Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to commend Chairman Cole for his efforts on this issue. I serve with him on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. I know he has been in constant communication with our friends at the NIH and the CDC to make sure we get the resources necessary to them so they can help us deal with this very real threat. Again, I am very pleased that we have returned to regular order and that we are going to conference this bill on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, and on Zika. It is great for the Congress, great for the country, and we need to move forward.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to bring to the House's attention the 125th Anniversary of the Bethany United Church of Christ located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and to offer congratulations to the congregation. Bethany UCC, located at the corner of 5th Avenue and West Market Street in Bethlehem, was originally founded in order to provide a conveniently located place of worship for the western portion of Bethlehem that would help alleviate the over-crowding at the First Reformed Church of Christ in the City. One hundred twenty five years later, Bethany UCC continues to thrive with an engaged congregation who immerse themselves in their community to aid and enrich the lives of others through service, fellowship, and music. My heartfelt congratulations are extended to the members of the Bethany United Church of Christ on this 125th Anniversary. I believe I speak on behalf of the community when I thank them for their efforts on behalf of the people of the Lehigh Valley. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in offering well wishes and congratulations to the men and women of Bethlehem's Bethany United Church of Christ. May the next 125 years foster additional congregational growth and provide further opportunities for continued service and fellowship within the Bethlehem community.

Mr. DENT

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

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

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

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 include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4974, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I make a point of order against this amendment. Although it is a very well-intended amendment, and I am very sympathetic to what he wants to do, I think there might be a way, if the gentleman withdraws and tries to perfect that amendment, that it might be made in order. This amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The bill gives direction to that effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. Again, I would ask my colleague to consider withdrawing and see if he can perfect that amendment so that it would be made in order.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, on the point of order, the point I am trying to make is this: if the amendment is withdrawn, it can be reworked so that it would be in order. We believe that there is a way to do that even today. That is the offer I am making to you. If the amendment is withdrawn, there is a possibility that this amendment could be made in order, but it does have to be perfected. I am a cosponsor of the actual underlying legislation, so I support it. But at the moment, in our view, it does constitute legislation in an appropriation bill, and, therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. But I pledge to work to the best of our ability to try to make it in order, even today, if possible.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I understand the gentleman's concerns about starting this large, new office at the VA. As you can see from our report, we cut the request for General Administration by $81.3 million, largely because of our concerns about funding this large office; so I think we have already achieved what the gentleman is looking to accomplish. It is hard to imagine that the VA could find $81 million in another account to backfill this office. I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment. I will tell the gentleman, however, that this will inevitably become a conference issue because the Senate supports the creation of the office. I do not object to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is familiar to us since the gentleman offered it last year. I am not sure it is necessary to repeat the language this year since we know the VA has rescinded the Fast Letter guidance. After all, with the IG investigation into the dual scheduling systems, it doesn't seem likely that the VA is maintaining recordkeeping systems that are not approved by headquarters; but I am not going to object to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I understand there is a great demand throughout our Nation for State veterans' homes, and I wish we had the allocation to provide more for this program than we did. I do want to raise a concern with the language that it might--I say ``might.'' I am not saying ``definitely''--favor some States rather than increase funding for the entire State HOME Program. I was pleased to hear the gentleman state that he is not trying to jump ahead of other States that may be in line, but this is an issue that we are going to have to discuss at the conference committee. I am not going to object to the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time to speak in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, no one shares the gentleman's concerns more than I do about the inappropriate relocation incentive payments the VA initially paid to two executives at the Philadelphia regional office. The VA has since reformed its policies, and I hope we will never ever hear again about such egregious staff misconduct and inappropriate reimbursements. However, I do think that the relocation incentive can be an important tool in some circumstances. Although I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, I think this may need to be refined a bit in conference to reflect the usefulness of the tool, when used appropriately. As I said, there was egregious misconduct in Philadelphia, as the gentleman correctly points out. There is no question. In fact, many of us went and visited the Philadelphia regional office at about that time for a hearing, both Republicans and Democrats, authorizers and appropriators, to discuss the challenges at that particular office. That said, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The Department of Defense has awarded one construction contract, that is the explosives-handling wharf in Kitsap, Washington--I believe, in the gentleman's district--where the solicitation favored PLAs. The Department of Veterans Affairs has not awarded any contracts that have used PLAs, and they currently have no solicitations that favor PLAs. That said, I am very sympathetic with the gentleman's amendment, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has offered the amendment in previous years, and we have accepted it. I have no objection to it being included again in the bill this year. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment. We appreciate the good work that my friend from New York (Mr. Gibson) has done to advocate on behalf of all veterans, and particularly his commitment to helping those who suffered from Agent Orange exposure, as well as many other issues. So I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.