Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I won't repeat the statements by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the American Legion and others who have spoken out against non-germane amendments on this bill whose purpose is to support our veterans, their families, our troops, and their families. I know the gentleman from Texas. He is a friend of mine. I think he is genuine in his efforts to accomplish what he would like to accomplish, but this is not the bill. This is not the time. This is not the place in which to do it. Furthermore, despite the gentleman's good intentions, there is a serious flaw in this amendment for which I would strongly oppose it, and that is, it would take $400 million out of the President's budget request for the Base Realignment and Closing process. That would be a terrible mistake because its result would be that thousands of America's veterans returning home from their second and even third tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan would come home to find that the barracks that were supposed to have been built with that BRAC money were not built. They would come home, and then those troops, as they began to train to go back to Iraq and Afghanistan, would find the training ranges that they needed that were to have been built with this $400 million in BRAC funding were not built; the very training ranges that are a vital part of not only allowing those troops to carry out their mission in our Nation's behalf, but help them come home safely to their families. So, for those reasons, as well as a number of others, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states, in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds that are not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would be honored to do so.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. The answer to the gentleman's question is absolutely yes, and I want to salute the gentleman from Colorado for his tireless devotion for seeing that the veterans in the Denver area in Colorado have a VA medical center that is worthy of their service to our country. It is simply not right that this process has been like a ping pong game going back and forth. The veterans of Colorado are told one year one thing's going to happen, the next year another thing is going to happen. The gentleman is right in saying that if plans are changing, there should be input from the veterans in the local communities. So I look forward to working with the gentleman not only in this House but in meetings with the VA officials so that we see we move this important project forward expeditiously.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would like to answer the gentleman's question by saying that the answer is ``yes.'' And I want to thank Mr. Hodes and Ms. Shea-Porter for fighting on behalf of improved medical care for the veterans of New Hampshire. You have not only done that by your election to Congress, you have been key players in making it possible for us to pass the largest increase in VA health care funding in the VA 77-year history. It wouldn't have happened without your election to Congress and your leadership. I look forward to working with both of you in our subcommittee to see that we can ensure that the veterans of New Hampshire who have served our country receive the medical care that they deserve.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through title II, page 35, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me begin by saying to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that I salute his focus on the importance of increasing the funding for State extended care facilities, long-term care for America's veterans. That is exactly why, as the chairman of this subcommittee, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with our other subcommittee members and with Mr. Wamp, the ranking member, to increase by 94 percent above President Bush's request of funding for this program, 94 percent above the President's request. So I have no problem with the intent of what he is trying to accomplish, because we've been working on this very issue for months this year, and the bill product is proof of the success of that effort. The reason I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment is that it would take funding out of the very account that is needed to address one of our veterans' and veterans service organizations' highest priorities in the entire VA budget, and that is to reduce the unconscionable backlog of veterans who are waiting to have their claims processed, including a backlog for combat wounded veterans to have their benefit cases considered. Right now, there are nearly 400,000 veterans waiting to get their claims processed. What this amendment would do is take enough money out of that budget that would require the VA to cut 250 claims processors. Maybe that sounds like a rounding error to some, but to America's veterans, to 390,000 of them to be exact who are waiting for the processing of their benefits they earned by service and even by their sacrifice to our country, that's a significant cut, and it would do great harm to one of the highest priorities of our veterans service organizations.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'd like to finish first. So I wish the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and that we would continue to work in good faith as we already have this year, and that's evidenced by the 94 percent increase above the President's request for these. I cannot go along with cutting funding that could lead to the loss of 250 claims processors that would link them to an already 6-month delay. For 6 months our veterans are having to wait to get their claims considered. Our servicemen and -women, Mr. Chairman, didn't delay when Uncle Sam sent them to combat. They went to all parts of the Earth and into harm's way when our country asked them to do so. They didn't ask for a 6-month delay. For the National Guardsmen, the 500 I met last Sunday afternoon in my hometown of Waco, many of whom are going back to Iraq for their second and third tours of duty, they didn't wait 6 months when their country called on them to duty, and I don't think it's right to ask 390,000 veterans to wait 6 months. We desperately need to get that waiting time down, and I think, though well intended and for a good cause--and it is well intended and it is a good cause--that this amendment that I have strongly supported could do harm to 390,000 veterans. That's why I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. If I have some time remaining, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me just commend Mr. Buyer for not only his leadership on veterans affairs over the years but for this amendment. I think this is a reasonable, responsible amendment, and I'll be glad to support it.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman never identified where he would cut the money from specifically, and this is the account that funds our claims processors that are desperately needed. I'd be happy to continue to work with the gentleman in a good faith, bipartisan effort to look for every dollar we can find for extended care facilities, but let's not take that out of the hide of nearly 400,000 veterans who have been waiting 6 months to get their benefits started. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, the gentleman talked a few minutes ago about how we've worked together; and I think 10 minutes ago was an example of that where I accepted the gentleman's $7 million amendment. On this one, I think the gentleman's explanation about all the problems that have occurred are the perfect reason why I have real concerns about an amendment that already has technical problems in it, an amendment that could deal with up to $150 million coming out of minor construction projects, which are so important for our VA hospitals and clinics, I think this just isn't the right way to handle an amendment of that magnitude. I think the gentleman knows me well; and I will work with him and Mr. Wamp in all good faith and see, as we go to conference, if there are places we can find reasonable funding sources for solar applications. But taking $150 million, for example, would be 15 percent of the VA's minor construction project. And the very intent of that funding is to prevent in the VA system what Americans were outraged at in the Army hospital system at Walter Reed.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, what's not reasonable, I would say to the gentleman, is trying to decide at 10:25 at night an amendment that has already had technical difficulties, an amendment we haven't had a hearing on in our subcommittee--we had 20 hearings over 100 hours, this issue never came up. So my intention is to object to the unanimous consent request, but in good faith, just as I showed a few minutes ago on the $7 million amendment, let's continue to work together and see if we can find a way. I think having solar panels at VA facilities is something that can be an excellent idea, but this isn't the way to bring about that policy.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I object.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think anyone who has listened to this debate over the last few minutes at 10:30 at night understands this isn't about partisanship at all. But I think what the American people would object to is going from $150 million to $75 million to whatever other number that we might pull out of our hat this late in the evening on a measure that wasn't considered for 1 minute in the 19 hearings we held covering over 100 hours. I salute the gentleman, my friend and colleague. I salute the gentleman for his goal of trying to encourage the VA, and I want to encourage the Department of Defense as well, to use solar energy, to lessen our energy costs and our dependence upon foreign energy supplies. That is a worthwhile goal. But, Mr. Chairman, appropriation bills are about setting priorities. And let me tell you my priority, and I'm proud to defend this priority. My priority is that I never want one American veteran to ever have to live in the unconscionable conditions that Army soldiers had to live in at Walter Reed Annex 18 last year. The American people were deeply offended by what they saw. So our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis in good faith to see that we plus-up the minor construction accounts in the VA to provide the kind of renovation so that we don't see that kind of nightmare occurring in the VA system that occurred in the Army medical system. And despite the worthiness of the gentleman's goals, even though it's so late at night and talking about sums such as $150 million, the fact is that loss of money for minor construction could cause the VA to have to cancel 25 to 30 significant construction projects to help provide better care, more modernized facilities for our veterans. So that is why I object to this amendment. And I do look forward to working with the gentleman. If he wants to work in good faith, that will be my commitment to him. But it ought to be on a carefully thought-out process, weighing not only the pluses of his laudable goals but the minuses of where he would take that money from. That's the right way to handle the American taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that the Rules Committee allowed any Member to offer any amendment to this bill with the only request that it be preprinted in the Congressional Record so the public and veterans organizations could see what those amendments would be. And this kind of confusion at this time of night is probably a good example of why that was a smart rule to require that kind of preprinting. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Surely.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would just say briefly I think the Chair has received plenty of advice on this point of order, and now I would like to ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, my colleague. She has been a champion for fighting for more funding in the VA for mental health care services for our veterans. Because of that, and the support of others in this House, which she has been a real leader in this effort, we will have added $900 million above the last year funding level for specialty mental health care services for our veterans. The VA will have a great deal of discretion in how to spend that money. I would imagine the importance of the VA health care center in Houston and the number of veterans there, that it should be one of the beneficiaries of this funding. I know because of this being an appropriation bill, there were technical reasons why there was a point of order that potentially lodged against this amendment. But that point of order will not keep us from working closely together to fulfill your goal of seeing that we have first-class quality mental health care services for veterans in underserved areas and urban areas across our country.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.