Phil Roe

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that would prevent bonuses from being awarded to the Office of Construction & Facilities Management, the branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs in charge of all construction projects costing more than $10 million and which is perhaps the least deserving of performance bonuses in the entire agency. In January, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee held a hearing to examine the enormous shortcomings of this office. We found that construction of a VA hospital in Denver--Aurora, to be specific--is projected to outpace the budget by $1 billion. This project that started supposedly in 2010 was supposed to be completed in 2013. The original budget was $600 million, with a $10 million change order. Now they estimate the completion date is 2017. Mr. Chairman, the Romans built the Colosseum in 8 years, and I don't think they were $1 billion over budget. That is $1,700 a square foot to build this hospital. Can you imagine how many veterans the VA could have treated with $1 billion. That is 1,000 million dollars. How many doctors and nurses could have been hired with $1 billion that the VA's Office of Construction & Facilities Management has set fire to? The answer is: a lot. The Denver project, if that was just it, that would be fine, but it is not an isolated incident. In Orlando, a hospital project initially estimated to cost $254 million is almost 5 years behind schedule and projected to be $372 million over budget. That is 143 percent overrun. In New Orleans, a major hospital being built to replace a VA facility lost to Hurricane Katrina was initially estimated to cost $625 million and is just over halfway completed, running 66 percent over budget at a cost of a whopping $1.035 billion. And in Las Vegas, a hospital initially projected to cost $325 million is almost complete after being delayed for more than 7 years, coming in $260 million over budget. These four projects alone have wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money and delayed the delivery of health care to veterans for almost 14 years. If this is the performance we should expect, the VA really has no business being in the construction industry. My friend, Congressman Coffman, who chairs the House Veterans' Affairs Committee Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee and represents the Denver area, has introduced legislation that would allow construction to continue at Denver while placing the responsibility of any further future VA construction projects over $10 million in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have a great track record, I might add. I hope that we are able to consider an approach like Mr. Coffman's and clean up this mess once and for all. But in the interim, it is critical that we send a message to this office that business as usual can't be tolerated. The VA branch responsible for these cost overruns and delays should not have jobs in the construction realm, much less receive performance bonuses. This amendment would see that the taxpayer does not pay for performance bonuses to an office that has caused more harm than good. I urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello) to speak on the amendment.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment that would cut $1.5 million from the budget of the VA's Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, or OCLA. The OCLA is tasked with being the liaison between Congress and the VA. It is their job to provide information to Congress to help with casework and basic information. What is unfortunate is that, even after the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' investigation into the largest scandal in VA history continues, it is still the perception that the VA will do everything in its power to withhold information to prevent negative news from being made public. Unfortunately, as many veterans can tell you, timeliness is not a word the VA understands or cares to learn. In VA's budget submission, they assert: ``The mission of OCLA is to improve the lives of veterans and their families by advancing pro- veteran legislation and maintaining responsive and effective communications with Congress.'' As of April 24, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs had 78 outstanding requests for information with OCLA, and over half of these have been pending for over 60 days. On average, it is now taking the OCLA 69 days to respond to the committee's requests. There is one that dates back all the way to 2012. These numbers do not reflect responsive or effective communications. What is even more disappointing is that the requests have gone unanswered despite the fact that the OCLA's budget has gone up by 36 percent since fiscal year 2009. I understand that other parts of the Federal Government, such as the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Management and Budget, and in some cases, the President's own staff may be delaying Congress' requests for months. However, OCLA is chartered with being Congress' connection to the rest of the VA, and, as such, they bear the burden of these untimely responses. The current delays in getting information to Congress is not a new phenomenon, as the VA Committee has now held three separate hearings that have exposed VA's lack of transparency to Congress and showed that even when we do receive information we have requested, it is so old or so heavily redacted that it is basically useless. These requests are critically important to Congress' role in providing meaningful oversight over the second-largest agency in the Federal Government. It is our duty to be a strong check on the executive branch. While Secretary McDonald is trying everything he can to change the culture at the VA, Congress must send a message that providing answers to our questions 69 days after we have requested it is simply unacceptable to us, unacceptable to the taxpayers, and, most importantly, it is unacceptable to the veterans. Passage of this amendment would send that message. I thank Chairman Dent for his hard work on this bill.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, which will permanently repeal the flawed SGR formula and replace it with meaningful reform that will ensure seniors' access to Medicare. This agreement is one of the most important things we have accomplished since I have been in Congress, and I couldn't be prouder of the work done by the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees, along with the GOP Doctors Caucus. I want to give a special thank-you to Speaker John Boehner and Leader Nancy Pelosi, without whose leadership this agreement would never have happened. This bill will ensure Medicare recipients have access to quality care and helps pave the way for entitlement reform by making important structural changes to the program. That is an important point. People over the years have referred to this as the ``doc fix,'' but it really should be called the ``senior fix.'' The cuts required by SGR were so severe that, had they been allowed to go into effect, seniors' access to a Medicare physician almost assuredly would have been curtailed. After 12 years, 17 patches, and $170 billion spent to keep a flawed formula from doing lasting damage to Medicare, we are finally acting in a responsible manner, in a way that should give the American people renewed confidence in Congress' ability to act on important matters. I thank all involved.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday because of a family medical issue. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #130--NAY Roll Call #131--YEA

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I hope you are feeling better soon, also. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the rule and Senate Joint Resolution 8, which would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's ambush elections rule. I was proud to join my friend, Chairman John Kline, in introducing the House version of this resolution. We are here today because the Obama administration is trying to fix a problem that does not exist, claiming that expediting elections on whether to form a union is needed because of delays in the process and supposed unfair advantages to employers. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I grew up in a union household. My father worked for B.F. Goodrich Company. He was a longtime union member after World War II. I have seen many things that the unions have done that have been good. Unions are legal in America. Employees have a right to hear all the information. They can decide whether they want to be in a union or not be in a union. There is no big hurry. Look, the National Labor Relations Board--and this is March Madness, so I will use a basketball metaphor. I played basketball, and other people do; you expect the referees to just be a fair arbiter of the game. When you go in someone else's home court, you expect to get a fair call. That is all we expect the NLRB to do, and that is not what is happening now. Here are the facts. In reality, under the current procedures, 94 percent of elections are held within 56 days. The median is 38 days from a petition's being filed. Furthermore, unions won 60 percent of those elections, so they win more than half--or two-thirds, I should say. Given the importance and consequences of the decisionmaking being made by workers, this is an entirely reasonable period of time. Under the NLRB's radical new policy, union elections could be held, Mr. Speaker, in as little as 11 days after a petition is filed. As an employer myself of not a large business, I don't know if I could find a labor attorney in 11 days to go through this very complicated legal issue. This is not nearly enough time for employers to present their side to employees or for those employees to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, for workers, the NLRB rule doesn't stop here. Of grave concern to me is the threat posed to workers' privacy. Currently, employers are required to turn over a list of employees and their home addresses to union organizers within 7 days after an election is ordered. So you have a week. The ambush election rule, instead, would open the door for greater harassment and intimidation by requiring employers to turn over each employee's name, address, phone number, email address--all within 2 days of an election order. It is for this reason that I introduced the Employee Privacy Protection Act in the last Congress. This bill would have required only the names of the employees and one piece of contact information of the employee's choosing. The employee gets to decide how he is contacted and to have that be provided to union organizers. I think that is very reasonable. This will allow communications to happen but on the workers' terms. Choosing whether to be represented by a union is a big decision with ramifications in the workplace and at home. Instead of ensuring a fair process for unions, employers, and workers, this NLRB is trying to rig the game in favor of union bosses, and that is not fair to workers or to employees. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the resolution.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Mark Gooden of Johnson City, Tennessee, for his service today as a guest chaplain of the House of Representatives. For more than 30 years, Dr. Gooden has served as a spiritual light to over half a dozen churches across Tennessee as a pastor and an elder. I have personally had the privilege of knowing him as the senior pastor of my home church, Munsey Memorial United Methodist Church, in my hometown of Johnson City, Tennessee. Mark and his wife, Judy, have been a blessing in my life. Mark ministered my wife during her recent illness and prayed with my family minutes before she passed, and for this I will be eternally grateful. I am proud to recognize Dr. Gooden today as a guest chaplain of the House of Representatives.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #107--YEA.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 108--``aye,'' rollcall No. 109--``nay.''

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday and this morning because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 95--``nay,'' rollcall No. 96--``nay,'' rollcall No. 97--``nay,'' rollcall No. 98--``nay,'' rollcall No. 99--``nay,'' rollcall No. 100--``yea,'' rollcall No. 101-- ``yea.'' Personal Explanation

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 91--``aye,'' rollcall No. 92--``aye,'' rollcall No. 93-- ``aye,'' rollcall No. 94--``aye.''

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 84, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 85, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 86, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 87, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 88, ``no'' on rollcall No. 89, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 90.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Friday, February 13, 2015 because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #81--NAY Roll Call #82--AYE Roll Call #83--AYE

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #77--YEA. Roll Call #78--AYE. Roll Call #79--NAY. Roll Call #80--YEA.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 74--``nay,'' rollcall No. 75--``yea,'' rollcall No. 76--``yea.'' Personal explanation

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote yesterday because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #69--YEA. Roll Call #70--YEA.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 71--``yea'', rollcall No. 72--``aye'', rollcall No. 73--``yea.''

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 65--no; rollcall No. 66--no; rollcall No. 67--no; rollcall No. 68--aye.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall #59--YEA Rollcall #60--AYE Rollcall #61--NO Rollcall #62--NO Rollcall #63--NO Rollcall #64--AYE

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #57--Nay; Roll Call #58--Yea.

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for votes on February 2, 2015 because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #51--Yea Roll Call #52--Yea Roll Call #53--Yea

Mr. ROE of Tennessee

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call #54--Yea; Roll Call #55--Yea; Roll Call #56--Yea.