Mr. Moran of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I will have to admit to him that my amendment is not unintentional, and so his assumption that the offset that I'm providing is an unintentional offering on my part is not true. I'm aware of where the money comes from and still believe that this is a high priority. And, in fact, this bill, the medical administration account, receives a 14½ percent, $458 million, increase over last year's funding levels, and $193 million more than the President requested in fiscal year 2008. And, in fact, our authorizing committee, both the minority and majority views, accepted those, the President's recommendation, as our suggested funding levels.
So again, in searching year after year for a place from which this money can come, it is not without concern that we have chosen these accounts. But this is the year in which there is a 14.5 percent increase in those funds. And even if my amendment would be adopted, it would still allow for a 10.6 percent increase in those administrative accounts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, if I could use my remaining time, I'd like to just say to the gentleman, I appreciate his bringing this serious problem before the House. I wish, in hindsight, he'd brought it to us earlier than 5 or 10 minutes ago. I hope we could work together to try to find a way to address the needs he's mentioned.
But, my colleagues, let me reemphasize two points. He may know the source of the funding, but I'm not sure he intended to actually cut out funding, which this amendment would do, that is needed to hire VA employees to man our VA hospitals to see our veterans get the service that they desperately need and deserve.
In addition, we've had lengthy discussion, including from the Republican leadership, about the importance of oversight of this additional funding, this historic level of funding we're putting into the VA this year. If we cut out the accounts that the gentleman's trying to cut out in this amendment, that undermines the entire effort that was discussed so eloquently by my Republican colleagues, that we've got to have enough money to have oversight to see that these new dollars are spent wisely and for the highest priority.
So, if the gentleman persists in offering the amendment and having a vote on it, I would ask my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, in all due respect, to reject it and allow us to then work together in the months ahead to find an appropriate way to more adequately fund reimbursement rates for America's veterans.
I believe, personally and strongly, that this amendment would do harm to medical care to veterans, not intentionally, because the gentleman is a strong supporter of veterans. But nevertheless, it would do harm to service to veterans and undermine our ability to have strong oversight on the historic increases in VA funding that we provide in this bill.
Mr. Moran of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Moran of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will be postponed.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Barrow: Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill that addresses the needs of our veterans who've been neglected for too long now. Taking care of our veterans is important at any time, but it's particularly important in a time of war. So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff for your hard work on this bill.
I recently conducted a tour of veterans service organizations all across my district, and one of the things I heard over and over again was the growth in demand for veterans services in the future, and that's what I'd like to discuss with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, community-based outpatient clinics play a vital role in meeting the health care needs of our veterans, especially in the rural parts of our country. My district, a 17-county area centered on Statesboro, Georgia, contains some 34,000 veterans. And I ask for your commitment, Mr. Chairman, to work in conference with the other body to look at this area and evaluate the need and determine the feasibility of a community-based outpatient clinic in Statesboro, Georgia.
Mr. Edwards: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for his focus on the importance of VA outpatient clinics.
In my 16 years in Congress, I think one of the most important improvements made in VA care to veterans, particularly in rural areas, is the creation and development and expansion of VA outpatient clinics, particularly for those veterans that live a long way from VA hospitals.
I'll be happy to work with the gentleman as we go to conference, and to work with the Veterans Administration as well, to put the facts together to see if we can provide funding for a Statesboro clinic. And I know the gentleman will be a strong advocate on its behalf.
For the record, I will say we have not, as a procedure in the past, earmarked specific funding for specific outpatient clinics. But the gentleman has spoken very strongly and eloquently about the need for his clinic, and we will work with him and the VA to see if we can provide the funding.
And I will say that the bill that the gentleman has strongly supported provides, as we previously said, an enormous increase in VA medical services funding, far above, $1.7 billion above the President's request, $6 billion in total VA medical care funding over fiscal year 2007. So I hope the VA will make a high priority out of expanding these clinics where they are needed.
Mrs. Capito: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Capito:
Page 28, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert "(increased by $5,000,000)(decreased by $5,000,000)".
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. Capito: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a bipartisan amendment highlighting the importance and need for an Office of Rural Health within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I'd like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their good, solid, hard work on this bill and the tribute it pays to America's veterans. I would also like to thank Mr. Salazar of Colorado and Mr. Smith of Nebraska for their work on this bipartisan amendment.
I was pleased that language was included in the legislation that was signed into law by the President last year calling on the Department of Veterans Affairs to create an Office of Rural Health within the Office of the Under Secretary for Health. However, the Department has yet to make any progress towards establishing this very important office.
This is a simple amendment that should encourage the Department to make the Office of Rural Health fully operational as expeditiously as possible, and provide them with the resources needed to do so by rerouting $5 million in the Medical Services Account to help fund the Office of Rural Health, thus making it revenue neutral.
Rural Americans face different and unique challenges than our fellow citizens who reside in urban and suburban areas, and this is no different for our veterans and their ability to seek the services and the treatments that they need. For some rural veterans, a simple trip to the doctor can often involve hours of travel to reach the appropriate facility within the veterans health facilities health system.
It is my hope that the Office of Rural Health will shed light on many of these challenges, and will be a resource with many new and creative ideas for methods to help our rural veterans receive their much- deserved benefits in a manner that is efficient, and allowing them to stay as close to home as possible.
One of the great challenges we are beginning to face is the number of servicemen and -women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who have sustained a traumatic brain injury. The Department of Veterans Affairs has four large polytrauma centers, in Richmond, Tampa, Minneapolis and Palo Alto, California. These facilities provide first-class treatment for veterans suffering polytrauma, and also provide inpatient rehabilitation services.
Despite the services provided at these facilities, many veterans will eventually return to their homes in the rural areas of America, but they will still need care and treatment. The Office of Rural Health will be the basis for new ways to provide rural veterans with polytrauma with the care that they need.
Another development within the Department of Veterans Affairs that has been going on for a while are the Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, or CBOCs. Often serving rural areas, CBOCs are a tremendous asset to the delivery of care for veterans, allowing them to seek treatment closer to their home. Unfortunately, underserved areas still remain in the rural areas. Again, the Office of Rural Health will be an excellent resource for new ways to provide primary outpatient care.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this commonsense amendment so that the rural veterans concerns can be appropriately addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for bringing to the attention of the House, once again, the importance of providing quality veterans care to the men and women who served our Nation and happen to live in small, rural communities, areas perhaps in many cases far away from veterans hospitals. I think the community clinics have been one great, great addition to the VA health care system over the last 2 decades.
And let me point out, for the Record, before I will express that I will support this amendment, that Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr. Latham, in our full Appropriations Committee, added language on this issue which I know the gentlelady and I will both support; and it says this: "The committee notes that the Public Law 109-461 directed the establishment of an Office of Rural Health within the Office of Under Secretary for Health. To date, after more than 6 months, there has been no action taken to implement the provision regarding the Office of Rural Health. The Committee urges the Department to move forward in an expeditious manner."
With that, I would like to express my support for the amendment.
Mrs. Capito: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1½ minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. Salazar: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I would also like to thank the chairman of the committee for expressing his support for this amendment.
At the end of the 109th Congress, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 was signed into law. This legislation created the Office of Rural Health within the VA and tasked the office with conducting research into issues affecting rural veterans, as well as developing and refining policies and programs to improve care and services for rural veterans.
Unfortunately, as the chairman has clearly stated, since this legislation has been signed into law establishing the Office of Rural Health, no action has been taken. Just yesterday in the Veterans' Affairs Health Subcommittee, I asked the VA Under Secretary to give me an update, and he confirmed that as of this date a director has not even been hired yet.
This amendment would simply allocate $5 million from the same account within Medical Services to establish this office.
The care our Nation provides rural veterans in return for protecting our country should not suffer because some have chosen to live in rural America. We owe them no less for their sacrifice.
For the 25 percent of all veterans who live in rural areas, and the nearly 45 percent of all recruits coming from rural America, I urge you to strongly support this amendment, and I commend the chairman for supporting this amendment.
Mrs. Capito: Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank the Chair for his support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I thank Congresswoman Capito.
I appreciate your support for this amendment, the Capito-Smith- Salazar amendment. And I don't want to be repetitive because many good points were offered by the chairman of the committee as well as others. So I just want to add my support and certainly state that it is unfortunate that nearly 6 months since the legislation was signed into law for the Office of Rural Health, little action has been taken. So I believe this is a good step forward for those in rural America because they should not have to suffer simply because they live in rural America.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
Page 30, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert "(reduced by $40,000,000)".
Page 33, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert "(increased by $40,000,000)".
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, and Chairman Edwards for bringing this bill to the floor. The motto of the former Veterans Secretary, my friend Jessie Brown, was "putting veterans first."
Well, the leadership they have shown, bringing the largest increase in the history of veterans funding to the floor, over $7 billion, I have got to thank you, sir. I have served on this committee for 15 years, and for 15 years we have struggled to put the veterans first. And I am so pleased that the House of Representatives under your leadership has finally put the veterans first.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on my amendment to bring attention to a travesty occurring in my district. A travesty not just affecting my district, but this regional hospital affects Florida and Georgia.
The Gainesville VA Medical Center is 40 years old and looks every day of it. There are five beds to a room, no shower, and no place for families.
This facility received one of the highest rates of returning Afghanistan and Iraq veterans and is being shortchanged by a lack of proper facilities. The bed tower project includes 228 single-patient bedrooms for surgical, medical, and psychiatric patients. This includes extra space for support of the psychiatric care inpatient program. Finally, the building itself was required to be structurally strengthened to protect it from potential terrorist attack since we are part of the national emergency response system. The current design will be completed in June 2007 and will be ready to be released for bid in September 2007.
Since the approval by the National CARES Commission and initial funding allocation, much has changed in the construction world. The dual impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the construction boom in China have caused the costs of all construction in the U.S. to rise.
The total estimated construction cost is over $103 million. The original projection was $64 million for construction. That leaves a shortfall of about $40 million.
Every month of delay costs about $1.1 million. An additional $40 million is needed in order to complete the project.
The men and women returning to Florida and southern Georgia will be greatly impacted, and I would like to work with the committee to resolve this matter.
Mr. Chairman, do I have the word of the chairman to look into this matter?
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida: I yield to Chairman Edwards.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentlewoman for her kind words about our work on this bill and, more importantly, for her 15 years of leadership on the Veterans' Affairs Committee on behalf of our veterans not only in Florida but on behalf of veterans all across the country.
Because of the concerns raised by the gentlewoman, we increased the major construction project account in this bill by $683 million above the President's request because the reality is it is not just the VA system. It is the DOD health care system. It is construction all across America that is facing huge increases in costs, and obviously the Gainesville Florida hospital is a terribly important health care facility in our national VA health care system. And I look forward to working with the gentlewoman to see that we have enough funding to see that that additional funding is possible. And we will work with the VA as we go to conference and beyond on that issue.
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 30, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert "(reduced by $10,000,000)".
Page 36, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert "(increased by $10,000,000)".
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish to rise to say that I appreciate the work of both the Chair and ranking member with regard to their work on behalf of veterans of this country.
The amendment that is before us is an amendment to seek increase in funds for the State veterans homes. It does so in the amount of $10 million. There are 126 facilities, veterans homes, across the 50 States and Puerto Rico. These are State veterans homes and they care for nearly 30,000 of our Nation's heroes. The number of veterans that are going to be requiring care is large and is going to continue to grow through the year 2020. And the conflict today is leading to more veterans that will need special care throughout the rest of their lives.
As many of our veterans move into these extended care facilities, we must continue here in this House to ensure that the facilities are both safe and comfortable for the residents. As you may know, there is an extensive list of backlogged projects just waiting for the funds, many of them in the area of critical health and safety needs. Of the $500 million of projects waiting for Federal funds, nearly half are classified as priority one.
We must also see that these facilities are able to provide for high quality of life as well for those individuals who have made great sacrifices in the past years for our Nation. These are homes, as I said before, for our heroes. They are not simply institutions that we are funding. If we are not able to fund the priority one projects that I am worried about, these homes will be inadequate and we will not be honoring our veterans.
The staff at these homes work hard to honor our veterans and work with them to provide that they have, for the remaining years of their lives, a comfortable environment. I have had the opportunity to spend some time in these veterans home, particularly the Paramus Veterans Home in my district in Bergen County, and I particularly had the chance to visit with the people who live there and the staff and their friends and relatives who come along. In addition to that, there are local veterans service organizations that have worked hard to secure State matching funds for these essential projects as well at this facility, just as their counterparts are doing the same sort of thing all across this country in their homes as well.
Finally, I would like to point this out, that our colleagues in the Senate Appropriations Committee just this week approved $250 million for this account. So including my amendment here would still mean that we are falling short of where the Senate is by around $75 million; so I therefore believe that this $10 million is well called for.
While this backlog is much greater than what this amendment can provide, I wanted to call attention to this difficulty these homes currently are facing and have been facing for some period of time, and I hope that we can work together now to find a way to honor these vets and make sure that they receive the best care and the best quality of life in their remaining days.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his support for state-extended care facilities, and I agree with him that the President's budget for this account was, in my words, woefully underfunded, and it is because of the importance of these extended care facilities that in our subcommittee we provided a 95- percent increase over the President's request for that. The President has requested $85 million; we fund it at $165 million.
The reason I oppose this amendment and would ask my colleagues to do the same is that the gentleman, in order to provide additional funding, cuts $10 million out of the funding account that is necessary to meet one of the veterans service organizations' highest priorities this year, and that is reduce the terrible backlog of 400,000 veterans waiting to get their claims reviewed by VA caseworkers. And with the funding we provided in that account in this bill, if we don't reduce it in this or other amendments, we are going to be able to hire 1,100 new VA caseworkers in order to reduce that backlog. Right now that backlog is averaging 177 days, and many veterans are having to wait longer than that, including combat veterans, to get their earned benefits approved and started.
The gentleman in no way would want to or intend to cut the funding to try to help our veterans get their benefits more quickly. But the reality is that taking $10 million out of that very account, the very account that the VAV, the VFW, the American Legion, and others emphasized to us all year long, we have to reduce the terrible backlog in veterans benefits claims processing. All the groups supported that additional funding. And that is why I would ask, with all due respect, that our colleagues on a bipartisan basis respect that 95 percent increase we provided in this bill for state-extended care facilities and let's not cut one of the top two priorities of veterans service organizations this year all across the Nation, and that is, reduce the 400,000 claims backlog of veterans benefits.
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Edwards: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: As you know, this is not an issue that is new. I actually brought this up and talked about this back early in the year in the Budget Committee, and we had a discussion on it at that time.
Just a question to you: That account you are referencing where we are drawing the money from has grown as well, has it not?
Two questions. And the second question is there are other aspects of that account other than just that provision that you are referencing; so does it necessarily mean, in your opinion, that if we do withdraw some funds from the fairly large account that it will have a detrimental effect on the area that you are specifying, one which I agree with?
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we can't say on the floor at this moment exactly what the VA would do, but what I could say for a fact is this $10 million comes out of the account. It is used and intended to fund an additional 1,100 VA claims caseworkers, and I am afraid if you start cutting that account, the VA will obviously have to cut funding out of our intended plans to increase those numbers.
We still have a long way to go in this process. Who knows, as we look carefully at various projects in military construction and the VA side, where we might find additional money. And I think the committee has shown its good intention by increasing President Bush's request for this program by 95 percent. We understand it is an important need, and the gentleman has spoken out on it earlier this year and in the past.
I would just say to our colleagues, not this year, not now, not today. Let's not cut $10 million out of an account that the veterans service groups say we desperately need funded in order to reduce the backlog for 400,000 veterans to get their benefits started. Many of these veterans need their benefits started as soon as possible. Many of them are living day to day, week to week; and the earlier we can get them their benefits, the quicker they go on with rebuilding their lives. And for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And we are on the same page as far as both aspects that we wish the Department to deal with.
On this amendment, I think your comment was "just not this year." And obviously as a Member who has been here 4 years now fighting, as you have also, probably before me, but myself here on this floor fighting for these veterans homes, fighting literally for the ones back in my districts as well for the veterans there and seeing just the smallest improvements in just a certain number of the safety areas. And there are other area safety areas that would seem to me to need improvements in and health areas as well, and we just can't get the funds.
And the quality of life even goes beyond those issues as far as what these gentlemen need in these homes.
So I bring this amendment to the floor today for that reason, firstly. And secondly, also from a pragmatic point of view that this will go to the Senate and, as I did make the reference, that the Senate has already marked it up even significantly higher than what the gentleman has already done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be postponed.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield time to the gentleman from Rhode Island, a valued and important member of our subcommittee who, I must say, giving credit where credit is due, has been an eloquent and powerful speaker on behalf of the need to increase funding for mental health care services for our vets, drug and alcohol treatment programs for our vets, as well as increasing funding for homeless veterans. The product of his hard work and dedication is very obvious in this bill.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I don't want anyone to mistake, after hearing the previous debate or any one of these amendments, what the big picture is here today. The success story today, the take-away message today is that this bill is the biggest increase in veterans health care in the history of the veterans health care system, the biggest increase in the 77-year history of the veterans health care system; and it has happened under the chairmanship of Chet Edwards.
Every amendment here is talking about nickels and dimes compared to the overwhelming increase in billions of dollars, billions of dollars that are going into this veterans health care system that has never seen such an infusion of dollars. We're not talking about a little bit of money here, a little bit of money there, and that's often what ends up happening. We're talking about money for this program or that program. We are talking about billions of dollars that have never been even seen in this kind of fashion in any kind of veterans health care program before.
And so what we are doing here is raising the bar for generations to come because what we're doing now is layering the bar up. So from now on, the floor is 20 stories higher than it was the day before. And from now on, whenever another veterans budget comes up, it is going to start from the top floor and move even higher.
I want everyone to know that this is a monumental day. This budget exceeds even the proposed budget of all the veteran service organizations, even the VFW, the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America; this is even more than they have asked for.
And I want to say on behalf of the mental health needs of our veterans, we are doing all that we need to do and more to try to make sure that their needs are met. And we should do so, because the suffering that these veterans have had to undergo as a result of this war has been unbearable. And we, as a Nation, owe it to make sure that not only do their outward physical wounds get met and treated, but their inward psychological wounds get tended to as well. And this bill does that.
I want to thank the chairman for his work to make sure that not only their outward wounds, but their inward wounds get addressed as well. And I commend him for his leadership. He ought to feel very proud to be chairman on such an historic bill such as this, and I thank him for his leadership.
Mr. Edwards: I want to thank the gentleman not only for his kind words and for his eloquent and powerful words on behalf of our veterans, but even more importantly, for his deeds, not just this year, but for every year you've been in Congress. Millions of veterans are living a better life today because of that leadership. I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico:
Page 31, line 6, after "Philippines", insert ": Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $2,000,000 is for the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans under section 542 of title 38, United States Code".
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill this year.
My amendment would designate and devote $2 million from the Department of Administration general operations expenses account. This is a very large account. The President requested $1.4 billion for that account. This body is appropriating $1.6 billion for that account, and what it does is fence that money and say that $2 million of this must be devoted and appropriated to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans.
The intent of this amendment is that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans would undertake a special effort, through a task force or special commission, to study and make recommendations on the health care needs of women veterans. All of us are concerned about whether the veterans health care system is meeting the needs of this newest generation of veterans. But there is a special category of veterans that I think sometimes gets overlooked.
In 1978, I got a one-way ticket to Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the third class with women at the United States Air Force Academy. And I walked up a ramp, and over that ramp was a big sign in aluminum letters that said, "Bring Me Men." That sign stayed there for 20 years after women were admitted to the Air Force Academy. It's gone now, but some of us as women veterans feel that maybe the VA hospitals have a similar sign over their doors, if not literally, then certainly figuratively.
I am the only woman veteran serving in the Congress. And women veterans face different obstacles than men and have different health care needs than men when they start to get care from the VA. To start with, many women don't even consider themselves or call themselves veterans, and they don't think of the VA as their system.
A larger number of women are serving in the military, and in the future we are going to see higher numbers of women veterans, and they will face different problems and challenges as they age. One in seven veterans of the current war on terrorism, one in seven Americans who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a woman, and yet the VA health care system is very oriented towards the health care needs of men.
Just let me give you one example. If you are a veteran and you go to the VA for a clinic on PTSD, if everyone else in that group is a guy, are you really getting the care that is appropriate to you? A lot of women veterans don't feel comfortable in those settings. They are not sure that the OB/GYN care is what they need. If they face osteoporosis, they're not sure that the VA is where they should be. Or if they face problems with cancers particular to women, is the VA going to meet their needs?
My goal in proposing this amendment is to get the VA to bring together a group of people who can truly devote the time and effort needed to study the needs of women veterans and examine the care that is available to our women veterans and the challenges that we face so that they can report their findings to Congress and to the VA so that we as a body can evaluate and adjust the system so that all of our veterans get the care that they have earned.
I am very grateful, and I think all Americans are, to those who serve our Nation, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they receive the best possible care. The burdens of this war on terrorism has fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. We owe them, our veterans past, present and future, a debt of gratitude for their selflessness and for their service. We need to make sure that our veterans get the benefits they were promised, the health care they deserve, and the recognition that our Nation owes them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to thank the gentlelady for her strong voice on behalf of women veterans. I had the honor of working in the Texas State Senate under then Lieutenant Governor Bill Hobby, whose mother, Oveta Culp Hobby, played a leading role in heading the WACs in World War II.
When I was first elected to the House in 1990, the famous, some would say infamous, but the wonderful and always famous Sarah McClendon, the White House reporter, who I think at one point was second in line in seniority at the White House and was an outspoken advocate on behalf of women veterans. And I thank the gentlelady for continuing in the tradition of Ms. Hobby and Ms. McClendon.
There is no doubt that the VA has come a long way in its history in trying to improve care to women veterans, but we have yet a long way to go. And for that reason, I will support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: I thank my colleague for his support of this effort. I look forward to working with him to make sure that the VA undertakes this effort and takes it seriously, and we get some good, solid recommendations that all of us can work on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and would be glad to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHenry: I want to thank my colleague from Texas for putting together a great bill. I know he has been a long-time advocate of the best care possible for our veterans in this country. And as a military general, I want to commend him for the great work he has done on a bipartisan basis. And I thank you for that, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring attention to the shortcomings of the Department of Veterans Affairs in addressing the infrastructure needs of community-based outpatient clinics. These clinics provide convenient care to our veterans on an outpatient basis.
There are currently 64 pending clinics that have received approval from the VA either in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008. One of those clinics is set to be established in my district in Hickory, North Carolina. When opened, this clinic will serve approximately 10,000 veterans on an outpatient basis annually. However, since the VA Mid- Atlantic Health Care Network announced last June that the clinic in Hickory would open in January of this year, there has been nothing but delay after delay after delay. Now, veterans in western North Carolina are frustrated with these delays, as many of us are, and there seems to be this common issue throughout the system.
This particular clinic has been in the works in some way or another for roughly 12 years, Mr. Chairman. The time is up for delays, and veterans of these 64 regions are entitled to answers.
Last month, my two North Carolina colleagues in the Senate and I formally requested an update about the status of the outpatient clinic in Hickory. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response to our inquiry. Our veterans, I believe, deserve better.
I would ask that as this bill moves forward to the Senate and to conference, the chairman and the ranking member work to get answers from the Department of Veterans Affairs, answers to why we have these continued delays for pending outpatient clinics. Veterans in Hickory, North Carolina, and across the country have sacrificed too much for our country and deserve to have, at the very least, convenient health care. They deserve a proper explanation and progress report as well.
I also want to finish by commending the chairman for his, again, hard work on increasing funding for our veterans. I know that on both sides of the aisle we are very pleased with the work you've done, both the chairman and the ranking member, and we are looking forward to passage.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank the gentleman for his kind comments and say that while I don't know specifically where the Hickory Outpatient Clinic stands in the list of priorities for the VA, for the very reasons the gentleman mentioned about the importance of these clinics we have report language in this bill to require the VA to report back to us the status of these clinics.
I think it is pretty clear the reason the VA hasn't funded many of these clinics, and there are 717 that have been funded, is simply that they didn't have enough money to fund the clinics. That is one reason we worked so hard this year in this Congress to provide an increase in VA care funding that is unprecedented in our Nation's history. If you count the 2007 continuing resolution plus the Iraq war supplemental plus this bill, if it passes today and becomes law, we will have provided in this Congress this year in the last 6 months an $11.9 billion increase in VA discretionary spending, 90 percent of which goes to VA medical care.
I hope that with passage of this bill, and now the administration has agreed not to veto it, we will perhaps have enough money to fund some of the clinics that have not been funded.
We will look forward to working with the gentleman. He deserves an answer from the VA. I don't know why the gentleman hasn't gotten an answer back from the VA. I encourage you to keep calling them or talking to them until they do answer you.
Again, I can't answer specifically on where Hickory does stand or should stand in the process. That should be a process based on the reality of the veterans' needs, comparing one community to another. But I sure look forward to working with our colleagues to see that we have enough funding in this bill to increase the number of VA clinics that we can build around the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and ExpensesFor necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the American Battle Monuments Commission, including the acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $7,500 for official reception and representation expenses; and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of such countries, $43,470,000, to remain available until expended.
Foreign Currency Fluctuations Account
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the American Battle Monuments Commission, $11,000,000, to remain available until expended, for purposes authorized by section 2109 of title 36, United States Code.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and ExpensesFor necessary expenses for the operation of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by sections 7251 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code, $21,397,000, of which $1,300,000 shall be available for the purpose of providing financial assistance as described, and in accordance with the process and reporting procedures set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-229.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and ExpensesFor necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, $30,592,000, to remain available until expended. In addition, such sums as may be necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement, to be derived from the Lease of Department of Defense Real Property for Defense Agencies account.
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust FundFor 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, $55,724,000.
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Federal Fund PaymentFor payment to the "Armed Forces Retirement Home", $800,000, to remain available until expended.
TITLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONSSec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to which the funds are made available that the program, project, or activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating to risk assessment, the protection of private property rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 404. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
Sec. 405. All departments and agencies funded under this Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of "E-Commerce" technologies and procedures in the conduct of their business practices and public service activities.
Mrs. Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 405 (page 48, beginning on line 11), strike "encouraged" and insert "directed".
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, American businesses in the private sector continue to advance the use of information and e-commerce technology to strengthen their bottom line and increase customer service. However, too many government agencies continue to use antiquated operating systems that do not use taxpayer dollars efficiently or create optimal conditions for customer service.
Right here in the House of Representatives, we offer Americans e- commerce services in the form of "Write Your Rep." I am sure most of my colleagues and their staff use this program, and they use it with efficiency. It helps us to stay in touch.
I have a military post in my district, Fort Campbell. It is located in Montgomery County, Tennessee. I also have 60,000 veterans that are there. One of the things we find is that many times our agencies, working with these constituents, continue to do business on antiquated systems that don't optimize efficiently.
That is why I am offering this amendment today. Increasing the use of e-commerce technology and procedures in the bureaucracy will allow critical agencies funded under this act to operate more efficiently. But, more importantly, it will allow our members of the military and our veterans to gain access to records, especially health records, that they need in a timely manner.
I want to thank the chairman for recognizing this important business objective. The underlying legislation takes a step forward to the goal by encouraging the agencies to expand the use of e-commerce.
My amendment, however, is an important step further. It would direct the agencies funded under H.R. 2642 to expand the use of e-commerce technologies in the conducting of their business practices within the limits, within the limits, of the existing statute and funding.
It is a straightforward, simple amendment. As we know, the bureaucracy is not going to do this on their own. They need the oversight from Congress.
If successful, we have got three points we hope it would achieve: number one, lead to greater transparency in agency asset and records management; number two, enhance governmental reform and efficiency; and, number three, spur agencies to build best practices and conduct themselves in a more businesslike manner.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I think this is a good amendment, and I will support it. I think there will be broad bipartisan support for your amendment, because it is well thought out and it is a positive thing to do. We will support it.
Mrs. Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for thinking about the records process with our veterans and our military.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 406. None of the funds made available in this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 407. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
Sec. 408. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, not later than February 1, 2008, submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report projecting annual appropriations necessary for the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue providing necessary health care to veterans for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.
Mrs. Musgrave: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used for any action that is related to or promotes the expansion of the boundaries or size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern Colorado.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. Musgrave: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman for his work on this bill, and I would like to commend the ranking member for the yeoman's job that you have done, for the work you have had before you. I very much appreciate it.
In Colorado, we have a very unique situation. We have a maneuver site that the United States Army uses, and it is 236,000 acres presently. The Army is wanting to expand this by 418,000 additional acres.
If you drive in that area of our State, you will see this sign. This was created by a high school teacher from La Junta: "Our land is our life. It is not for sale."
As a very strong supporter of the United States military, but also a very strong supporter of our private property rights, I am opposed to this expansion, and my amendment would say that no funds in this bill would be used for the expansion.
A month ago in Colorado, our Democratic Governor, Bill Ritter, signed into law a bill to withdraw the State's consent to give up any land that the United States Army might acquire through condemnation. So there is a very strong message that comes from our State legislature, from our house and senate and from our Governor. But the most poignant opposition that I hear about is from the farmers and ranchers, many of them who have been there for five generations who will lose their land, who will lose their way of life.
When you look at the opposition to the Pinon Canyon expansion, it goes on and on. But, interestingly enough, it is very diverse. The opposition comes from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It comes from property rights groups. But it also comes from groups such as the Sierra Club, Colorado Springs Chapter. This is all over the political spectrum that this expansion is opposed.
As we think about what could happen in that area, it is interesting to look at the National Trust for Historic Preservation issues and their 2000 list of America's most endangered places: "Pinon Canyon, Colorado. In Southeastern Colorado, under uninterrupted blue skies, Pinon Canyon is an area of scenic buttes, river valleys, family ranches and historic and archeological sites that span 11,500 years. The area is threatened by the United States Army's plan to expand its maneuver training ground by as much as 418,000 acres, a move that could lead to forced condemnation of private lands and damage or destroy historic Santa Fe Trail monuments, ranches and historic and prehistoric archeological sites."
That is what is at stake in southeastern Colorado. As we look at how much land the government already owns, in the red area you can see how much of our State is already government land in Colorado. The expansion of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site would be as large as the State of Rhode Island. It is striking.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. Salazar: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise as a proud veteran, as a son of a veteran and the father of a veteran. I am honored to be the only veteran of the Colorado delegation.
As an Army man, today I am saddened to rise in opposition to the Army's plan to condemn nearly half a million acres of privately owned ranches and farms in my district.
Pinon Canyon currently has a 235,000-acre training facility which Fort Carson utilizes in southeastern Colorado. Now the Army is seeking to expand the Pinon Canyon site by an additional 418,000 acres, utilizing condemnation as a power to do so. The Army's plans include taking this land by condemnation. If the Army succeeds, Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon combined will be larger than the State of Rhode Island.
Opposition to the expansion is unified, as the gentlewoman from Colorado stated. But when the Army acquired the original Pinon Canyon land in 1982, they promised local landowners that it would never be expanded. Now they are planning to take even more. The loss of 400,000 acres of ranch land, Mr. Chairman, would devastate the economy of southeast Colorado.
The BRAC decision of 2005 stated that the Army did not need additional space. In 1970, the Army first looked at condemning land in El Paso County, which is now in Mr. Lamborn's district for the original Pinon Canyon. Many residents from El Paso County fought against the possible land grab in their own backyard, and the site was eventually moved to southeast Colorado.
I would ask my fellow Members, if you can't support this in your backyard, please don't support it in my district.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this is with mixed feelings: I want to make it clear that I think the Army has responsibility to these communities in Colorado to sit down with them, work with them and work with the landowners, because it is my understanding that at one point the Army made the statement that it would not exercise eminent domain.
I also want to clarify that there is no money in this bill to allow for any acquisition of any land. The money in this bill could be used by the Army to pursue plans to later acquire land.
I respect Mrs. Musgrave and Mr. Salazar for their opposition, and I say that with great respect to you, Mr. Salazar, knowing of your service and your family's service to our Nation's military. The reason I personally oppose this amendment is that the Army sees Fort Carson as an important part of growing the Army, of bringing troops back from Germany and South Korea, of implementing the BRAC process, and the Army has identified up to 5 million acres worldwide that they need for additional training operations.
Fort Carson is one of the tremendous beneficiaries of the BRAC 2005 process, getting two additional brigades that are moving from Fort Hood as well as additional forces there. So I am going to oppose the amendment because I believe it would stop even the planning process for even a smaller amount, much smaller than 418,000 acres. I understand why the gentlewoman and the gentleman are opposing what the Army's intentions are, but at least let's clarify that there is no money in this bill for land acquisition.
I yield to Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar: I agree there is no money for actual land acquisition, but there is money for the planning process. Do you agree with me that in the 2005 BRAC decision that the Army clearly stated they did not need any additional land in Colorado when they moved the troops from Fort Hood to Colorado to Fort Carson? Is that correct?
Mr. Edwards: Reclaiming my time, actually, this is the first BRAC round, in 2005, that I actually voted against. One of the reasons was that I felt the Army was making some decisions that weren't in the best interests of the taxpayers and the Army. But the Army made their decisions. The BRAC recommendations were passed by the Congress, and now they are being implemented. I do have some concerns despite my opposition to BRAC 2005 that if we totally stop the planning for this expansion, we could seriously impact the training of forces during a critical time in the Army's history.
I respect the gentleman's position, and I am going to encourage the Army to sit down and meet with both Members who are sponsoring this amendment, and perhaps the gentlelady and gentleman can win this vote.
But if not, I am still going to encourage the Army to sit down and deal with the landowners and the people of Colorado, and the two of you in particular, to try to address this problem and the concerns, the legitimate concerns that you have raised.
Mr. Wicker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wicker: Mr. Chairman, for a different perspective, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. Lamborn: Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
I rise today in opposition to this amendment which would cut off all funding to study an expansion of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site. This amendment would stop the Army from providing the soldiers with much-needed additional training space, an action which could have serious negative consequences for the Army and for the brave men and women serving our Nation.
By prohibiting these funds, the Army would not even be able to study the area and complete an environmental impact statement. The purpose of an EIS is to assess the environmental, economic and other impacts of a proposed action before a Federal action is even taken up.
Private property rights are deeply important to me. Any option to increase the size of the PCMS should be thoroughly studied, and if plans for the expansion were to go forward, it should occur to the greatest extent possible, if not completely through willing sellers.
The type of enemy we are now facing overseas is much different than during the Cold War. PCMS contains terrain much like areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We are fortunate as a country to have this training area, but the Army has outgrown it. It would be a shame to not even study the possibility of using an existing facility that could easily be transformed into a 22nd-century facility. During the Cold War, divisions consisting of approximately 20,000 soldiers fought in relatively small areas in Europe. Consequently, training could be conducted in areas of approximately 22,000 acres or 5 by 7 miles. Today, brigade-size formations of approximately 3,500 soldiers must now operate in and control areas of approximately 615,000 acres, or 31 by 31 miles.
While Army units have gotten smaller, the battlefield has gotten larger. We owe our soldiers proper training for the conditions they will experience in other combat theaters. Not allowing the soldiers to train adequately puts them in harm's way.
The Army is simply asking for an opportunity to study an expansion. To deny them this opportunity would be to substitute political pressure for the considered judgment of our military commanders who are charged with training and protecting our troops.
It is unrealistic and irresponsible to think other public lands in Colorado or the West, such as roadless wilderness areas or national parks, could be used as a substitute. No critic of PCMS has come forward with a responsible and specific alternative. The longer distances involved would also make that difficult.
Over 200 soldiers from Fort Carson have died in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting terrorism. The soldiers and commanders at Fort Carson know what it takes to wage war in the 21st century, and they are serious about it. It would truly be a shame if they don't have the proper training facilities so that they can succeed. The Army should at least be given a chance to study the issue and present their findings.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mrs. Musgrave: Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Wicker: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), but I would express to all of my colleagues, though, that we are receiving calls from people who have made airline plans and are hoping to get back to their districts and to their homes for Father's Day. Mindful of that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. Musgrave: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that my son-in-law served in Afghanistan, and I would like to commend Mr. Salazar, his father and his son for their service to this great Nation and point out that in the 1970s the land was thought about in the Colorado Springs area in El Paso County, and the landowners there fought it.
And so when anyone would imply that Mr. Salazar and I, Mr. Chairman, are responding to political pressure, what we are doing is standing up for private property rights and balancing that with our concern that our soldiers have the proper training.
It is like Mr. Salazar said, you oppose it in your own yard, but it is okay for someone else. I am standing up for those ranchers. You might as well cross southeastern Colorado off the map if this expansion goes forward. So I respectfully look at the opinion of my friend from Colorado and I do say, though, that in this country the government owns enough land. There are alternatives to this that would be satisfactory in balancing our support for private property rights and our support for our troops.
Mr. Udall of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
Passage of this amendment will not stop the proposed expansion of the Army's Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern Colorado, but it will delay consideration of the Army's plans until two very important questions can be answered: (1) What are the Army's real training needs, and (2) will the Army assure Coloradans that it will not resort to condemnation to acquire land?
Before giving the Army money to take the first steps toward expanding these training grounds, we should be convinced that there is a real military need for the Army to acquire an additional 418,000 acres. I have kept an open mind on this question and that that is why, along with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, I have asked the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on whether this expansion is the right way to meet the Army's training requirements and what other alternatives the Army should consider.
More important, it is abundantly clear to me that there is no support--even among proponents of an expansion--for the Army's use of eminent domain to acquire any land. But so far, the Army has been reluctant to give the State of Colorado and the landowners in the area a commitment that it will not resort to condemnation. For me, that commitment is essential, and unless and until the Army makes clear it will not use condemnation, I believe Congress should not allow the expansion process to go forward.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Salazar: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be postponed.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wicker and I would not want to cut off any Member from expressing his or her heartfelt views on important issues in this bill, but we would like to bring to the attention of the House and our colleagues that there are a number of colleagues trying to catch airplanes to get back home for Father's Day weekend. There are a number of amendments that are subject to a point of order. I would like to respectfully request Members on those amendments to keep your remarks to 2 minutes. I will reserve my right to exercise a point of order. If we take too much time, we might have to go ahead and exercise those points of order.
If we could proceed ahead expeditiously, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Hall of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hall of New York:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide to any officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs who is appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or to any Deputy Under Secretary or Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs a performance award under section 5384 of title 5, United States Code, or a performance-based cash award under section 4505a of such title.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Hall of New York: Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a small change to funding at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would prohibit any funding to be spent for performance bonuses to senior level staff at the Department for fiscal year 2008.
This amendment would effectively mean no person in a Presidential- appointed position or Secretary-level position would receive a performance bonus during the coming fiscal year.
As I begin, let me state that the Department of Veterans Affairs has done a very good job in many areas for our Nation's veterans. In fact, its health care system is rated amongst the very best in the country, and the demand of veterans to get into the system speaks to the high level of care that it provides.
However, there remains a significant need for improvement in many areas. In the last 3 years, the VA has underestimated its health care budget by nearly $1 billion. It has roughly 600,000 veterans claims backlogged and veterans currently waiting an average of 177 days before receiving a decision on their claim.
Furthermore, according to a draft Inspector General's report, the VA is significantly overstating its success in getting patients timely appointments with VA doctors. The number of claims pending before the Department has steadily increased over the last 5 years. The current wait time is nearly 2 months longer than what Secretary Nicholson suggested in front of our Veterans Affairs Subcommittee would be acceptable to him, which was 125 days rather than the 177 currently being suffered by our veterans. That is nearly a 2-month difference.
The Secretary himself called this "unacceptable." However, the awards for bonuses last year ranged up to and included a number of members of high management at the VA of $33,000 in annual bonus. Their award bonuses were because of evaluations of outstanding and excellent. In fact, 87 percent of the senior staff were called "outstanding" or "excellent" in performance. One of those who got the $33,000 bonus had only served in his position from February 2006 until September 2006. So an outstanding performance for 6 months earned that individual a $33,000 bonus; this at a time when our veterans are waiting 177 days average to have their claims for disability heard. And if they go to an appeal, it is an average of 2 years to wait for that appeal to be heard. This simply makes no sense. It is either unacceptable or it is outstanding, but it can't be both.
I am sure that most of the staff at the Department is dedicated and hardworking and the service they provided in often excellent, but in other areas it is unsatisfactory. Our veterans deserve accountability from the VA. Yet Secretary Nicholson himself has signed off on all of these bonuses, making only one change since 2004.
Veterans in my district and across the country were outraged when The Washington Post and the Army Times broke this story a couple of months ago. The VA Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight invited Secretary Nicholson to testify this week and explain the bonuses. However, he decline and decided instead to send a substitute who admitted to knowing very little about the issue.
I understand that the chairman wants to study and best address this issue; and I would prefer that rather than eliminating bonuses altogether that we have them tied to performance, as bonuses should be. So if the chairman agrees, I would like to work with him and other Members on a separate piece of legislation to add accountability to the bonus process to the Department.
As in private industry, bonuses at the VA should be tied to performance, and I believe all of us want to see that happen, want to see the backlog reduced, and want to see our veterans get their claims processed promptly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Hall for his strong leadership; first, on trying to see that this Congress, which we are going to do in this bill, provides the funding to reduce the terrible backlog of veterans cases pending. As he mentioned, there are over 400,000-plus veterans waiting for their cases to be considered.
And, secondly, for bringing to the attention of the Congress the problems raised by the bonuses given to a number of VA employees at a time when so many veterans are waiting for their benefits.
I thank the gentleman for agreeing to withdraw the amendment. We have every intention of working with him and the Veterans' Affairs Committee on which he serves as a subcommittee chairman to address the inequities of this situation.
Mr. Hall of New York: Mr. Chairman, with the chairman's agreement, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this amendment is either ill-conceived or politically conceived in that the Deputy Secretary is the gentleman who came to the committee to testify, and that was by agreement at the committee.
So to say that the administration sent someone who was uninformed is not a good way to address this to our colleagues.
That was by agreement of the committee, and it was the Deputy Secretary of the VA who came in and who testified, and as a matter of fact, his testimony, that I will share with all my colleagues, is that he testified just last week during the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on the SEC bonuses, at which the author of this amendment was present and he said, by statute, senior executive presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed appointees are not eligible for performance bonuses.
Did you hear that? They're not eligible for bonuses. So what we have here is, the gentleman's brought an amendment that is either redundant, multiplicitous or unnecessary.
With that, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Chairman: Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. Hall of New York: Mr. Chairman, thank you for agreeing to allow the amendment to be withdrawn.
For the record, I would like to say that Under Secretary Mansfield, under oath this week at the Subcommittee on Oversight hearing, at least six times answered that he did not know the information and would have to go back and respond in writing. And one of those times specifically had do with an individual who was identified by the Congressional Research Service as being a presidential appointee who is among those receiving bonuses.
So at least in one case that may need to be clarified.
