John Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 4486, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is a real honor and a privilege for me to present the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Appropriations bill to the House of Representatives with my good friend from Georgia, Sanford Bishop. This is a bipartisan bill that we produced together with unanimous support of the committee and the subcommittee to ensure that our veterans and our men and women in uniform have everything that they need to do their job with complete peace of mind. In fact, I often think of the job of this subcommittee as the peace of mind subcommittee, to be sure that our men and women in uniform have everything they need when it comes to their physical infrastructure and that, when they leave the services and go into the VA system, they have everything they need. Making sure that our men and women in uniform have everything that they need and making sure that our veterans when they leave the service have the best possible medical care this country can provide is one of those fundamental functions of the government. We have an obligation as guardians of the Treasury and as good stewards of taxpayers' hard- earned dollars to ensure that this vital, core function of our Federal Government is fulfilled to our veterans and to our men and women in uniform. In this appropriations bill, we have included $71.5 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.8 billion less than last year and $398 million less than the budget request. We have provided the full budget request number of $6.6 billion for military construction projects, and while we have provided $1.8 billion less in fiscal year '14, we have included $64.7 billion in discretionary funding for the VA, which is about $1.5 billion more than last year. We have included an additional $20 million to get at the claims backlog and $17 million more than was requested for electronic medical records. In this legislation, we are ensuring that we have continued strict oversight of the VA in their reporting requirements on the claims backlog. The length of time it takes veterans to receive the disability benefits that they have earned is just unacceptable, so Mr. Bishop and I have included language in this bill to have very strict reporting requirements over which we will continue to exercise vigorous oversight in the months ahead at the VA to ensure that the claims backlog is reduced. We are also introducing a mechanism here that we have found to be very, very effective in the case of electronic health records. The VA and the Department of Defense are operating two completely different medical record systems that don't talk to each other. So, when you are in uniform in the Armed Forces and leave and go into the private sector and when the VA picks you up, the VA can't read your medical records. This is unacceptable. Since 2008, the Congress has had laws on the books that require the VA and the Department of Defense to have transparent, interoperable medical records that would be easily and quickly readable when a servicemember leaves the active service and goes into the VA system. Yet they are still not there, so we have in this bill a mechanism that says you are only going to get 25 percent of your money up front on implementing electronic health records until you come back to the committee and show us that you are meeting your obligation under the law to provide an immediate, seamless, and transparent transfer of your medical records from the Department of Defense to the VA. In particular, I want to thank Chairman Rogers for his support in this effort. He had a constituent of whom I am confident he will talk about in a minute--a young man in his district who really struck a chord with me. It is a tragic example of how unacceptable this is, that one agency can't read the medical records of the other. He is a young man who was injured. He lost his eyesight, I believe, Mr. Chairman, in Afghanistan. He had the vision in one eye lost, but had damage in the other eye. He still had some vision in the other eye, so when he left the service to go into the VA and when the VA needed to work on his other eye immediately in order to save his vision, the VA could not read the medical records provided to them by the Department of Defense. The doctors at the VA, understandably being cautious and concerned and being unable to read the records, didn't operate as quickly as they should have, and the young man lost his eyesight as a result of the medical records being unreadable by the VA. It is tragic, unacceptable, and utterly outrageous. I am working closely with the chairman of the armed services Appropriations subcommittee. Chairman Rogers has been terrifically helpful in this as has Ranking Member Lowey and my good friend Mr. Bishop from Georgia. We are working with the armed services subcommittee in Appropriations to put identical language in the bill so that the DOD is in the same boat. You are going to have to earn your money. Prove to us that you are obeying the law, that you are fulfilling your obligation to our veterans and to our men and women in uniform, and then we will release the money. Follow the law and you will get your money. It works every time in the private sector. Certainly, I am confident that it is going to work here. I often think of the fact that I have been using an Apple Macintosh computer since they first came out in 1985. I never dreamed that you would be able to use a Windows operating system on a Macintosh computer, but, today, you can run Microsoft Word and other Windows programs on a Macintosh operating system. Surely, if Apple and Windows can work it out, the VA and the Department of Defense can as well. This bill ensures that that is going to happen. If they want to see the rest of their money, they are going to have to obey the law and get an interoperable, transparent medical records system in place. Mr. Chairman, we have also limited the availability of construction funds in this bill to 5 years for hospitals that the VA builds so that the veterans don't have to wait endlessly for the completion of a hospital. I will never forget when I first got this marvelous assignment--I was assigned by Chairman Rogers to handle this important bill--that the Denver hospital had $900 million, I believe, set aside, squirreled away in a hole. I don't think they had signed a contract or turned a spade of dirt, but they had $900 million squirreled away for years--that they had not used--in order to build that sorely needed hospital in Denver. That is just unacceptable. This money that we are privileged to be stewards of was earned by our constituents by the sweat of their brow and their hard work, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the money is wisely spent, that it is spent to ensure that the law is enforced and, above all, that we do not spend any more than is absolutely necessary to fulfill the fundamental obligations of the United States Government. At the top of that list is to ensure that our veterans receive the medical care they have earned, that they receive the disability benefits in a timely fashion that they have earned, and that our men and women in uniform have all of the physical facilities they need to do their jobs with the peace of mind and the assurance that the United States Congress and the American taxpayers are right there with them, looking over their shoulders, to take care of them. That is why this is the ``peace of mind'' committee, and it is a privilege for me to serve with my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). So that my good friend Mr. Bishop can address the House, I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.004

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because, even though I am a strong believer in the 10th Amendment and public health and public safety is reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment, here we are talking about Federal facilities. Marijuana is prohibited under Federal law. Any Federal facility funded with Federal dollars--I think it is entirely appropriate that it continue to be prohibited on a Federal facility. This is an issue that should be left to the States. Nothing is prohibiting a veteran from seeking medical attention in a State where this is legal or where medical marijuana is permitted. They can certainly go to a private physician. Frankly, in the States where it is legal, in some of these States, I think they are even working on vending machines for them. I understand the gentleman's position, but again, these are Federal facilities funded with Federal dollars. It is prohibited under Federal law, and it is an issue best left to the States. I think we would all do better as a Congress to honor the 10th Amendment and leave those issues involving public health and public safety to the States. We ought to focus on the issues specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution and leave the vast majority of issues in the hands of voters, their local elected officials, and State officials. This is certainly one of them. When it comes to a federally-funded facility, I think it is appropriate that the VA has a policy against their doctors prescribing or recommending the use of a substance that is prohibited under Federal law. If they need it, they can go to States where it is permitted. I urge Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, and the amendment in this case requires a new determination. I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Many Members have also requested language that would ban performance bonuses for senior-level executives at the VA in response to the concerns Mr. Rothfus has just mentioned. I join him in grieving for those veterans who lost their lives as a result of the Legionnaires' disease outbreak. My heart goes out to them and their families. The authorizing committees have, indeed, as Mr. Rothfus says, taken action on this issue. The GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013 that passed in February contains a 5-year ban on performance bonuses for VA Senior Executive Service employees. In February, the Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee introduced legislation that would give the VA Secretary complete authority to fire or demote Veterans Affairs senior executive employees based on performance. That is a sorely needed performance tool that the VA Secretary, I know, will use. Mr. Chairman, we have also included language in our report reiterating that the Secretary of the VA already has all the authority they need to reward employees for good performance and withhold rewards for poor performance, just like the private sector. That is a question I specifically asked during our hearing with the VA Secretary, and we have established that from the Secretary's own testimony, reaffirmed that in our bill itself. The Secretary demonstrated his commitment to linking awards to performance when he withheld awards for everyone in the Veterans Benefit Administration last year because the claims backlog targets have not been met. This is, I believe, an important amendment. I support it and urge the Members of the House to support it to send a clear signal to the VA that the Members of the United States Congress are unhappy with their performance, and they need to step it up. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. CULBERSON. That is absolutely a valid issue for the States to take up. We should all honor the 10th Amendment. The Constitution delegates limited powers to the Congress. If it crosses State lines, interstate commerce, that is a valid Federal concern. If it is using Federal dollars, that is a valid Federal concern. But that debate, you are exactly right, should be held at the State level. When it comes to police powers, public health, public safety, that is reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment, and I would absolutely agree; but in a Federal facility, that is different. That is using Federal dollars to talk about a substance that is prohibited under Federal law. I have a problem with that.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, if the gentleman will yield, I would point out I have a software application on here called Dragon Naturally Speaking. You just talk into it and it transcribes it instantly. As we used to say, ``Get with the nineties,'' get with the modern era and just download a few apps on the computers. We will bird-dog them relentlessly. That is absurd.

Mr. CULBERSON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask how much time do we have remaining in this part of the debate?

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, I have. It is an ongoing problem trying to get any of the agencies to tell you what their administrative costs are. It is extraordinarily important. I really appreciate you bringing it to our attention. We are going to continue to work on this with you and other Members to ensure that our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We have presented this piece of legislation to the House in a bipartisan fashion. We have got unanimous support for it. This is one of those areas where we have an honest but earnest philosophical disagreement. This is something my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran), has been pursuing over the years, but it is, again, something the constituents I represent, the folks of Texas, I know oppose the idea of giving constitutional rights to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields, especially these cowardly terrorists who hide behind women and children and launch sneak attacks against our men and women in uniform. We have asked the Congressional Research Service to attempt to tell us when, if ever, constitutional rights have been granted to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields. The Congressional Research Service tells us the only example they can find is Manuel Noriega, the dictator of Panama, who was captured during the Bush 41 administration and brought to trial in Florida. The individuals at Guantanamo Bay are the most dangerous, radical individuals that have been captured during the war on terror. These folks are extremely dangerous. Any evidence that has been gathered, for example, even if they were to be transferred to the United States and given a criminal trial under the Constitution, which I strenuously object to, but even if they were brought to the United States and put on trial, how would any of the evidence gathered against them in Guantanamo be used to convict them? So this presents unsurmountable problems and is a divisive issue that is going to cause a tremendous amount of disagreement among the Members of Congress on a bill that has enjoyed unanimous and enthusiastic support from everyone in this body to make sure that our veterans and our men and women in uniform are taken care of. It is essential that this amendment be defeated in order to make sure that enemy soldiers are not given the protections of the United States Constitution. It is fundamentally something I strenuously disagree with, as do my constituents, and I urge the Members of this House to reject this amendment. And I hope to also have the support of the people of Georgia in opposing this amendment as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. This is something that we have all worked together arm in arm and welcome the additional resources with the assurance to our employers-- the taxpayers--that we will provide aggressive oversight and ensure that the money is actually used to reduce the backlog as fast as humanly possible and, above all, to enforce the law because the greatest check and balance we have as guardians of the Treasury and good stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars is the power of the purse. I welcome the gentleman's amendment and look forward to supporting it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The rules states in pertinent part that an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, requires a new determination, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

John Culberson

Speeches

Manage analytics