Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Will the gentleman yield first?

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me just take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank Mr. Filner. While I chair the appropriations subcommittee for veterans, he is the chairman of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He has been a leading voice in fighting for mental health care services for our veterans and a broad range of services and benefits for our veterans. Without his leadership, we would not have $3.8 billion in specialty mental health care mandated in this bill, a $900 million increase over the year before. I certainly look forward to working with the chairman of the authorizing committee in the months ahead on the programs that he has fought so hard for.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do. I would also like to move to strike the last word.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my father was a naval aviator in World War II. My father passed away 4 months ago. Had it not been for the courage of Filipino veterans, my father might have been killed, because instead of the war ending before he was deployed, had it not been for their heroism in the Pacific, my father might have been deployed, and like so many other Americans in that war, he might have ended up giving his life to the country. I have been deeply moved by Mr. Honda and Mr. Filner's passionate dedication on behalf of these great citizens of the world who sacrificed, many of them giving the ultimate sacrifice, on behalf of our country and our victory in World War II. Because of the legislative process, there are times when we simply, despite all of our intentions, cannot solve every problem on an appropriations bill, because the rules of this Congress require an authorization process as well. We can't solve this problem tonight, but because of Mr. Filner and because of Mr. Honda, I think we are a giant step closer to addressing this injustice that has existed for so long. My commitment to Mr. Filner and Mr. Honda is to work as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with the chairman of the authorizing committee and on a bipartisan basis to find appropriations available so that if we can get an authorization for those appropriations, we can finally bring about justice for these people who did so much for our country and for the world. With that, I would like to yield, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Filner.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I will be honored to yield to the Speaker, who has been such an eloquent voice on this issue.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. If I could reclaim my time, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in the presence of Speaker Pelosi, what I said earlier this evening. While she has been gracious in commending others for working for veterans over the last 2 years, she made a commitment to America's veterans 4 years ago and said if she became Speaker, we would have unprecedented increases in funding for veterans health care and veterans benefits. $16.8 billion later and a 21st century bill of rights, we can all stand, and I say gratefully, Speaker Pelosi has kept her promise to those great Americans who have kept their promise to serve, and I thank her deeply for that. With that, I yield to Mr. Filner.

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

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. But let me just salute the gentleman for his focus on the importance of providing cemeteries of honor, hallowed ground for our servicemen and women who served in uniform. For the record, let me say that for that very reason, in this bill we provided $83 million for the expansion of existing national cemeteries. We increased by 41 percent funding for our State veterans cemetery program, from $32 million to $45 million, and based on appropriations from our subcommittee in recent years, the Arlington National Cemetery, the most hallowed of hallowed grounds is being expanded as well. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. I think the proper way to make these decisions is careful analysis, looking at the numbers of veterans, how far they have to go to various national and State cemeteries, and I look forward to working with him and other Members of this House in the months ahead to see how we can do this in a proper way so that we can honor our veterans. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I thank my colleague from Texas. I will not object to this amendment.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes. Let me just clarify for the record, we have no projects or programs in this bill, the VA and military construction bill, named after anyone currently serving in Congress. And so for that reason, I am glad to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Stupak and Mr. Barrow. This is a glitch in the writing of the law done in years past that causes a problem when we increase the miles reimbursement rate for veterans who need to travel, in some cases, hundreds of miles to get to a VA hospital. It actually increases the deductible. That is not the intention of the VA. That is not the intention of the Congress. This amendment corrects that. I hope we can take this principle and talk about it as we go into conference committee, and I have even had some brief conversations with the VA. My hope is that we could actually address this issue, fix it, so that we don't have veterans who, in effect, even though we have a 41.5 cent reimbursement rate, after deductible is considered, some of them might have a 10 cent-per-mile rate or a 20 cent-per-mile rate. The reason we need to fix that completely is that for many veterans-- while this may not sound like a lot of money to others, for veterans this is a difference truly between being able to afford to drive to a clinic or drive to a hospital and get the health care they desperately need and deserve. So I know Mr. Wamp, who takes a back seat to no one in his caring for veterans, and anyone who's heard him speak tonight on the floor knows why I have such great respect for his commitment to our veterans, I know that he and I can work closely together with Mr. Stupak, with Mr. Barrow, with the VA and see if we can't take the principle embodied in this amendment and move it even further. The gentlemen have done a great benefit for hundreds of thousands of veterans out there.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'd be glad to.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Barrow. I yield back.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'm glad to support this amendment and thank Mr. Wamp for bringing it to the floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express gratitude to Mr. Murphy and also to Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. I think what he just said was so important. Our veterans have given their lives to protect our right to vote as citizens of this country. Many others have made sacrifices, have physical and mental wounds that they will pay for to the last days of their lives. And I just don't think it is right or proper for the VA to be making it more difficult for veterans who've done so much to protect our right to vote to make it more difficult for them to vote. Many of our veterans in our VA hospitals are long-term patients there with significant disabilities. Our country ought to be doing outreach to make it possible for them to cast the vote that they fought for in combat. So for all of those reasons, I salute the gentleman for this amendment. I strongly support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment for one fundamental reason, it would do harm to America's service men and women and our military families during a time of war. I would not, at any time, question the motives of the gentleman from Arizona. He is a person of integrity, he has been consistent in his principled position on the issue of earmarks, but the best of intentions can't stop the worst of results. And the worst of the worst would be to undermine our military readiness and the quality of life for our troops and their families at any time, but especially so during a time of war. Let me list some of the harm that would be done. And this isn't a full list, but just some: Nine quality of life facilities, such as chapels and community centers in our military bases, bases from which forces are being deployed for the second and third time to Iraq and Afghanistan, those would be eliminated. Fifteen Guard and Reserve training facilities would be eliminated. Seven active duty training facilities would be eliminated. These are facilities that, on a bipartisan basis, after careful thought, this subcommittee worked with the Department of Defense to say that, you know what, we have been dishonoring our 18- and 19-year-old military recruits. Because when they come in, instead of thanking them, we put them in barracks that we would be ashamed to have our sons and daughters living in. This amendment would stop those new barracks from being built. Seven fire stations would be eliminated. Isn't it enough that our men and women have to be in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan? Must they and their families also be put in greater harm's way back at home because we can't build fire stations that are desperately needed? And I know something about this because at one time I represented the largest Army installation in the world, Fort Hood, Texas. It has had one division continually in Iraq since this war began. And their base commander came to me and said, you know what, the bureaucratic process at the Pentagon and OMB killed our desperate need for a new fire station. I'm glad Congress, in that case, exercised its constitutional authority to do what was right to protect those great Americans and their families. Let me give you some more specifics of what harm this amendment would do. It would kill a new communications facility at a naval base for a security force unit that is in charge of safeguarding nuclear weapons. It would kill funds to expand and upgrade a readiness center for a National Guard engineer battalion that has deployed soldiers to Iraq to disarm IEDs. It would kill new housing for an Air and National Guard unit. The current housing has mold, leaking roofs, poor ventilation, and numerous code violations. I reject the notion outright that some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat sitting in an office in the basement of the White House Budget Office has a monopoly on wisdom because they do not. And many times, even despite their good efforts, the fact is administration budgets, Mr. Chairman, are often started and put together a year or year and a half before we come to this floor. I think it would be wrong to deny us, this Congress, with our constitutional duty to fund appropriations bills, to say that we can't benefit from the judgment of time and changing needs during a time of war to provide for training facilities and quality of life facilities for our troops. This is a bad amendment. But worse than that, it is an amendment that would do great harm to our service men and women, the quality of their housing, the quality of their training. And for that reason, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--in all due respect to the author of this amendment, who is a decent and honorable man who cares about our military and our armed forces--I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to soundly reject this ill-advised, dangerous amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I heard a few minutes ago a description of an ideal world where every decision made by the executive branch is perfectly motivated. I wish that were the real world, but I certainly wouldn't want to bet the family nest egg on it. Let me explain, Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues, how the real world works. And I did represent the largest Army installation for 14 years; I worked closely with them. And what would happen is some bureaucrat at OMB would turn down a high-priority project requested by the top military commander--at Fort Hood, that was a Three Star General. So when I would meet with that Three Star General at Fort Hood, I would say, what are your greatest unmet needs? One year it was a fire station. This year it was a chapel that Congressman Carter and I worked on. We responded to the highest priority needs of the military commanders with their boots on the ground. I put a lot more faith in that commander's judgment than in some unaccountable, unnamed bureaucrat. I would like to hear the names of these bureaucrats at OMB that are so perfect in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their homework. Let me give you a specific real world example where this committee, on a bipartisan basis, took an initiative. We hear in our hearings each year from the top noncommissioned officers. We ask, what are your top quality of life needs? For 3 years in a row our top noncommissioned officers testified before Mr. Wamp and me and said, it is day care centers. We have spouses who are deployed one, two, three times to Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining spouse is left at home with small children and desperately needs affordable, accessible day care for their kids. But you know what? There weren't a lot of lobbyists over there at OMB fighting for young mothers that are, in effect, single mothers while their husbands are in Iraq, or young, single dads while their wives were serving in Afghanistan. And our committee exercised its authority under the Constitution to say that that's not right, we're going to support these military families. I reject this amendment, again, as I said, as being harmful to our military families. In this case, you know what happened on day care centers? After we added $134 million in a congressional initiative in the FY08 supplemental bill, the Pentagon came back and said, you're right, we made a mistake, we want to add to that. We should reject this amendment and support our troops.