may not lead to capital

investments, and other capital asset man-

agement related activities, including port-

folio development and management activi-

ties, and investment strategy studies funded

through the advance planning fund and the

planning and design activities funded

through the design fund, including needs as-

sessments which may or may not lead to

capital investments, and salaries and associ-

ated 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 Ceme-

tery Administration through the land acqui-

sition 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: Pro-

vided 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 Sep-

tember 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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.065 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2596 April 29, 2015

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

In the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—

Departmental Administration—Construc-

tion, Major Projects’’ account, strike the ag-

gregate 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 gentle-

woman from California.

Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr.

Chairman, I rise this afternoon to offer

an amendment to H.R. 2029. My amend-

ment would restore the funding for

major construction projects in the De-

partment of Veterans Affairs to $1.14

billion to meet the level that the VA

has requested.

As ranking member of the House Vet-

erans’ Affairs Subcommittee on

Health, I share the outrage of many of

my colleagues over the unacceptable

mismanagement of the VA’s major con-

struction program.

I agree that VA management must be

held accountable for their failure to

manage construction costs for the Den-

ver hospital. Congress must reform the

VA construction program so that it

uses taxpayer dollars wisely and effi-

ciently. 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 infrastruc-

ture 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 accom-

modate the growing population of vet-

erans returning home from Iraq and Af-

ghanistan, and the aging population of

veterans who served in Vietnam con-

tinues to put great stress on the VA.

Many veterans in underserved com-

munities like Ventura County are

counting on us, on Congress, to ensure

that new construction projects are de-

livered 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 loca-

tions, 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 ther-

apy building in St. Louis, Missouri,

two outpatient clinics in Alameda and

French Camp in California, and a com-

munity living center in Perry Point,

Maryland. Delaying these projects is

not the right way to honor our com-

mitment to our Nation’s veterans.

Mr. Chair, draconian funding cuts to

the VA’s major construction program

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 re-

quests in other areas, including med-

ical services, medical facilities, and in-

formation technology.

For example, the VA estimates that

at the bill’s current funding level, over

70,000 fewer veterans will receive med-

ical care compared to the administra-

tion’s request. In addition, the VA will

not be able to pay for cemetery expan-

sions 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 Vet-

erans, 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 cul-

ture of the VA and ensure that vet-

erans everywhere can get the services

and benefits they have earned, Con-

gress 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 coun-

try 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 con-

sent 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 invest-

ments, architectural and engineering serv-

ices, maintenance or guarantee period serv-

ices costs associated with equipment guaran-

tees 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 other-

wise 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’’ appropria-

tions 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)

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 dis-

aster or catastrophe; and (2) temporary

measures necessary to prevent or to mini-

mize 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 domi-

ciliary facilities and to remodel, modify, or

alter existing hospital, nursing home, and

domiciliary facilities in State homes, for fur-

nishing 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 orga-

nizations in establishing, expanding, or im-

proving veterans cemeteries as authorized by

section 2408 of title 38, United States Code,

$45,000,000, to remain available until ex-

pended.

DMINISTRATIVE

ROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year

2016 for ‘‘Compensation and Pensions’’, ‘‘Re-

adjustment Benefits’’, and ‘‘Veterans Insur-

ance and Indemnities’’ may be transferred as

necessary to any other of the mentioned ap-

propriations: 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)

. 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’’ ac-

counts may be transferred among the ac-

counts: Provided, That any transfers between

the ‘‘Medical Services’’ and ‘‘Medical Sup-

port 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 Com-

mittees 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 ‘‘Med-

ical Support and Compliance’’ accounts in

excess of 1 percent, or exceeding the cumu-

lative 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: Pro-

vided 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.

. 203. Appropriations available in this

title for salaries and expenses shall be avail-

able 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.

. 204. No appropriations in this title

(except the appropriations for ‘‘Construc-

tion, Major Projects’’, and ‘‘Construction,

Minor Projects’’) shall be available for the

purchase of any site for or toward the con-

struction of any new hospital or home.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.067 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2597 April 29, 2015

. 205. No appropriations in this title

shall be available for hospitalization or ex-

amination of any persons (except bene-

ficiaries 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 Emer-

gency 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.

. 206. Appropriations available in this

title for ‘‘Compensation and Pensions’’, ‘‘Re-

adjustment Benefits’’, and ‘‘Veterans Insur-

ance 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.

. 207. Appropriations available in this

title shall be available to pay prior year obli-

gations of corresponding prior year appro-

priations 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 Pen-

sions’’.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 208. Notwithstanding any other provi-

sion of law, during fiscal year 2016, the Sec-

retary 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 Ben-

efits 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 pro-

gram after claims have been paid and actu-

arially determined reserves have been set

aside: Provided further, That if the cost of ad-

ministration of such an insurance program

exceeds the amount of surplus earnings accu-

mulated in that program, reimbursement

shall be made only to the extent of such sur-

plus earnings: Provided further, That the Sec-

retary shall determine the cost of adminis-

tration for fiscal year 2016 which is properly

allocable to the provision of each such insur-

ance program and to the provision of any

total disability income insurance included in

that insurance program.

. 209. Amounts deducted from en-

hanced-use lease proceeds to reimburse an

account for expenses incurred by that ac-

count during a prior fiscal year for providing

enhanced-use lease services, may be obli-

gated during the fiscal year in which the pro-

ceeds are received.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 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 Of-

fice of Employment Discrimination Com-

plaint Adjudication under section 319 of title

38, United States Code, for all services pro-

vided 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-

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’’ ac-

counts for use by the office that provided the

service.

. 211. No appropriations in this title

shall be available to enter into any new lease

of real property if the estimated annual rent-

al cost is more than $1,000,000, unless the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits a re-

quest to enter into such lease to the Com-

mittees on Appropriations of both Houses of

Congress and (1) the Committees approve the

request; or (2) the Committees have not re-

jected the request before the date that is 15

days after the date on which the request is

received.

. 212. No funds of the Department of

Veterans Affairs shall be available for hos-

pital care, nursing home care, or medical

services provided to any person under chap-

ter 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 Vet-

erans 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 dis-

closure as required: Provided further, That

any amounts so recovered for care or serv-

ices 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)

. 213. Notwithstanding any other provi-

sion of law, proceeds or revenues derived

from enhanced-use leasing activities (includ-

ing disposal) may be deposited into the

‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’ and ‘‘Con-

struction, Minor Projects’’ accounts and be

used for construction (including site acquisi-

tion and disposition), alterations, and im-

provements 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 ‘‘Con-

struction, Minor Projects’’.

. 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.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 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 Serv-

ices’’, to remain available until expended for

the purposes of that account.

. 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 In-

dian Self Determination and Educational As-

sistance Act, to provide healthcare, includ-

ing behavioral health and dental care. The

Secretary shall require participating vet-

erans and facilities to comply with all appro-

priate rules and regulations, as established

by the Secretary. The term ‘‘rural Alaska’’

shall mean those lands sited within the ex-

ternal boundaries of the Alaska Native re-

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 spec-

ified 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 with-

in the boundaries of the municipality of An-

chorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough,

the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the

Matanuska Susitna Borough.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 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 pur-

poses of these accounts.

. 218. None of the funds made available

in this title may be used to implement any

policy prohibiting the Directors of the Vet-

erans Integrated Service Networks from con-

ducting outreach or marketing to enroll new

veterans within their respective Networks.

. 219. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

shall submit to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress a quar-

terly report on the financial status of the

Veterans Health Administration.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 220. Amounts made available under

the ‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical Support

and Compliance’’, ‘‘Medical Facilities’’,

‘‘General Operating Expenses, Veterans Ben-

efits Administration’’, ‘‘General Administra-

tion’’, and ‘‘National Cemetery Administra-

tion’’ 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’’ ac-

count: Provided further, That before a trans-

fer may take place, the Secretary of Vet-

erans Affairs shall request from the Commit-

tees on Appropriations of both Houses of

Congress the authority to make the transfer

and an approval is issued.

. 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 non-

recurring 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 writ-

ten notice to the Committees on Appropria-

tions of both Houses of Congress.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 222. Of the amounts appropriated to

the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal

year 2016 for ‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical

Support and Compliance’’, ‘‘Medical Facili-

ties’’, ‘‘Construction, Minor Projects’’, and

‘‘Information Technology Systems’’, up to

$266,303,000, plus reimbursements, may be

transferred to the Joint Department of De-

fense-Department of Veterans Affairs Med-

ical Facility Demonstration Fund, estab-

lished by section 1704 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub-

lic Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be

used for operation of the facilities des-

ignated as combined Federal medical facili-

ties 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.063 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2598 April 29, 2015

written notification by the Secretary of Vet-

erans Affairs to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress: Pro-

vided further, That section 223 of Title II of

Division I of Public Law 113-235 is repealed.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 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 De-

fense-Department of Veterans Affairs Med-

ical Facility Demonstration Fund, estab-

lished by section 1704 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub-

lic Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be

used for operation of the facilities des-

ignated as combined Federal medical facili-

ties 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 Vet-

erans Affairs to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 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 fa-

cilities as described by section 706 of the

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authoriza-

tion 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, es-

tablished by section 1704 of the National De-

fense 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 de-

scribed by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter

National Defense Authorization Act for Fis-

cal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 Stat.

4500).

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 225. Of the amounts available in this

title for ‘‘Medical Services’’, ‘‘Medical Sup-

port and Compliance’’, and ‘‘Medical Facili-

ties’’, 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.

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

. 226. (a) Of the funds appropriated in

title II of division I of Public Law 113–235,

the following amounts which became avail-

able on October 1, 2015, are hereby rescinded

from the following accounts in the amounts

specified:

(1) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Med-

ical Services’’, $1,400,000,000.

(2) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Med-

ical Support and Compliance’’, $100,000,000.

(3) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Med-

ical Facilities’’, $250,000,000.

(b) In addition to amounts provided else-

where 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, Med-

ical Services’’, $1,400,000,000.

(2) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Med-

ical Support and Compliance’’, $100,000,000.

(3) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs, Med-

ical Facilities’’, $250,000,000.

. 227. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

shall notify the Committees on Appropria-

tions 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 pro-

grammed amount of the project, whichever

is less.

. 228. None of the funds made available

for ‘‘Construction, Major Projects’’ may be

used for a project in excess of the scope spec-

ified for that project in the original jus-

tification data provided to the Congress as

part of the request for appropriations unless

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs receives

approval from the Committees on Appropria-

tions of both Houses of Congress.

. 229. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

shall submit to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress a quar-

terly report that contains the following in-

formation from each Veterans Benefits Ad-

ministration 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 per-

formance; (6) training programs undertaken;

and (7) the number and results of Quality Re-

view Team audits: Provided, That each quar-

terly report shall be submitted no later than

30 days after the end of the respective quar-

ter.

b1700

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

LAMALFA

Mr. L

MALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have

an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 53, line 2, strike ‘‘and’’ after the semi-

colon.

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. L

MALFA. Mr. Chair, each quar-

ter the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

must submit a report that includes sev-

eral metrics from every VA regional of-

fice to the House and Senate Appro-

priations Committees. The report in-

cludes 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 re-

ceive 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 Sec-

retary, and this amendment simply re-

quires that that be done; therefore, giv-

ing Congress and veterans a better pic-

ture of what that load would be and

then we can address that appro-

priately. So that is the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. L

MALFA. I yield to the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I support the amendment.

Mr. L

MALFA. 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 gen-

tleman from California (Mr. L

ALFA

The amendment was agreed to.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will

read.

The Clerk read as follows:

. 230. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

shall submit to the Committees on Appro-

priations of both Houses of Congress a re-

programming 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 cor-

responding congressional budget justifica-

tion. Amounts may only be reprogrammed as

requested under this section if (1) the Com-

mittees on Appropriations of both Houses of

Congress approve the request; or (2) the Com-

mittees have not rejected the request before

the date that is 15 days after the date on

which the request is received.

. 231. Of the funds provided to the De-

partment 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 ‘‘Med-

ical Services’’ account and a maximum of

$154,596,000 may be obligated from the ‘‘Med-

ical 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 Com-

mittees on Appropriations of both Houses of

Congress.

. 232. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

shall provide written notification to the

Committees on Appropriations of both

Houses of Congress 15 days prior to organiza-

tional changes which result in the transfer of

25 or more full-time equivalents from one or-

ganizational unit of the Department of Vet-

erans Affairs to another.

(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

. 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 Com-

mittees 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.

. 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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.063 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2599 April 29, 2015

. 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 Inte-

grated Service Networks select and contract

for diabetes monitoring supplies and equip-

ment.

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 236. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

upon determination that such action is nec-

essary to address needs of the Veterans

Health Administration, may transfer to the

‘‘Medical Services’’ account any discre-

tionary appropriations made available for

fiscal year 2016 in this title (except appro-

priations made to the ‘‘General Operating

Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administra-

tion’’ account) or any discretionary unobli-

gated balances within the Department of

Veterans Affairs, including those appro-

priated for fiscal year 2016, that were pro-

vided in advance by appropriations Acts: Pro-

vided, That transfers shall be made only with

the approval of the Office of Management

and Budget: Provided further, That the trans-

fer authority provided in this section is in

addition to any other transfer authority pro-

vided by law: Provided further, That no

amounts may be transferred from amounts

that were designated by Congress as an

emergency requirement pursuant to a con-

current resolution on the budget or the Bal-

anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985: Provided further, That such au-

thority 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 fur-

ther, That, upon determination that all or

part of the funds transferred from an appro-

priation are not necessary, such amounts

may be transferred back to that appropria-

tion and shall be available for the same pur-

poses as originally appropriated: Provided

further, That before a transfer may take

place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall

request from the Committees on Appropria-

tions of both Houses of Congress the author-

ity to make the transfer and receive ap-

proval 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.

OWENTHAL

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 congres-

sional 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 ap-

peals 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 At-

tendance claims, particularly with re-

gard to elderly, frail veterans with rap-

idly declining health issues. And ap-

proval is slow and sometimes comes,

actually, too late, allowing the vet-

erans to suffer for no reason.

This year, I had a 100 percent service-

connected 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 shoul-

der. 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 case-

worker 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 re-

ceived 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 suf-

fer 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 emer-

gencies to occur.

Last year, I encouraged the Depart-

ment to use its funding to hire addi-

tional staff and stated that I do not be-

lieve 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 em-

ployees, 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 request-

ing 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 tak-

ing as long as 2 years for resolution.

The VA is encouraging veterans to use

electronic benefits, eBenefits, though

many Vietnam-era veterans need as-

sistance with this technology.

Mr. Chair, in closing, when we ask

America’s veterans to serve their coun-

try and sacrifice their lives on our be-

half, our Nation needs to make a prom-

ise 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 re-

sponsibility which must happen. I

pledge my continued support to work

with Secretary McDonald and the De-

partment of Veterans Affairs, my col-

leagues, 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.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will

read.

The Clerk read as follows:

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

. 237. Amounts made available for the

Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal

year 2016, under the ‘‘Board of Veterans Ap-

peals’’ 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 Appropria-

tions of both Houses of Congress the author-

ity to make the transfer and receive ap-

proval from such Committees for such re-

quest.

(RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

. 238. Of the unobligated balances avail-

able within the ‘‘DOD–VA Health Care Shar-

ing Incentive Fund’’, $15,000,000 are hereby

rescinded.

. 239. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

may not reprogram funds among major con-

struction projects or programs if such in-

stance of reprogramming will exceed

$5,000,000, unless such reprogramming is ap-

proved by the Committees on Appropriations

of both Houses of Congress.

(RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

. 240. Of the discretionary funds made

available in Public Law 113-235 for the De-

partment 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 Fa-

cilities’’.

. 241. The amounts otherwise made

available by this Act for the following ac-

counts 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 Pro-

gram Account’’, $25,000.

(4) ‘‘Veterans Health Administration—

Medical and Prosthetic Research’’, $3,109,000.

(5) ‘‘National Cemetery Administration’’,

$1,654,000.

(6) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Gen-

eral Administration’’, $3,877,000.

(7) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Board

of Veterans Appeals’’, $786,000.

(8) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Gen-

eral Operating Expenses, Veterans Benefits

Administration’’, $36,568,000.

(9) ‘‘Departmental Administration—Infor-

mation 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:

. 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 Commu-

nity-Based Outpatient Clinic to be estab-

lished by the Department of Veterans Af-

fairs, through construction or lease, that is

not yet completed.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a

point of order on the gentleman’s

amendment.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A29AP7.069 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2600 April 29, 2015

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 Con-

gress on the status of VA clinics cur-

rently 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 com-

plete these projects.

In Traverse City, Michigan, an ex-

pansion 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 fi-

nally approved by the VA in August of

2014. To this day, the VA has yet to

make measurable progress on this fa-

cility, and they have told me that it

could be as many as 6 more years be-

fore this facility is completed.

Our veterans deserve to know how

many facilities are facing similar

delays. As we work to enforce some ac-

countability at the VA, we can’t ignore

our rural veterans that rely on VA

clinics. The VA must be held account-

able 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 ex-

pand that program. However, it is crit-

ical that we do not allow the VA to

hold veterans and taxpayers in limbo

as critical, funded projects sit unfin-

ished.

The money we provided in this bill is

not for plush executive salaries and full

retirement benefits for those that ma-

nipulate data. It is for our veterans.

The VA must return to its focus, to its

central mission and remove bureau-

cratic hurdles that keep veterans from

the care they have earned.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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, vio-

lates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

‘‘An amendment to a general appro-

priation bill shall not be in order if

changing existing law.’’

The amendment gives affirmative di-

rection 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?

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, con-

stitutes 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

MERICAN

ATTLE

ONUMENTS

OMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses, not otherwise pro-

vided for, of the American Battle Monu-

ments Commission, including the acquisition

of land or interest in land in foreign coun-

tries; purchases and repair of uniforms for

caretakers of national cemeteries and monu-

ments 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 representa-

tion expenses; and insurance of official

motor vehicles in foreign countries, when re-

quired by law of such countries, $75,100,000,

to remain available until expended.

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS ACCOUNT

For necessary expenses, not otherwise pro-

vided for, of the American Battle Monu-

ments Commission, such sums as may be

necessary, to remain available until ex-

pended, for purposes authorized by section

2109 of title 36, United States Code.

NITED

TATES

OURT OF

PPEALS FOR

ETERANS

LAIMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for the operation of

the United States Court of Appeals for Vet-

erans 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 finan-

cial assistance as described, and in accord-

ance with the process and reporting proce-

dures set forth, under this heading in Public

Law 102–229.

EPARTMENT OF

EFENSE

—C

IVIL

EMETERIAL

XPENSES

, A

RMY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses for maintenance,

operation, and improvement of Arlington

National Cemetery and Soldiers’ and Air-

men’s Home National Cemetery, including

the purchase or lease of passenger motor ve-

hicles for replacement on a one-for-one basis

only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official re-

ception 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 nec-

essary for parking maintenance, repairs and

replacement, to be derived from the ‘‘Lease

of Department of Defense Real Property for

Defense Agencies’’ account.

RMED

ORCES

ETIREMENT

OME

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 ex-

pended for construction and renovation of

the physical plants at the Armed Forces Re-

tirement Home—Washington, District of Co-

lumbia, and the Armed Forces Retirement

Home—Gulfport, Mississippi.

DMINISTRATIVE

ROVISIONS

. 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, mak-

ing additional land available for ground bur-

ials.

. 302. Amounts deposited during the

current fiscal year into the special account

established under 10 U.S.C. 4727 are appro-

priated and shall be available until expended

to support activities at the Army National

Military Cemeteries.

TITLE IV

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ILITARY

ONSTRUCTION

, N

AVY AND

ARINE

ORPS

For an additional amount for ‘‘Military

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps’’,

$244,004,000 to remain available until Sep-

tember 30, 2020, for projects outside of the

United States: Provided, That such amount is

designated by the Congress for Overseas Con-

tingency Operations/Global War on Ter-

rorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985.

b1715

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I

have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port 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 con-

trol 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from South Carolina.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I

want to read something at the begin-

ning of this:

‘‘Abuse of the overseas contingency

operation global war on terror cap ad-

justment 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 De-

fense admits are not war related. These

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.075 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2601 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 ad-

mittedly 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 over-

seas bases, bases in Italy, Poland, Bah-

rain, Niger, Djibouti, and Oman, admit-

ted 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 appropria-

tions 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 for-

ward.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I re-

spectfully request that folks would

support the Mulvaney-Van Hollen

amendment and strike the OCO-GWOT

money from this particular appropria-

tions bill.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve

the balance of my time.

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 other-

wise 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My under-

standing of this is it strikes the provi-

sion and, therefore, meets the require-

ments. 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 Repub-

licans 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. Chair-

man, 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 re-

marks to the point of order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So it is hard to

understand how this could be a viola-

tion 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 par-

ticular amendment?

The Acting CHAIR. The point of

order has been stated. The Chair has

not yet ruled.

Mr. MULVANEY. Would the gen-

tleman 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 con-

sidered.

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 par-

ticular amendment and, in fact, may be

out of order if I don’t offer it right

now.

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is pre-

pared 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. Mr. Chairman,

parliamentary inquiry, just so I under-

stand the ruling.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman

from Maryland may state his par-

liamentary inquiry.

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 para-

graph 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 pend-

ing?

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 consid-

ered 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 in-

quiry, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman

may state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MULVANEY. Is the ruling with-

out 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 amend-

ment 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 gen-

tleman 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 in-

quiry, 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?

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.125 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2602 April 29, 2015

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair was in-

quiring as to the purpose the gen-

tleman was seeking recognition.

Mr. MULVANEY. Further parliamen-

tary 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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

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. M

ULVANEY

. 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 be-

tween 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 over-

seas contingency account funds.

What has happened here is that the

President, on the advice of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff and our military leader-

ship, has requested the amount that is

necessary to address our overseas con-

tingency 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 indi-

cated that it violated the budget proc-

ess.

I am going to read another portion of

the Republican Budget Committee re-

port from last year on this issue where

it says the Budget Committee will ex-

ercise its oversight responsibilities

with respect to the use of the OCO, the

overseas contingency account, designa-

tion in the budget process, and it will

oppose increases above the level the

administration and our military com-

manders say are necessary to carry out

operations. And then it goes on, be-

cause those are not war related.

So what this House is doing now is

engaging in this incredible sleight of

hand, and it is only one big problem in

the budget before us, along with many

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 en-

list 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 sci-

entific research, we could do them a

service. If this amendment, in fact, en-

couraged 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 in-

quire as to how much time is remain-

ing?

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania (Mr. D

ENT

) has 1

minute remaining. The gentleman

from Oregon (Mr. B

LUMENAUER

) has 1

minute remaining.

Mr. DENT. At this time, I yield the

balance of my time to the distin-

guished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.

LEMING

Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend,

the chairman, for yielding.

As a practicing physician and a vet-

eran 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 schiz-

ophrenia, a permanent mental disorder,

is enhanced by pot by a factor of two—

double.

Why in the world would we give a

drug that is addictive, that is prohib-

ited under schedule I, that is not ac-

cepted 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 abso-

lutely 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 Ameri-

cans 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 pre-

scribe significantly more opiates,

which are highly addictive, to patients

with PTSD and depression than other

veterans, even though those people suf-

fering those conditions are more at

risk of overdose and suicide.

Get your facts straight. I am happy

to do more research; I have work com-

ing forward, but, in the meantime,

don’t treat these veterans as second

class citizens.

If you want to be concerned, be con-

cerned about the explosion of addictive

drugs that are being prescribed to peo-

ple 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 gen-

tleman from Oregon (Mr. B

MENAUER

The question was taken; and the Act-

ing Chair announced that the noes ap-

peared to have it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I

demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro-

ceedings 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 fol-

lows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. None of the funds made available

by this Act may be used to carry out the Ap-

praised Value Offer program of the Depart-

ment 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.099 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2610 April 29, 2015

VA’s abused Appraised Value Offer Pro-

gram 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 tax-

payer money to move a VA employee

140 miles, specifically from Wash-

ington, 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 uni-

form, 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 em-

ployees and $211,000 to a Federal con-

tractor that was tasked with selling

that employee’s home.

At a time when the VA is struggling

to meet the medical needs of our vet-

erans, 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 fail-

ure to properly care for veterans, and

now, to spend $300,000 on this is abso-

lutely 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 mis-

management at the VA. Our veterans

must be the VA’s first priority, not its

bureaucrats.

I would like to thank House Vet-

erans’ Affairs Committee Chairman

EFF

ILLER

for shedding light on this

important issue and holding the VA ac-

countable for failing to put veterans

first.

I urge my colleagues to support this

amendment and to end this outrageous

abuse within the Department of Vet-

erans Affairs.

b1830

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 amend-

ment. He raised the Philadelphia issue.

I am very much aware of it and cer-

tainly concerned about it, and I under-

stand 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 employ-

ing 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

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 gen-

tleman from Texas (Mr. B

ABIN

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and

(3), amounts made available under the ‘‘Gen-

eral 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 es-

tablish 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 pro-

viders, and has a metrics system to effec-

tively 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 Oper-

ating Expenses, Veterans Benefits Adminis-

tration’’ account.

(3) Each grant made under paragraph (1)

shall be subject to the approval of the Com-

mittees 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 op-

posed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentle-

woman from North Carolina.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want to

thank Chairman D

ENT

and Ranking

Member B

ISHOP

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 mili-

tary families.

The U.S. Department of Veteran Af-

fairs 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-

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 ap-

plying 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 commu-

nity-based groups work collaboratively

with local, State, and Federal Govern-

ment service providers so that recipi-

ents 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 ac-

countable and that performance meas-

ures 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 net-

works would include private, public,

and nonprofit partners who are quali-

fied to serve veterans and their fami-

lies.

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 Meck-

lenburg, Cabarrus, Rowan, Davidson,

Forsyth, and Guilford Counties, have

noted that they have difficulties find-

ing and accessing the services that are

available to them and their families.

As more servicemen and -women

come home from serving overseas, Con-

gress must support innovation and

local solutions to providing services for

our Nation’s veterans.

I thank the chairman and the rank-

ing member for allowing me to present

my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-

sent 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 fol-

lows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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 op-

posed 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 vet-

erans and their families. We owe these

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.102 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2611 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 sac-

rifices to their health, to their well-

being, and to their families. They ful-

filled 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 impor-

tant.

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 re-

ceive 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 M

ILLER

, Congress-

man M

IKE

OFFMAN

, and the rest of my

colleagues on the Veterans’ Affairs

Committee have been doing to see that,

despite our efforts to reform and im-

prove 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 back-

logged, whistleblowers are still being

retaliated against, and reckless, waste-

ful spending has reached new levels.

For example, in my home State of

Pennsylvania, the inspector general re-

cently conducted an investigation at

the Philadelphia regional office after

receiving numerous complaints that

there was data manipulation and that

management was mistreating and re-

taliating against staff. The IG con-

firmed a number of these allegations

and found tens of thousands of unan-

swered veteran inquiries.

Many of us are also familiar with the

VA Hospital project in Aurora, Colo-

rado. Over a decade ago, veterans in

Denver were promised a new medical

facility; yet, due to gross mismanage-

ment, the project is well behind sched-

ule and is now going to cost taxpayers

more than $1 billion over budget.

To his credit, Secretary McDonald

has publicly recognized many of his De-

partment’s failings, has spoken of in-

creased transparency and account-

ability, and acknowledges that a

wholesale culture change will be nec-

essary. But this transformation has not

yet occurred, and accountability is cer-

tainly still lacking.

To date, only a few of the senior ex-

ecutives who have been found respon-

sible 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.

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 tax-

payer-funded bonuses to senior execu-

tives of an organization with this sort

of abysmal performance record are ri-

diculous. 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 activi-

ties and pass the sorts of reforms that

are included in bills brought to the

floor by Chairman M

ILLER

and the Vet-

erans’ Affairs Committee. However,

while we do that, we also need to en-

sure 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 M

LER

and Congressmen F

ITZPATRICK

ELLY

, T

IPTON

, C

RAWFORD

, and

UELSKAMP

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 gen-

tleman 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 per-

formance bonus awards. The gentle-

man’s amendment is the most com-

prehensive, and I would encourage

other Members to join with Mr.

OTHFUS

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 per-

formance bonuses is a needed wake-up

call to the VA bureaucracy which, as

we have seen, needs to change its cul-

ture to ensure veterans’ needs are their

top priority.

I support the amendment.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chair-

man.

I yield my remaining time to the

gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.

RAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. I will make it

quick, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of this amendment.

Just last year, the House voted unani-

mously 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-

tion, later, both Chambers voted to re-

instate 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 behav-

ior 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 sig-

nificant improvements are made to-

ward 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 inoper-

able 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 Ap-

propriations Act are used to pay per-

formance awards to VA senior officials.

I encourage its passage.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the

gentleman has expired.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, we are all outraged with regard

to the claims backlog and the

incidences of poor quality health serv-

ices 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 rat-

ings 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 un-

acceptable. 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 con-

sequences and compound the very prob-

lems that it attempts to address. This

amendment would make the VA a less

attractive option than other agencies

when it comes to recruiting and retain-

ing 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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.107 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2612 April 29, 2015

Attempting to do an across-the-

board, 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 bal-

ance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.

OTHFUS

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. None of the funds made available

by this Act for benefits for homeless vet-

erans 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.

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 gentle-

woman from Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the chairman and ranking mem-

ber 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 empha-

size, 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 elimi-

nating 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 pri-

ority.

b1845

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 med-

ical issues—vets are becoming home-

less every day.

My amendment will help remind us

of our obligation to provide our vet-

erans the assistance needed to avoid

homelessness, which includes ade-

quately funding the program for Vet-

erans Affairs Supportive Housing and,

as well, to be able to ensure those cen-

ters are there for our veterans.

Today in our country, we have men-

tioned the numbers of veterans that

exist: 100,000 veterans, male and fe-

male, 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 Au-

thority to work on the Homeless Vet-

erans Project.

But this amendment is to, again, es-

tablish in this important legislation

the idea that we must fight for our vet-

erans, and we must ensure that every

year, we take the temperature of the

Nation’s homeless vets, the tempera-

ture that says, if it is high, the num-

bers 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 Meth-

odist 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 Penn-

sylvania.

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 obliga-

tion 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 De-

partment of Veteran Affairs—Benefits for

Homeless Veterans and Training and Out-

reach 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 D

ENT

and

Ranking Member B

ISHOP

for their hard work in

shepherding this important legislation to the

floor.

I offer the Jackson Lee Amendment be-

cause 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 pri-

orities.

Homelessness among the American veteran

population is on the rise in the United States

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 assist-

ance needed to avoid homelessness, which

includes adequately funding for programs Vet-

erans Administration Supportive Housing

VASH) that provide case-management serv-

ices, adequate housing facilities, mental health

support, and address other areas that con-

tribute to veteran homelessness.

VASH is a jointly-administered permanent

supportive housing program for disabled Vet-

erans 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 approxi-

mately 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 re-

mains a big challenge.

In my hometown of Houston for example,

between the years 2010 and 2012, the num-

ber 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 suc-

ceeded 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 congres-

sional 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 af-

fordable housing and medical services that will

help them get back on their feet.

Mr. Chair, we cannot let this issue of home-

lessness 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 gen-

tlewoman from Texas (Ms. J

ACKSON

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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.108 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2613 April 29, 2015

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will

designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-

lows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. Not more than $4,400,000 of the

funds provided by this Act under the heading

‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—Depart-

mental Administration—General Adminis-

tration’’ may be used for the Office of Con-

gressional and Legislative Affairs, and the

amount otherwise provided under such head-

ing 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’ Af-

fairs’ 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 in-

formation to prevent negative news

from being made public. Unfortunately,

as many veterans can tell you, timeli-

ness is not a word the VA understands

or cares to learn.

In VA’s budget submission, they as-

sert: ‘‘The mission of OCLA is to im-

prove the lives of veterans and their

families by advancing pro-veteran leg-

islation and maintaining responsive

and effective communications with

Congress.’’

As of April 24, the Committee on Vet-

erans’ Affairs had 78 outstanding re-

quests for information with OCLA, and

over half of these have been pending for

over 60 days. On average, it is now tak-

ing 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 respon-

sive 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 Man-

agement 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 re-

sponses.

The current delays in getting infor-

mation to Congress is not a new phe-

nomenon, as the VA Committee has

now held three separate hearings that

have exposed VA’s lack of transparency

to Congress and showed that even when

we do receive information we have re-

quested, it is so old or so heavily re-

dacted that it is basically useless.

These requests are critically impor-

tant to Congress’ role in providing

meaningful oversight over the second-

largest agency in the Federal Govern-

ment. It is our duty to be a strong

check on the executive branch. While

Secretary McDonald is trying every-

thing he can to change the culture at

the VA, Congress must send a message

that providing answers to our ques-

tions 69 days after we have requested it

is simply unacceptable to us, unaccept-

able to the taxpayers, and, most impor-

tantly, it is unacceptable to the vet-

erans. Passage of this amendment

would send that message.

I thank Chairman D

ENT

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 sup-

port of the gentleman’s amendment.

I certainly share Dr. R

’s frustra-

tion with the VA Congressional and

Legislative Affairs Office stalling the

delivery of important information Con-

gress has requested to fulfill its over-

sight 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 appropria-

tions bill.

So, again, I support your amend-

ment.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman,

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania (Mr. C

OSTELLO

) to speak

on the amendment.

Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, I rise today in support of

Dr. R

’s amendment to address the

lack of accountability and trans-

parency 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 Com-

mittee 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 out-

standing. Back in December, as part of

the committee’s continued investiga-

tion into malfeasance at the Philadel-

phia RO, the committee requested cop-

ies of all EEO complaints and MSBP

files that have been filed at this loca-

tion 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 re-

view. It is now 5 months later, and

after numerous requests, we have only

received a few of the files we requested.

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 reason-

able, relevant requests is unacceptable.

There has to be accountability. This

amendment does that. It does not im-

pact or diminish in any way the treat-

ment and care of our veterans. I urge

adoption of Dr. R

’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 counter-

productive. 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 gen-

tleman from Tennessee (Mr. R

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 amend-

ment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. None of the funds made available

in this Act may be used to withhold any re-

port of an Inspector General from any mem-

ber of Congress in any case where the mem-

ber of Congress has requested that such re-

port 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 amend-

ment we are talking about here.

The Acting CHAIR. Objection is

heard.

The Clerk will report the amend-

ment.

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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.112 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2614 April 29, 2015

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chair, I thank Sub-

committee Chairman D

ENT

and Rank-

ing Member B

ISHOP

for all of their

work on this bill.

This amendment is a simple amend-

ment to make sure that Members of

Congress have access to inspector gen-

eral reports, should they request one.

We recently came across this issue

when there was a bipartisan field hear-

ing in Tomah, Wisconsin, regarding the

Tomah VA facility.

The Veterans Affairs Office of Inspec-

tor 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 Gen-

eral completed a report that uncovered

these practices, and they gave the rec-

ommendations to the local and re-

gional manager. However, the report

and these recommendations were never

reported to the Department of Vet-

erans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald,

any congressional committees of juris-

diction, or the public, as the report was

administratively closed. What is more,

the initial report was requested by a

Member of the House of Representa-

tives, and the VA Office of Inspector

General failed to even provide the com-

pleted report to the Member of Con-

gress.

Ultimately, that Member of Congress

had to do a Freedom of Information re-

quest, 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 Sec-

retary of the Department of Veterans

Affairs or from the Members of Con-

gress 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 avail-

able to every Member of Congress. This

amendment would simply make sure

that no funds can be expended in with-

holding a report, as this report was in

the State of Wisconsin.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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, vio-

lates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

‘‘An amendment to a general appro-

priation 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 requir-

ing a new determination by the rel-

evant executive branch official of the

current membership of a body in the

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.

b1900

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS

NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I have an

amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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 Land-

mark 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 op-

posed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentle-

woman from South Dakota.

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, the De-

partment of Veterans Affairs is en-

trusted with the protection of a mul-

titude of historic facilities. As I noted

last year during debate on the VA’s

budget, the National Trust for Historic

Preservation has found serious defi-

ciencies 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 Da-

kota.

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 fa-

cilities located in rural areas.

I thank the chairman and his staff

for all of their assistance on this

amendment, and I urge everyone’s sup-

port 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 determina-

tion to move services out of historic fa-

cilities into a new geographic area. We

had language in last year’s bill forcing

the VA to do a full analysis of the con-

sequences of the facility moving.

I have no objection to including the

amendment Representative N

OEM

is of-

fering this year.

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman. I

appreciate those words of support. It

certainly is important to the veterans

in our State and in many States across

the country that often find it very dif-

ficult 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 bal-

ance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs.

OEM

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

. 5ll. None of the funds made avail-

able 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, hope-

fully, the second time is the charm.

This is an amendment on behalf of my-

self, Representative E

LLISON

, 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 govern-

ment’s contracting database.

No hard-working American should

ever have to worry that their employer

will refuse to pay his or her work, over-

time, or take money out of their pay-

check, 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 short-

ing 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.115 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2615 April 29, 2015

by the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration of the Department of

Labor between 2007 and 2012, and al-

most half of the total initial penalty

dollars assessed for OSHA violations

were against companies holding Fed-

eral contracts in 2012.

Overall, 49 Federal contractors re-

sponsible for large violations of Fed-

eral labor laws were cited for 1,776 sep-

arate violations of these laws and paid

$196 million in penalties and assess-

ments; 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 contrac-

tors take advantage of their employ-

ees. 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 any-

more. Those contractors who engage in

wage theft should not be rewarded with

contracts to do business with the Fed-

eral Government.

This was included in last year’s ap-

propriation. We would appreciate con-

sideration again in this year’s appro-

priation, to make sure that we are pro-

tecting 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 amend-

ment.

Mr. WALBERG. Will the gentleman

yield?

Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman

from Michigan.

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chair-

man. 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 indi-

vidual 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 protec-

tions, including wage and overtime

pay, shouldn’t be rewarded with gov-

ernment 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 ques-

tion is: Has anyone suggested the cur-

rent process isn’t working? I don’t be-

lieve so, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier this year, we held a joint sub-

committee hearing, in fact, on this

issue in relation to the President’s ex-

ecutive order that functions to black-

list Federal contractors for alleged

Federal and State labor law violations,

including the FLSA.

The committee received a substan-

tial load of evidence regarding the in-

herent flaws of the President’s execu-

tive order, which, like this amendment,

supersedes agencies’ current authority

to exclude problematic contractors,

causing significant delays and disrup-

tion to the Federal procurement sys-

tem.

There is agreement on both sides of

the aisle that the FLSA is the corner-

stone of workers’ wage and hour pro-

tections, but in many ways, the regula-

tions 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 prac-

tices and doesn’t fit with the 21st cen-

tury workplace.

A report by the Government Ac-

countability Office found that litiga-

tion stemming from FLSA claims con-

tinues 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 func-

tions, and present regulations that

don’t even fit with FLSA.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my col-

leagues 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 amend-

ment that is being offered, they would

be held at risk as well.

It is not an amendment that is need-

ed; it is an amendment that will dis-

rupt the process, and it is an amend-

ment 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 gen-

tleman. I was at the hearing, and I

heard the conversation that was there.

The difference we had is that the hear-

ing—I understand there was a disagree-

ment with the executive order, but I

would hate for us to confuse the dis-

agreement 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 under-

standing; 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 contrac-

tors 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 con-

tractors; we should be protecting the

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 busi-

ness 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 work-

ers 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 amend-

ment. 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 reg-

ulations 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 struc-

ture.

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 gen-

tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. P

OCAN

The question was taken; and the Act-

ing Chair announced that the noes ap-

peared to have it.

Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand

a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro-

ceedings 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 fol-

lows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

. 5ll. None of the funds made avail-

able by this Act may be used to propose, plan

for, or execute a new or additional Base Re-

alignment and Closure (BRAC) round.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to

House Resolution 223, the gentleman

from Texas (Mr. R

ATCLIFFE

) and a

Member opposed each will control 5

minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Texas.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.120 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2616 April 29, 2015

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to thank Chairman D

ENT

and Ranking Member B

ISHOP

for their

hard work on behalf of the 57,000 vet-

erans in my district and on behalf of

veterans and servicemembers across

the country.

I am also grateful for the support of

Congressmen M

RTHUR

, H

URD

, and

ORCROSS

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 rep-

resent the Fourth Congressional Dis-

trict 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 environ-

ment, we need to be careful stewards of

taxpayer dollars and focus our limited

resources on addressing critical na-

tional security objectives and military

readiness. Having another round of

BRAC won’t help us achieve this goal.

In fact, the Government Account-

ability Office reports that the last

round of BRAC in 2005 cost the Amer-

ican taxpayers $35.1 billion, which was

67 percent more than the original cost

estimate.

At the same time, the expected sav-

ings 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 gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I want to let the gen-

tleman know I support the amendment.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I thank the gen-

tleman. I would like to yield the re-

mainder of my time to the gentleman

from New Jersey (Mr. M

RTHUR

b1915

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 in-

cluded 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 rea-

sons:

First, BRAC is not cost effective. As

was mentioned, the 2005 BRAC was sup-

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 De-

fense won’t even recoup its upfront

costs until 2018, 13 years after it start-

ed.

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 re-

sponsible for 105,000 local jobs in south-

ern New Jersey. It is a $7 billion im-

pact 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 mili-

tary capability should not be done

based on what we know today. In clos-

ing, I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I yield such time as

he may consume to the gentleman

from Texas (Mr. H

URD

Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I

am proud to cosponsor this amendment

alongside my colleague from Texas, the

honorable J

OHN

ATCLIFFE

, and my col-

league from New Jersey, the Honorable

RTHUR

Government action that both wastes

the taxpayer dollars and hurts local

economies just doesn’t make sense, es-

pecially when the same action nega-

tively 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 Con-

gressional District of Texas, is respon-

sible 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 commu-

nity. Yet every year they wait to see if

the powers that be up here have de-

cided in their infinite wisdom to put

Laughlin Air Force Base back on the

chopping block, devastating Del Rio

and endangering our Nation’s air supe-

riority.

I encourage my colleagues to support

this amendment, which will prohibit

funds from being used to propose, plan,

or execute another round of BRAC clo-

sures. Protecting our military readi-

ness 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 gen-

tleman from Texas (Mr. R

ATCLIFFE

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have

an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. None of the funds made available

by this Act may be used to enter into a con-

tract 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: commis-

sion of fraud or a criminal offense in connec-

tion 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 em-

bezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsifica-

tion or destruction of records, making false

statements, tax evasion, violating Federal

criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen prop-

erty; or

(B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise

criminally or civilly charged by a govern-

mental entity with, commission of any of

the offenses enumerated above in subsection

(A); or

this offer, has been notified of any delin-

quent Federal taxes in an amount that ex-

ceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains

unsatisfied.

Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-

sent to waive the reading of the amend-

ment.

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 se-

rious misconduct on the part of the

contractors.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-

ance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Florida (Mr. G

RAYSON

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to

House Resolution 223, the gentleman

from Texas and a Member opposed each

will control 5 minutes.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.123 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2617 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 vet-

eran’s medical records to be available

digitally to their health care providers

shouldn’t be something beyond the ca-

pabilities of the greatest Nation in the

world.

My amendment ensures the Depart-

ment of Veterans Affairs and their

chief information officer will take the

appropriate steps and get the VA mov-

ing 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 gen-

tleman from Texas (Mr. H

URD

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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’ Af-

fairs Committee held a hearing to ex-

amine 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 mil-

lion change order. Now they estimate

the completion date is 2017.

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 hos-

pital. Can you imagine how many vet-

erans 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 & Facili-

ties 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 ini-

tially estimated to cost $254 million is

almost 5 years behind schedule and

projected to be $372 million over budg-

et. That is 143 percent overrun.

In New Orleans, a major hospital

being built to replace a VA facility lost

to Hurricane Katrina was initially esti-

mated 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 wast-

ed 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 C

OFFMAN

, who

chairs the House Veterans’ Affairs

Committee Oversight and Investigation

Subcommittee and represents the Den-

ver area, has introduced legislation

that would allow construction to con-

tinue at Denver while placing the re-

sponsibility of any further future VA

construction projects over $10 million

in the hands of the Army Corps of En-

gineers, who have a great track record,

I might add.

I hope that we are able to consider an

approach like Mr. C

OFFMAN

’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 bo-

nuses. This amendment would see that

the taxpayer does not pay for perform-

ance bonuses to an office that has

caused more harm than good.

I urge adoption of this amendment,

Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the bal-

ance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, I claim the time in opposition, al-

though I do not oppose the gentleman’s

amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objec-

tion, the gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, I think we are all very, very dis-

turbed by what has happened with Den-

ver, and we are also disturbed about

the practices of the construction office.

But I just wanted to take this oppor-

tunity 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 di-

rectly to the Deputy Secretary through

the Office of Management.

The VA also initiated an administra-

tive 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 Engi-

neers is conducting a separate review

of the VA’s Construction office to

evaluate the structure and the proc-

esses so that changes can be made in

the future.

I just thought that the R

ECORD

ought

to be set straight that everyone is dis-

gusted 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 Com-

mittee—I have been involved person-

ally 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 bil-

lion 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 ob-

jecting 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 gen-

tleman from Tennessee (Mr. R

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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 Clin-

ic 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 Direc-

tive 2012-030, ‘‘Credentialing of Health Care

Professionals’’, issued on October 11, 2012.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.132 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2618 April 29, 2015

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.

b1930

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise

today in support of my amendment,

which would help ensure that VA

orthotists and prosthetists, who are re-

sponsible for caring for our veterans,

are fully qualified and are able to per-

form the duties entrusted to them.

This February, the CBS affiliate in

Columbus, Ohio, ran a story exposing

flaws at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Am-

bulatory Care Center, which serves

constituents from my district. The

story revealed that dozens of vet-

erans—and possibly many more—who

have not come forward had received in-

effective care by uncertified

prosthetists. One veteran was even told

that his fitting was supposed to be

painful. After several unsuccessful vis-

its, he turned to a non-VA provider,

Willow Wood, which is near Columbus,

Ohio, where he was immediately pro-

vided with a successful, pain-free fit-

ting.

The VA does claim to be following a

credentialing directive, which is VA di-

rective 2012–030. Mr. Chairman, I will

soon be introducing comprehensive leg-

islation to address this issue, but in

the meantime, this amendment would

force the VA to honor its word by en-

suring that no salaries are paid to

uncertified prosthetists and orthotists.

Our veterans have made tremendous

sacrifices for our country, and they de-

serve the best.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gen-

tleman.

Mr. DENT. I support the amendment.

Mr. STIVERS. That was easy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-

ance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Ohio (Mr. S

TIVERS

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. None of the funds made available

by this Act may be used to transfer any

funds from the Veterans Choice Fund estab-

lished by section 802 of the Veterans Access,

Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Pub-

lic 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

Nation’s veterans have the choices

they deserve when seeking medical

care.

Last year, Congress passed the Vet-

erans Access, Choice, and Account-

ability Act. In addition to many impor-

tant 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 regard-

less 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 can-

not seek private care even if the serv-

ices they need are not provided by the

local clinic. That is especially frus-

trating 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 Bi-

loxi to seek that care even though he

could get that surgery done right in his

hometown. That is not how the legisla-

tion was intended to work.

Recently, VA Secretary Bob McDon-

ald 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 pro-

gram 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 self-

serving 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 vet-

erans 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 sup-

ported by Republicans and Democrats

from 15 different States, that would

correct the VA’s interpretation and

make clear that veterans are eligible

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 gen-

tleman from Alabama (Mr. B

YRNE

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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 record-

keeping system other than those currently

approved by the Department of Veterans Af-

fairs 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 allega-

tions 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 Depart-

ment of Veterans Affairs. This year, I

am proud, once again, to offer this

commonsense policy with the support

of my friend and colleague from Geor-

gia.

As many of you know, several whis-

tleblowers came forward with allega-

tions that the Phoenix Veterans Af-

fairs Healthcare System had been using

secondary unofficial records of vet-

erans 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 re-

sult of these manipulations. It is unfor-

tunate that, over the past year, many

of these once unthinkable allegations

have become substantiated.

Recently, an inspector general’s in-

vestigation uncovered actual memos

from VA leadership that encouraged

this type of behavior. This is out-

rageous. 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 sur-

prised to learn of this memo. I have

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.136 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2619 April 29, 2015

said this before, but it is sad that we

have to pass amendments to prevent

this type of behavior. When govern-

ment bureaucrats don’t use good judg-

ment 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 vet-

erans 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 distin-

guished 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 objec-

tion to the amendment.

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the distin-

guished chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of

my time to the gentleman from Geor-

gia (Mr. C

ARTER

Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, 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 dis-

regard these men and women.

As my colleague from Arizona men-

tioned, this flawed guidance from the

VA headquarters is wrong and com-

pletely 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 bene-

fits 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 de-

tails does not make the problem dis-

appear. With one memo, the VA man-

agers 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 em-

ployee within the VA stated, the dys-

functional culture of management cor-

ruption.

For the time being, we must address

this issue. I join my friend from Ari-

zona 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 sup-

port this amendment.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield

back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Arizona (Mr. G

OSAR

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I have an

amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title) add the following new section:

. 5ll. None of the funds made avail-

able by this Act may be used by the Depart-

ment 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 de-

sign and build a 1.8-megawatt solar

system at the John L. McClellan VA

Medical Center in Little Rock, Arkan-

sas. 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 ques-

tions remain unanswered about this

project and when the VA plans to fully

implement this supposed cost-saving

system to provide energy for the facil-

ity.

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 re-

newable 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 Sec-

retary 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 J

OHN

OOZMAN

and I have called for an IG in-

vestigation into this project and into

other aspects of the key renewable en-

ergy program to ensure that the tax-

payers’ hard-earned dollars are safe-

guarded.

This amendment would simply pre-

vent any new funding for these projects

this fiscal year, allowing Congress the

additional time to conduct oversight

and allowing the VA to ensure that

this program is effective.

b1945

It is essential that we demand ac-

countability 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 reluc-

tantly 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 get-

ting 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 re-

newable 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 emis-

sions.

I would respectfully suggest maybe

the gentleman would consider with-

drawing 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 con-

sideration at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL. I thank the chairman for

his comments. I appreciate his consid-

eration. I would be happy to work with

the gentleman to revise my amend-

ment.

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. Chair-

man, I just want to speak to this

amendment. The VA Green Manage-

ment Program is a sustainability pro-

gram that integrates energy and water

conservation, environmental compli-

ance, vehicle fleet management, sus-

tainable building design and operation,

greenhouse gas management, and cli-

mate change adaptation.

Since its inception in 2007, the VA

Green Management Program has re-

duced VA’s energy costs from $504 mil-

lion in 2010 to $459 million in 2014, de-

spite significant growth in mission. Ad-

ditionally, the Green Management Pro-

gram has put in place energy perform-

ance contracts requiring no appro-

priated funds that will save VA over $9

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.141 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2620 April 29, 2015

million annually. Other significant

achievements include it reduced VA

energy use per square foot by 21 per-

cent since 2003, reduced VA water con-

sumption per square foot by 28 percent

since 2007, increased VA’s vehicle fleet

to 55 percent alternatively fueled vehi-

cles, and reduced VA-generated green-

house gases 12 percent since the 2008

baseline.

In the absence of the Green Manage-

ment 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 en-

vironments at VA facilities for the ben-

efit of veterans, for visitors, employ-

ees, and surrounding communities; and

help assure the VA compliance with

Federal laws, with regulations, with

executive orders, Presidential memo-

randa.

I would urge Members to oppose it. I

am happy that the gentleman has with-

drawn the amendment. I think his con-

cerns 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 amend-

ment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. 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 straight-

forward. If an employee of the Depart-

ment of Veterans Affairs has received a

work performance review rated as un-

satisfactory 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 Sec-

retary McDonald has been trying to re-

form the VA but has been having trou-

ble 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 na-

tional 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-

erans Affairs were instructed to change

the dates for which veterans had re-

quested an appointment in order to

hide delays. At the Phoenix VA, offi-

cial data showed that veterans waited

an average of 24 days for an appoint-

ment when in reality the average wait

was 115 days. That is absolutely unac-

ceptable.

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. Peo-

ple 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 ‘‘pun-

ished’’ 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 accept-

ing 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 of-

fense. The VA still is struggling with

this.

Clearly, Congress needs to find a bet-

ter approach to help root out the bad

apples in the VA. My amendment is

one way we can do this. If you are re-

ceiving the worst possible performance

review, you ought not to be getting

paid with taxpayer money for your un-

satisfactory 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 objec-

tion, the gentleman from Pennsylvania

is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate

the gentleman for raising this impor-

tant issue. I certainly share his con-

cern about the service our veterans are

receiving from VA employees. How-

ever, 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 account-

ability for poor-performing employees.

Again, I thank the gentleman for high-

lighting 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 with-

drawing the amendment?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I un-

derstand the concerns that the chair-

man of the subcommittee has. The

breadth was necessary in order to get

by the requirement to not be legis-

lating 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. L

MALFA. I have an amendment

at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will re-

port 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—Depart-

mental Administration—General Operating

Expenses, Veterans Benefits Administra-

tion’’, there is hereby appropriated, and the

amount otherwise provided by this Act for

‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—Depart-

mental Administration—General Adminis-

tration’’ 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. L

MALFA. Mr. Chairman, first

of all, let me thank those who have

helped with this legislation here, my

colleagues from California, Mr. C

OSTA

Mr. R

UIZ

, and my colleague from Mas-

sachusetts, Mr. M

OULTON

, on helping

bring this forward. I also thank the

chairman and the members of the com-

mittee as well as the desk staff here to-

night in helping to make this happen.

Again, this bill simply reduces the

amount budgeted for the general ad-

ministration of Veterans Affairs to in-

stead be posted toward the Veterans

Benefits Administration; therefore,

helping to take a bite out of the huge

backlog that we have of veterans wait-

ing 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 re-

ceiving the benefit they should be get-

ting. 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. L

MALFA. I yield to the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I do not oppose this

amendment. I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. L

MALFA. I thank the chair-

man.

Mr. Chairman, again, this will be an

important step towards helping reduce

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.145 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2621 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 gen-

tleman from California (Mr. L

ALFA

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 re-

port the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

. ll. None of the funds made available

by this Act may be used to pay a Federal em-

ployee 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 Fed-

eral workforce and uphold the integ-

rity of tax dollars. Title 5 of the U.S.

Code allows for a practice in which

Federal employees are permitted to en-

gage 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 man-

hours every year and hundreds of mil-

lions 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 Fed-

eral Government.

Mr. Chairman, this one agency has

more than 250 individuals who do noth-

ing but operate on official time. That

is to say, 100 percent of their time at

work is used doing union activity rath-

er 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 vet-

erans 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 appoint-

ments, be it in Atlanta, Augusta, or

Dublin. We have veterans literally beg-

ging for access to health care, and yet

they are being told while waiting in

line that people appreciate their serv-

ice 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.

b2000

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 al-

lows 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 Con-

gress 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 vet-

erans.

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. Chair-

man, I rise in opposition to the amend-

ment.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. C

OLLINS

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 bar-

gaining rights for civil service Federal

employees, and it may violate collec-

tive 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 mak-

ing sure that the conditions of employ-

ment 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 mem-

bers of a bargaining unit, whether or

not the workers elect to pay voluntary

unions dues. Representation for em-

ployees working their way through ad-

ministrative procedures is a cost-effec-

tive process for administering and ad-

judicating 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 tax-

payers.

Official time is essential to main-

taining workplace safety. Union rep-

resentatives use official time to set

procedures to protect employees from

on-the-job hazards. Official time is also

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 par-

tisan political activities. The notion

that official time is used for these pur-

poses 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 col-

lective bargaining rights for civil serv-

ice Federal employees.

I think that is not consistent with

the laws of the United States of Amer-

ica.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr.

Chairman, how much time is remain-

ing?

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman

has 1

⁄

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 hun-

dreds of additional hours on a regular

basis.

We have reached out. After I intro-

duced 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. Mem-

bers of this body can stand with union

bosses, or they can stand with the peo-

ple 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 vet-

erans, and I urge my colleagues to do

the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, 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 coun-

try. 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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.148 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2622 April 29, 2015

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 gen-

tleman from Georgia (Mr. J

ODY

ICE

The question was taken; and the Act-

ing Chair announced that the ayes ap-

peared to have it.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro-

ceedings 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 fol-

lows:

At the end of the bill, before the short

title, add the following new section:

. 514. None of the funds made available

by this Act may be used to implement, ad-

minister, or enforce the prevailing wage re-

quirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of

title 40, United States Code (commonly re-

ferred 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 elimi-

nates the Davis-Bacon federally man-

dated wage scale components in the

construction of MILCON on this under-

lying 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 construc-

tion 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 Davis-

Bacon wage scales—the federally man-

dated 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-

peal Davis-Bacon. If you are willing to

accept 4 miles of road, accept a feder-

ally 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 de-

signed to lock Black construction

workers out of the construction work

in New York back in the thirties dur-

ing the Great Depression.

When there was a Federal building

contract that was let and the con-

tractor 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 Repub-

licans, Davis and Bacon—got together

and brought this Jim Crow law. Now,

we are dealing with union scale man-

dates.

I would point out I used to have this

debate with the gentleman from Massa-

chusetts, Mr. Frank. He would make

the argument that two consenting

adults should be able to agree to what-

ever 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 peo-

ple. 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 govern-

ment knows best, and government

should intervene between a relation-

ship between two consenting adults.

We are about to hear some kind of re-

sponse 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. Chair-

man, I rise in opposition to the amend-

ment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple

concept and a fair one. What the Davis-

Bacon Act does is protect the govern-

ment, as well as the workers, in car-

rying out the policy of paying decent

wages on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that

workers on federally funded construc-

tion projects be paid no less than the

wages paid in the community for simi-

lar work. It requires that every con-

tract for construction to which the

Federal Government is a party in ex-

cess of $2,000 contain a provision defin-

ing the ‘‘minimum wages’’ paid to var-

ious classes of laborers and mechanics.

Mr. Chairman, the House has taken

numerous votes on this issue, and on

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 divi-

sive language like this, and it is my

hope that we stop attacking the work-

ing class and defeat the amendment be-

fore us today and move on to more im-

portant matters.

I urge all Members to vote ‘‘no’’ on

this, as we have repeatedly year after

year.

At this point, I yield to the gen-

tleman from Michigan (Mr. K

ILDEE

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 equal-

ity 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 en-

actment of Davis-Bacon, how the mid-

dle class was born, and I would also

urge us to consider that, if not the Fed-

eral 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 col-

leagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I reserve the bal-

ance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Again, let’s

avoid including divisive language like

this. This is a policy rider that is un-

necessary. 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 con-

tracts, 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 ar-

gument 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 Amer-

ica? 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.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.151 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2623 April 29, 2015

I don’t know how anyone argues that

the Federal Government has got to in-

tervene 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 econ-

omy, we have got to get a value re-

ceived 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, in-

stead 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.

b2015

They want a return on their invest-

ment, 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 adop-

tion of my amendment, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is

on the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Iowa (Mr. K

ING

The question was taken; and the Act-

ing Chair announced that the noes ap-

peared 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 pro-

ceedings on the amendment offered by

the gentleman from Iowa will be post-

poned.

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.

AYNE

) for a colloquy.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to thank Chairman D

ENT

and

Ranking Member B

ISHOP

for your work

on this bill. And congratulations to

Congressman D

ENT

on the work he has

done on H.R. 2029, his first bill as chair-

man of the Military Construction and

Veterans Affairs Appropriations Sub-

committee.

I admire Chairman D

ENT

’s and Rank-

ing Member B

ISHOP

’s commitment to

our veterans of America. They have

demonstrated day-to-day that they are

here for our people in the armed serv-

ices.

I would like to especially acknowl-

edge this bill’s provisions relating to

the importance of early detection and

treatment of colorectal cancer. As the

bill notes, the VA has made screening

patients for colorectal cancer a pri-

ority, and I am encouraged by the steps

that this bill would take to ensure that

the VA continues to dedicate the re-

sources and attention to this impor-

tant issue which it deserves.

Almost every family in America, in-

cluding our veterans, including Mem-

bers of Congress, including people all

over this Nation, have been touched by

cancer. My father, former Congressman

Donald Payne, who served New Jer-

sey’s 10th Congressional District for 23

years, prior to me coming here and

taking his place, succumbed to this

preventable and treatable disease.

Chairman D

ENT

, 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 in-

vestigating a less costly blood test for

colorectal cancer. I applaud this lan-

guage, 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 re-

view such stool-based test screening?

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Congressman

AYNE

, for your shared interest in this

very important topic.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my col-

league 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. Con-

gressman P

AYNE

obviously lost his fa-

ther; 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 to-

gether with you on an issue that has

raised awareness and increased preven-

tive 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, in-

cluding 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 Con-

gressman P

AYNE

for his determination

and steadfast interest in advancing

therapies and treatments for colorectal

cancer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-

ance 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.

EWHOUSE

) having assumed the chair,

Mr. C

OLLINS

of Georgia, Acting Chair of

the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union, reported that

that Committee, having had under con-

sideration the bill (H.R. 2029) making

appropriations for military construc-

tion, the Department of Veterans Af-

fairs, and related agencies for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2016, and for

other purposes, had come to no resolu-

tion thereon.

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO-

VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF

H.R. 1732, REGULATORY INTEG-

RITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2015;

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION

OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S.

CON. RES. 11, CONCURRENT RES-

OLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FIS-

CAL YEAR 2016; AND PROVIDING

FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J.

RES. 43, DISAPPROVAL OF DIS-

TRICT OF COLUMBIA REPRODUC-

TIVE HEALTH NON-DISCRIMINA-

TION 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 consider-

ation of the conference report to ac-

company the concurrent resolution (S.

Con. Res. 11) setting forth the congres-

sional 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) dis-

approving the action of the District of

Columbia Council in approving the Re-

productive Health Non-Discrimination

Amendment Act of 2014, which was re-

ferred to the House Calendar and or-

dered to be printed.

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP-

MENT 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 in-

clude extraneous material on H.R. 2028,

and that I may include tabular mate-

rial on the same.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gen-

tleman from Idaho?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-

ant to House Resolution 223 and rule

VerDate Sep 11 2014 10:13 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29AP7.153 H29APPT1

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H2574 CREC 2015 04 29 Pt1 Pg 3

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation