John Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of our subcommittee who does a superb job representing her constituents.

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

Mr. CULBERSON. Marijuana is prohibited under Federal law, and that is my point. I urge Members to oppose the amendment for that reason.

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. I would simply point out that a Federal employee who is paid with Federal tax dollars is obligated to follow Federal law.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. CULBERSON. It is prohibited under Federal law.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time we have remaining?

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Very quickly, we are talking about those States where it is already permitted--either medical marijuana is in Colorado, and I think Washington State has already permitted it. It is a 10th Amendment issue. It is something that is left up to the States, but we are talking about federally-funded facilities, and that is the concern here, in a federally-funded facility, where it is illegal under Federal law, that is the problem.

Mr. CULBERSON. This is a federally-funded facility.

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. Will the gentleman yield?

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 move to strike the last word.

Mr. CULBERSON. Because it is prohibited by Federal law.

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure to acknowledge and thank my friend, Mr. Cuellar, from Laredo. We have been good friends and served together in the Texas House. I am sure he remembers the appropriations committee in the Texas House. And we understand the value of the power of the purse. We are indeed using the power of the purse to achieve the goals that Mr. Cuellar has just mentioned, that is, ensuring the claims backlog is dealt with and that the Department of Defense and the VA have an interoperable medical record. There really is no more powerful check and balance that the legislative branch has over the executive branch than the power of the purse, which originates in the House. Article 1, section 9 says that no money may be drawn from the Treasury, except by appropriations. We are working together arm-in-arm, just as we did in the Texas House, in support of our veterans and military. In fact, we also have found great common ground when it comes to law enforcement on the border, something that his folks in Laredo have a keen interest in: safe streets, good schools, a strong economy. And that all begins with law enforcement. I want to thank the gentleman from Laredo because it has been a pleasure working with him on so many of these good issues. We could have not gotten to this spot, Mr. Chairman, without the help of the committee staff. We have got an extraordinary group of people who have made this possible. The Appropriations Committee is blessed to have had professionals here who have helped us for years. I want to particularly thank Donna Shabazz, Sue Quantius, and Sarah Young, and make sure that we also recognize the extraordinary contributions by Matt Washington and Tracey Russell. This has really been a team effort. It is an extraordinary complex piece of legislation to ensure that not only the money that our taxpayers have worked so hard to earn is wisely spent, but that the agencies that are the beneficiaries of these hard-earned tax dollars understand that with the receipt of this money comes the obligation to ensure that it is spent wisely. We are going to continue with aggressive oversight. When it comes to oversight, Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention that we are going to have an amendment later today by the Congresswoman from Phoenix to deal with this really deeply concerning situation that we have seen arise in the Phoenix VA where you have got a doctor claiming that folks have lost their lives. They were unable to get access to the medical care they have earned from their medical service at the Phoenix hospital. That is another way to enforce the law. With additional funding, we are going to use the inspector general's office to investigate this and find out what is actually going on. In that case, if there has been deliberate or intentional refusal to admit veterans to the VA hospital in Phoenix, there are going to be criminal charges. Certainly, our heart goes out to those families in Phoenix. We are all committed to make sure that any veteran, any member of the military who has served this country, has immediate access to the best medical care in the world. And that is why this is such a bipartisan bill and one that we offer to the House today, arm-in-arm. Both the gentleman from Georgia and the people of Texas that I represent were pleased to present this to the House and encourage the Members to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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, 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.

John Culberson

Speeches

Manage analytics