Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona's emphasis on maximizing funding for the Board of Veterans Appeals. The board will be facing an enormous increase in caseload as the backlog of initial disability claims is cleared and veterans appeals those decisions. We have provided a $9 million, or 8.6 percent, increase in the board's funding, as well as additional information technology funds to help modernize the board's paperbound processing system. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I understand the gentleman's focus on providing information technology resources for the VA in order to meet the goals of eliminating the backlog. I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I know the gentleman from Michigan has a deep commitment to providing job training and employment assistance for our returning veterans, and I support the amendment, which highlights the importance of VA programs that provide this assistance.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it 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 amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to my friend from South Carolina. I do understand how construction is done. I do want to point out that many of these projects are not all funded in one single fiscal year, but over a period of years, both domestically and internationally, as is the case here. So, again, I would rise in opposition to the amendment and urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to my friend's amendment. We had a similar debate in the full committee just last week. The VA must comply with all Federal laws, including the Controlled Substances Act. This act designates schedule I drugs, such as marijuana, as having no currently accepted medical use. There are criminal penalties associated with the production, distribution, and possession of these drugs. The standing VA policy does not deny veterans who participate in State marijuana programs from also participating in VA substance abuse or clinical programs. It simply prohibits VA clinicians from completing forms for their participation in such State programs or for providing or paying for marijuana authorized by a State program. Veterans are able to participate in State programs. They just cannot possess marijuana at VA facilities. Changing the VA directive does not change the DEA's interpretation of Federal law on marijuana. DEA has advised VA that its doctors cannot issue anything that could be construed as a prescription or endorsement of medical marijuana, so the amendment won't change the situation for veterans unless the VA physicians are willing to risk prosecution. At this point, again, I would have to urge opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleagues are very sincere in their attempt. I am sympathetic to at least listening to the arguments for medicinal marijuana, but this discussion must be driven by the science. I would love to hear from the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, and the medical community formally about their views on this issue prior to us legislating on this matter. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I just wanted to state I do not object to the gentleman's amendment. He raised the Philadelphia issue. I am very much aware of it and certainly concerned about it, and I understand the purpose. I also understand the purpose of the Appraised Value Offer Program, when a valued employee would otherwise stand to lose thousands in the sale of a house to move at the request of their employing agency. But sometimes the cost of the program seems a little excessive, in my view. In conference, we may need to tweak the language to make sure that we aren't jeopardizing VA's efforts to move talented staff to areas where they are needed. But as I said, I do not object to the amendment.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. I just want to say I rise in support of the amendment. A number of Members have offered amendments relating to the VA performance bonus awards. The gentleman's amendment is the most comprehensive, and I would encourage other Members to join with Mr. Rothfus rather than offer their own amendments. We have all certainly been outraged by the behavior of some VA employees and the consequences for veterans' health and well-being resulting from incompetence, deceit, and deception. A ban on all senior executive service performance bonuses is a needed wake-up call to the VA bureaucracy which, as we have seen, needs to change its culture to ensure veterans' needs are their top priority. I support the amendment.

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

Mr. DENT. 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: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore, I would request a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I am aware the South Dakota delegation has been struggling with the VA's determination to move services out of historic facilities into a new geographic area. We had language in last year's bill forcing the VA to do a full analysis of the consequences of the facility moving. I have no objection to including the amendment Representative Noem is offering this year.

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

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns with this amendment. As I read it, it appears to be a ``one strike and you are out'' type amendment.