Jeff Miller

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the conference committee.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to say thank you to the ranking member of the full House committee, Mr. Michaud, for his tenacity in what he has done to move this conference report along. I also want to say thank you to the ranking member, Mr. Burr, in the Senate and to Senator Sanders because, as we continue to negotiate through, there never was a willingness to quit by either side. I am grateful to the 24 other conference committee members who worked with us, with their input, their ideas, and their willingness to embrace this compromise. It was brought forth by diligent, focused effort and a willingness on all sides to put aside differences of opinion and ideology and focus not on our disagreements, but how best we can all help our veterans. While not perfect, this is an example of all the good work we can accomplish when we work together, and remember, it is the veteran who is sacred, not the VA. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute and 35 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a United States veteran and another member of the conference committee.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), someone who always has veterans first in his mind.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Franks, for yielding. H.J. Res. 105 would bestow honorary American citizenship on General Bernardo de Galvez. Though not born in the United States, General Galvez was a true friend to our country who played an integral role in securing the independence of this Nation. As governor of Spanish Louisiana, General Galvez provided American forces with funds, arms, and ammunition, and he provided military intelligence to the American commanders. After Spain's entry into the war, General Galvez recruited an army of American, Spanish, and French troops and set about a multiyear campaign that decimated British forces all along the gulf coast. General Galvez led successful campaigns in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama before embarking on his seminal victory at the Siege of Pensacola, where he captured the capital of British West Florida after a bloody 2-month long battle, during which he in fact was wounded by gunfire. General Galvez's victory left the British with no naval forces or bases along the gulf coast and prevented British troops and supplies from reaching the battles along the eastern seaboard. His efforts to assist the formation of our country were recognized by President George Washington, President John Adams, and by the United States Continental Congress. In fact, President Washington cited General Galvez's efforts as a deciding factor in the outcome of the war. Honorary citizenship is a rare and extraordinary recognition granted to foreigners who have rendered great service to the United States of America. Only seven individuals have been granted honorary citizenship, including two Revolutionary War heroes, the Marquis de Lafayette, and General Casimir Pulaski. When our Founding Fathers declared our independence, they knew that they were going up against probably the world's most preeminent power. They chose to take up that battle because of their unwavering commitment to liberty and freedom, but they also knew that in order to be successful, they needed the support of allies and great men like the Marquis de Lafayette, Casimir Pulaski, and General Bernardo de Galvez. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, Chairman Franks, and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for their assistance in moving this bill through committee. I also want to thank our majority leader for bringing this bill to the floor. I would encourage all my colleagues to support this measure to recognize General Galvez's immense contribution to the history of our country by granting him honorary American citizenship.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness and deep sympathy that I pay tribute to the life and dedicated service of Senior Airman Timothy J. ``Tim'' Wright, of Pensacola, Florida. Tim passed away on July 17, 2014 as a result of injuries sustained during a military readiness exercise at Pope Army Airfield, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Senior Airman Wright, who graduated from the Pensacola Christian Academy in 2003, joined the Air Force in 2009. As a medic, he was first stationed at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, where he was awarded two medals for Meritorious Service and Outstanding Achievement. He deployed twice to Afghanistan and earned the Air Force Achievement Medal for his service with the 651st Expeditionary Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron in Kandahar and the Air Force Achievement Medal for Outstanding Achievement for his service with the 455th Expeditionary Medical Operations Squadron at Bagram Airfield. During his deployments, he showed interest in becoming an aeromedical evacuation technician, and after successfully completing his training, Senior Airman Wright was transferred to Pope Airfield where he joined the 43rd Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron in May 2014. Throughout his career, Senior Airman Wright displayed an unyielding commitment to protect and defend this great country and to care for his fellow warriors. To his parents, David and Sylvia; brothers, Aaron and Mathew; and to all of his family and friends, we owe our eternal gratitude. Tim touched the lives of many and displayed dedication to duty and courage of heart. He will always be remembered for his selfless service to this great Nation, and his life will continue to inspire those who knew him best and those who follow in his footsteps. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful United States Congress, I am privileged to honor the life of Senior Airman Timothy J. Wright. My wife, Vicki, joins me in offering our most sincere condolences and prayers to his family and friends. May God continue to bless them and the brave men and women of our United States Armed Forces.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, as I said during the debate last week on other motions to instruct that were brought to the floor, improving timely access to quality health care and imposing true accountability for senior managers are the keys to beginning the long process of restoring trust at the Department of Veterans Affairs. This was the central charge to the conferees that are currently meeting at the beginning of our conference, and it remains the same charge tonight. As I said last week, now is not the time to tie the hands of the conferees with an unnecessary motion on the floor. I know my colleague, Mr. Peters, has the best of intentions. They are rooted in his desire to serve veterans of this country, but unfortunately, somebody somewhere has different ideas. Veterans expect us to do what is best to improve the quality of care that they receive and the delivery of the benefits that they have earned. I certainly expect that none of these votes that have been taken--in fact, I believe we have done four, and another was noticed today--will be used by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 30-second political ads. By adopting the motion to instruct, we would be telling our conferees to recede to the Senate's position on all provisions of the Senate bill. While I am still hopeful that a deal is possible, Senator Sanders and I and our staffs and other conferees continue to work each day and into the night. It is becoming more difficult, though, because the Senate has once again changed the goalposts, and I don't know what the Senate's real position is today. In fact, I said last week I don't know if the Senate could vote for their own bill now. Senator Sanders has recently indicated his desire to expand the scope of our conference committee's work by adding VA's request--and I say ``request,'' but I really don't know. Is it an emergency request? Is it a supplemental request? Nobody seems to be sure exactly what it is. Most importantly, the VA doesn't know what it is. Senator Sanders is asking for the inclusion of an additional $17.6 billion into our conversation. As I said last week, both the VA Office of Inspector General and the General Accountability Office have said on numerous occasions that they do not have any confidence in the numbers that VA provides right now. Moreover, at every budget hearing before our committee in recent years, the Secretary has sat at the witness table and clearly said--when asked by members: Do you have the funds necessary?--the Secretary says: We have the funds necessary to meet the needs of our veterans. So why all of a sudden would we believe that VA sees this need for an additional $10 billion to hire 10,000 more health care staff and $6 billion in new construction without thoroughly vetting the numbers-- also, add an additional $1.5 billion for IT--when we already know that VA has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars in IT money over the years? But what I want to do for the Members here tonight is to show you a typical budget submission, a request from the administration on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is over 1,300 pages in four volumes to justify the money that is spent at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Speaker, here is the explanation that was given to us for the $17.6 billion ask by the Department. I have in recent days called it a three-page document--$17.6 billion justified by a three-page document-- but actually, if you take the cover letter off and if you take the closing page off, you have one page to justify $17.6 billion. Now, in talking with Senator Sanders and Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson on the phone a couple of days ago, I expressed that this was not the way to justify this type of expenditure to this Congress. I believe people on both sides of the aisle will clearly admit that this is not what we would call ``regular order,'' but the Acting Secretary said, by noon yesterday, I would receive much more detailed information on this ask. So noon came and it rolled by, and it was at 9 o'clock last night when, finally, we got this deep dive--additional information--and they doubled the pages to two pages of information for a $17.6 billion ask-- two pages. The Acting Secretary will be before our committee tomorrow morning. I hope he brings three pages with him to justify this request. This is not enough information for such a huge ask by the VA. It is not some unsubstantiated guess put together in the back room of a massive bureaucracy. In fact, interestingly enough, it is titled, ``A Working Estimate,'' as of July 22. This isn't even the number that they are sure that they want to ask for. What is really disappointing is that I actually believe that we could have already come to an agreement if Senator Sanders had not insisted on moving the goalpost and adding this $17.6 billion ask into a clearly defined conference committee. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the House has almost a dozen bills that sit, languishing in the Senate right now, including the authorization of 27 VA clinics that passed in December--important changes to the processing of disability claims that has been so backlogged over the last few years, education benefits, including the instate tuition bill that passed unanimously out of this House, that has sat, languishing with the other 11 bills in the Senate that are waiting to be brought up for a vote. The Senate could pass these bills and send them straight to the President, and they would become law right away. Again, to my colleague from California, I would remind you that H.R. 357, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act, did pass this House unanimously, and you were a cosponsor of the bill that passed by 390-0 in February. It gives States the incentive to provide all veterans instate tuition rates. It is very similar to the provision in the Senate bill that Mr. Peters wants our conferees to recede to in conference. Once again, this bipartisan bill could be sent to the President if the Senate would just bring it up for a vote. We are trying to work out a deal with the Senate, but I submit to this body today that these motions to instruct are clearly becoming unproductive, are slowing down our process, and unfortunately, I think they are being used as nothing more than a political ploy. I find it very interesting that not one member of the minority side on our VA Committee has offered over the last four times a motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, surely, the gentleman did not insinuate that I, as the chairman of the most bipartisan committee in this Congress, was being partisan in any anything that I have said or done.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I do know one bill that is much more bipartisan than the Senate's 93-3 vote, and that was the House's bill that passed 430-0.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, July 22, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to whether or not the gentleman from Arizona has any further requests for time?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, I would urge my colleagues to not support this motion to instruct. And I would also remind my colleagues that even though the number 93-3 has been used for the passage of the Senate bill, the House bill, itself, which was much more narrowly tailored to actually deal with the crisis that exists today, with access to care, passed unanimously, 426-0, in this House. Just prior to the final vote, there was a motion to recommit that did, in fact, want the House to recede to the Senate amendment. The problem is, again, the goalposts are changing. The House has been working with the Senate. We have made an offer on our particular side. We are waiting for the Senate to return a counter. Things changed yesterday, unfortunately, because of the additional $17.6 billion that was brought forward by the Department themselves. So we continue to stay focused. Our intent is to complete this bill and get it to the President's desk before we leave in August. I appreciate my colleague's comments today. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as I may consume. As we have already heard, the motion to instruct would require the House to recede to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3230. Solving the problem of timely access to health care and imposing the rule of accountability is absent at VA, and I think that is our first and most important obligation because it is the source of many of the problems that exist within the Department, many of the problems that were uncovered because of the oversight from both Republicans and Democrats on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We are making good progress with our negotiations with our Senate colleagues, and now is not the time to try to tie the hands of the negotiators with what I believe is a partisan ploy. Moreover, yesterday, Senator Sanders indicated that he wanted to expand the scope of the conference committee's work far beyond what the Senate bill itself had encompassed, by adding VA's request for an additional $17.6 billion into the mix. So today, I say to my colleagues I am not even sure that the Senate could recede to the Senate amendment because they keep moving the goalposts. As I said yesterday, on the last motion to instruct, the inspector general and the GAO have both stated on multiple occasions during our hearings that they do not have confidence in VA's numbers. Moreover, at every VA budget hearing, the Secretary has been asked: Do you have the dollars you need to take care of the veterans that you are tasked with taking care of? Invariably, we get the answer, every single time, yes. So why should we believe that, suddenly, VA sees the need to add an additional $10 billion to hire 10,000 new clinical staff and $6 billion in new construction without having those numbers vetted? When our staff was briefed yesterday on this request for $17.6 billion--actually, I don't even know if it is a request yet, but when the Secretary talked about it, they came to brief our staffs, and they brought three sheets of paper to justify a $17.6 billion number. To the Members on both sides of the aisle, I caution that, despite the urgency of the current crisis, we have got to root out the cause that has been affecting timely access to care and accountability, not secondary issues, many of which we all support, including the Fry Scholarship fund expansion. If we don't, those of us fortunate enough to be here years from now will be right back where we are, debating, once again, how things went wrong at the VA. I would point out again, as I did yesterday, there are dozens of bills sitting, languishing in the Senate, including the authorization of 27 clinics. The motion to instruct yesterday talked about receding to the Senate bill that had 26 clinics. The House bill was passed in December of last year--27 clinics. If the Senate would just bring it up, pass it, send to it the President, we could immediately make a difference. I also talked about the expansion of the Fry Scholarship program. That is something that we certainly should look at, but it will do nothing, nothing to increase the care and break the backlog, the lines that our veterans are waiting in now to get the health care that they have earned. So I would ask the Senate to pass the dozen bills that sit over there on their side, send them to the President today, and I would also point out that I am willing to discuss--and I think most Members on our side--the Fry Scholarship issues, but we don't think that they are in the scope of the emergency that exists today. Part of the reason that I believe that, section 701 of the Senate bill does not address timely access to care or the cultural corruption that exists within the Department. A surviving spouse--as my colleague, Mr. Barber has already said--who has a spouse that was killed on active duty is already entitled to receive financial benefits that include 45 months of GI Bill-type education benefits, $500,000 in death benefits, and $1,215 in monthly dependency and indemnity compensation benefits. In short, I don't believe it is time for us to be talking about expanding the benefits without expressing them through regular order here on the House floor, especially in the face of what I now understand is the Senate's new effort to move the goal line in our conference committee work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the last speaker did not imply that anybody on the conference committee from the House was trying to delay the progress on this particular bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, while I can appreciate the work that has been done on the other side of this building over in the Senate, I would remind the House that it has been the House committee that has conducted the oversight that has brought this issue to light. The corruption and the arrogance that has taken root at the Department of Veterans Affairs did not, as my colleagues say, did not happen overnight. But I just want to tell my colleagues a little of the history about what brings us here today. From the 9th of June to July 24, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs will have held 12 full committee hearings highlighting the problems that exist at the Department of Veterans Affairs. But beginning with the 112th Congress, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs has held 196 hearings, of which 126 were oversight hearings, and in the 113th Congress alone, we have held 96 hearings to date. We are doing our work. As a result of our work, both the House and the Senate correctly moved to address the problems that exist at the Department. And as is often the case, the bills we pushed through have reflected our good intentions, but there has been a vacuum while waiting for the CBO to score the bills. It is important to remember that the current scandal at VA really entails two issues: timely access to the health care that veterans have earned, and accountability because of the culture of corruption that exists among far too many senior leaders who have put their own welfare ahead of those they are supposed to be serving. The CBO finally provided us with a formal score on the Senate amendment on the 17th of July. Since that time, and even prior to that time, my staff has been in daily contact with our Senate counterparts, and we are making progress on the conference report. There are differences of opinion as to what the final conference report, in fact, is going to say. That is the nature of our work. But to my knowledge, there is no impasse that has been reached at this point. Now, I am confident that the good will on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill will present a report that both the House and the Senate can pass before the August recess, so it really makes no sense to take the Senate position on the leases at this time. In fact, some of the provisions in the Senate version are similar to the House bills that have been waiting in the Senate for months, and they could have been sent--any one of them--on to the President for his signature. That brings me to the specifics of the motion to instruct today. On December 10, 2013, the House passed H.R. 3521 by a vote of 346-1. That bill contained provisions to authorize 27 VA community-based outpatient clinics. It includes the Tulsa, Oklahoma, clinic that my colleague referred to as not being in the Senate bill. And like nearly a dozen other House bills passed in a bipartisan fashion, they are stalled in the Senate. The Senate could pass and send the 27-clinic bill that we sent over to them in December today. Mr. Speaker, I must point out that on a total of six different occasions, Senator Vitter from Louisiana and others, both Republican and Democrat, have gone to the Senate floor to request a vote on H.R. 3521 and have been blocked by the Democrats in the Senate. Perhaps the motion to instruct today should be revised to instruct the majority leader of the Senate or others in the Senate Democratic Caucus. Again, Mr. Speaker, we are making progress on the conference report, and to recede at this point to the Senate position would be premature at best. Now, let me spend a few moments talking about the VA budget needs. In each of our annual budget hearings, Members have repeatedly asked the Secretary of the VA: Do you have the resources that you need to get the job done? And every single time, the Secretary has said ``yes.'' And now today, suddenly because of the oversight of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Acting Secretary Gibson testified before the Senate that they will need approximately $17.6 billion in additional resources to meet current demand for the remainder of this year and into 2017. In his testimony, Acting Secretary Gibson stated that about $10 billion of this money would go to purchase care and to hire 10,000 new clinical staff. He further stated that the purchased care would decline over time with a gradual shift back to reliance on internal VA care. He also said about $6 billion would be spent on new infrastructure. So, what the Acting Secretary is saying is, give us billions of more tax dollars to continue reliance upon care that will continue to force veterans to drive, as my colleague has said, in far too many cases hundreds of miles for the care that they have earned, and, oh, by the way, give us billions of more dollars to dump into our construction program that has been shown to be so ineptly managed to result in major projects being on average 35 months--not days--35 months behind schedule and at least $366 million over cost. Now, again, Mr. Speaker, why would we automatically stand up, salute, and write a check when the inspector general and the GAO have both said we cannot trust VA's numbers on multiple occasions? So the Department, which Rob Nabors describes as having a ``corrosive culture,'' now asks for nearly $18 billion. Look, we can't allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue to consider itself a sacred cow above serious oversight on how the already significant resources we provide to the Department have been spent. Decades of a kid-glove approach by Congress to holding VA accountable has led us to the issues that confront us today. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct. At this time, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly).

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is curious to me that my colleague talks about not waiting, not waiting, not waiting--manana. The House passed a bill in December--in December. How much longer do veterans have to wait before the bill that resides in the Senate is passed? That is what we have been waiting for. I cannot figure out what my colleague has against the veterans in Tulsa, Oklahoma, because that is the clinic that is missing out of the bill that he is wanting to instruct us to accept. Why would we not give access for care to the veterans in Oklahoma? It doesn't make any sense. So when my colleague says manana, saying that, for some reason, we are trying to delay access to care, I say, oh, no--oh, no. What this bill actually does is it expands care way beyond what VA has ever purported to be able to do. The clinics that we are talking about authorizing may not even be necessary in future years--I am not talking about these specific clinics--because veterans will be able to go out into the private sector. No longer will there be a bottleneck within the Department of Veterans Affairs providing access to care for the veterans. You see, that is what has happened with VA really since the 1940s. They have been trying to force veterans to drive for hours to facilities to get their care in places that they don't want to have to get their care at, to get their care when VA says they will get their care, not when the veteran says they want their care, so let's change the formula a little bit. Let's give veterans their care where they want to get it and when they want to get it. So I say to my friend that if we truly want to service the most veterans, you have got to ask the Senate to pass the bill that we passed in December because, for some reason, the Senate doesn't want to put a clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. It is not a House bill or a Senate bill question because this is a House bill that the Senate amended, so it is not a matter of whether it is a House bill, House resolution, Senate bill, Senate resolution, it is a House bill that the Senate has amended. I thank the gentleman for yielding.