Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. I haven't seen the amendment yet.

Mr. DENT. At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2029 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, it is my honor and privilege to bring H.R. 2029, the fiscal year 2016 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, to the House of Representatives. I present this bill alongside my good friend and ranking member on the subcommittee, Sanford Bishop from Georgia, who has been an essential partner all along the way. I greatly appreciate the participation and support of our committee members, both sides of the aisle, as we considered priorities and funding levels for the important programs in our bill. We analyzed the budget request, developed questions, held oversight hearings to hear directly from members of all the services, the Department of Defense leadership, the Secretary of the VA, the VA inspector general, and the directors of four related agencies. We received over 700 requests from Members--again, from both sides of the aisle--and gave full consideration to each one. It has been a busy spring, and we did our best to accommodate those Member requests. As we consider this bill, I can't proceed further without noticing that this subcommittee has a formidable level of support from the chair and ranking member of the full committee. Thank you, Chairman Rogers and Mrs. Lowey. Your attention to oversight and genuine care for the military and veterans has been inspiring. To round out our team, we have some great support from our professional staff: Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, Tracey Russell, Maureen Holohan, and Matt Washington on the committee staff and Heather Smith, Drew Kent, and Sean Snyder on my personal staff. We couldn't do it without all of them. H.R. 2029 demonstrates our firm commitment to fully supporting the Nation's veterans and servicemembers. Our investment of nearly $77 billion for military construction and Veterans Affairs that is 6 percent--6 percent--over last year's level is unprecedented. This bill provides comprehensive support for servicemembers, military families, and veterans. It supports our troops with facilities and services necessary to maintain readiness and morale at bases here in the States and around the world. It provides for Defense Department schools and health clinics that take care of our military families, and the bill funds our veterans health care systems to ensure that our promise to care for those who have sacrificed in defense of this great Nation continues as those men and women return home. We owe this to our veterans and are committed to sustained oversight so that programs deliver what they promise and taxpayers are well served by the investments we make. On the military construction side, this bill provides a total of $7.7 billion for military construction projects and family housing, including base and overseas contingency operations funding, an increase of $904 million. That is nearly 12 percent above the enacted fiscal year 2015 level and $755 million below the President's request. This funding meets DOD's most critical needs, including priorities for the combatant commanders in EUCOM, CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and PACOM. It provides $607 million for military medical facilities, including the one at Landstuhl, Germany. It provides $334 million for the Department of Defense education facilities, for construction or renovation of 10 schools. It supports our Guard and Reserve through $512 million for facilities in 28 States. It fully funds military family housing at $1.4 billion. And it provides $150 million for the NATO security investment program, which is $30 million over the budget request. On the Veterans Affairs side, the legislation includes a total of $163.2 billion in combined discretionary and mandatory funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Discretionary funding alone for veterans programs in the bill is $68.7 billion. Total fiscal year 2016 discretionary funding is $3.6 billion above 2015. It is a 5.6 percent increase and $1.4 billion below the request. Three billion dollars of this increase was advance funded. On the VA medical services side, the bill funds VA medical services at $48.6 billion. That includes $970 million that the VA came back and asked for on top of the advanced funding from last year. We stretched pretty far to do this, and we haven't funded this second bite in the House before. It is tough to find $970 million in any budget environment, but this committee did, showing again the level of bipartisan commitment we have to our veterans. For disability claims, we provide the full request for the Veterans Benefits Administration, which is a $163 million increase over fiscal year 2015, and the full request for the Board of Veterans Appeals. The bill will enhance transparency and accountability at the VA through further oversight and an increase for the VA Office of Inspector General's independent audits and investigations. I can assure you the inspector general's office has been very, very busy. This legislation also contains $233 million for the modernization of the VA electronic health record and includes language restricting funding until the VA demonstrates progress on the system's functionality and interoperability. This is a major concern to all of us on both sides of the aisle, and I know the chairman, in particular, has been outspoken about this matter, but it is something that all of us, Republican and Democrat, want to see fixed. On construction issues, major construction within the VA is funded at $562 million, which is the same level as fiscal year 2015. The bill provides funding for hospital replacement and allows the VA to continue to correct seismic safety issues and deficiencies. We did not fund the more-than-double budget request for construction, as we face the impact of gross mismanagement of the Colorado VA Hospital construction, which resulted in a $930 million cost overrun. That is not a typo: a $930 million cost overrun, which is nearly twice the entire VA major construction line item. We have also cracked down on oversight with multiple restrictions. We fund the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Arlington National Cemetery, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims at the requested funding levels. In closing, this is a very solid bipartisan bill that is focused on the needs of servicemembers, veterans, and all their families. We are $4.6 billion over the fiscal year 2015 level; again, a nearly 6 percent increase. Not a cut. We have provided for our military and veterans to the very best level we can. Did we fund every last dime requested? No. Not every idea has merit, and not every project is mission critical. We did not fund some projects. We cut some requested increases, and we rescinded funds. These were fair decisions and part of our responsibility as appropriators. We have received a lot of criticism for the actions we have taken very recently. It started with an email campaign from the VA legislative affairs office; then a Statement of Administration Policy; and last, some of the VSOs have joined in. Let me tell you, in my time, before I was chairman of the subcommittee, and certainly in my time since I took over this position, I can say with absolute certainty, the VA's problems stem from poor management, not too little money. Poor management, not too little money. I will say that again. The problems we encounter at the VA time after time--whether it is the Phoenix patient wait list scandal, the claims and benefits mess in Philadelphia, or the Denver hospital construction debacle--show that the VA's problem is management, not money, and for the VA to complain about a 6 percent increase rather than an 8 percent increase and to call a 6 percent increase a cut--they call that a cut. Only in Washington, D.C., can someone call a 6 percent increase over last year a cut. Everywhere else in America it is a 6 percent increase, but not in this town. Amazing to me, and particularly from a Department that has so many severe managerial problems at this time. We need to be diligent with oversight and at the same time be a helping hand to the Department. There is a way out of the morass, but more money without the necessary management reforms is not the answer. I have talked to many Members about the VA, and just last night in the Committee on Rules, I got quite an earful there. Truly, Members are in agreement that we must help the VA transform because that transformation is crucial to serve veterans properly and to respect the taxpayers footing the bill. By the way, that frustration I have heard from Members is from both sides of the aisle, as was the case I heard last night in the Committee on Rules. We will do a lot of good with this bill. It is fair, it is balanced, and, at a 6 percent increase over last year, it is generous. On behalf of our servicemembers, military families, and veterans, I urge your support of this legislation. Let's take care of those who sacrifice for our country. It is time to do the right thing and support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29AP15.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29AP15.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29AP15.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29AP15.004

Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the full committee chairman, and I want to thank him for all his support and leadership in putting this bill together.

Mr. DENT. Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), who has been a tireless advocate for the needs of the veterans in her community in Alabama.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DENT. It does, yes.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I must rise reluctantly in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, this would essentially eliminate OCO funding for our operation in Djibouti where we have infrastructure for fuel storage and distribution facilities. Again, OCO funds were used for similar purposes in Djibouti in fiscal years '12 and '13 through OCO, I believe at the request of the President at the time. Again, Djibouti is a key facility for us strategically and one that is being used in our fight in the global war on terror. It is obviously very close to Somalia, a hotbed of Islamist extremism, as well as close to Yemen, where there is so much hostile action. So, again, I would urge we reject this amendment because it will negatively impact our ability to conduct the global war on terror at a facility right in that part of the world. And again, where precedent has been set, like in these other situations, precedent has been set for using OCO funds. We are doing it again this year, and I think it is appropriate. I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. I agree with Mr. Gosar that eliminating the backlog should be the VA's highest priority. The bill provides the entire administration request for claims processing activities, and I would support your amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I commend the gentlelady for her work to improve the services VA provides to our women veterans. You really ought to be commended. I know your work on the authorizing committee is very important to you. Since women comprise nearly 15 percent of the Active- Duty military forces, VA must improve its services and infrastructure to accommodate gender-specific needs. I certainly strongly support the gentlelady's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I am not opposed the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I support the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. Section 17 of chapter 2 of the House Practice book states in part: ``It is not in order to strike or otherwise amend portions of a bill not yet read for amendment.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. DENT. The point of order is that we are not at the appropriate point in the bill for this amendment to be considered.

Mr. DENT. I object.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Van Hollen- Mulvaney amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that there has been precedent to use OCO money on similar projects for similar purposes in previous years. Specifically, the Bahrain portion that is going to the U.S. Navy, there is a pier replacement, ship maintenance support facility. We used OCO funds in fiscal years '11, '12, and '13 for similar purposes then. I should also note, too, that if we were to strike the OCO funding from this bill, the missile defense in Poland, the Aegis missile defense complex, would also be affected. Again, we had used OCO money for similar purposes in fiscal year '15. I would argue that there is precedent for using OCO funds for the purposes contained in this bill. It is appropriate. I do not agree with the characterization that it is a scam, but it is used as precedent. I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.