Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I will be clear that the gentleman who is offering this amendment has been committed to driving the VA toward privatization. That is what this is really all about. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment because what his amendment would do is greatly expand the MISSION Act, which is designated access standards to all categories of care and would seek to greatly increase the privatization of the VA. The MISSION Act was not envisioned to replace all care at all facilities within VA with private care. It was intended to supplement care at VA facilities, particularly, and specifically, when a veteran was too far away from a VA facility that could provide the service or when there was a prolonged period of time in which a veteran could get that service. Let's be clear: Where we are now in terms of the care in the community and for veterans getting access to appointments, in many cases, all across the country is that it actually takes longer for a veteran to get an appointment when they try to get one in the community than it does to get one at the VA. The overwhelming majority of veterans, when they are surveyed, make very clear that they prefer their care at the VA. Implementing this amendment could have far-reaching ramifications and would cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars a year based on past CBO scores for similar legislation. It is interesting given that the majority is cutting the funding at the VA by $6 billion in this bill, so how we would ever be able to pay for this proposal is incomprehensible to me. This amendment is a controversial authorizing issue which should be considered in the appropriate authorizing committee, which the sponsor of the amendment is chairman of that committee. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, as I said, the gentleman from Illinois can put all the bows and ribbons and wrapping paper that he would like on what his amendment does, but it doesn't change the fact that it would move VA not only further toward privatization, but flies in the face of the original goal and the law that the MISSION Act is intended to implement, which is to ensure that veterans who are not able to get quick and timely access to care when they don't live close enough to a VA facility that can provide that care or when the length of time is unreasonable for them to get that care, that is not the case in the situation in which this amendment would apply. Plus, this amendment would cost an extraordinary amount of money, millions and, likely, billions of dollars which has been previously scored by CBO, and this bill cuts the VA by $6 billion. Again, the mathing on the other side of the aisle is really not working so well. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, not only is this amendment bad policy, but the underlying bill includes a prohibition on ensuring that people who have been prohibited by law from getting access to a gun because they have had a fiduciary appointed to take care of their finances, meaning that they have had a determination that they are not competent to manage their finances, this amendment would go even further and eliminate the exception in the underlying bill that says if a court has judicially determined that a veteran is incompetent and appoints a fiduciary, even in that case, this amendment says that a veteran would be able to keep their guns. Under Federal law, when someone is deemed mentally incompetent by a judge, which is a similar ruling that would occur in this case, the gentleman offering this amendment would allow a veteran to keep their firearms, even if a court had decided that they were not competent to handle their finances. That is unacceptable. This provision not only prevents the VA from following the law that is intended to protect veterans and those around them, but it prioritizes firearms over the safety of veterans. The existing program has a full due process system, and veterans have access to an appeals process. This is an example of generating controversy where there is none. The process of applying for disability benefits is separate from the processes by which veterans receive VA healthcare. The Veterans Health Administration does not take away veterans' firearms, but this amendment by implying that VA bureaucrats are going to take guns away from veterans, the provision not only does nothing to increase access to care, it seeks to dissuade veterans from even seeking the healthcare they have earned in the first place. This is about whether we are going to keep veterans and those around them safe. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the core of the Second Amendment right is self-defense. Assigning a fiduciary to handle financial benefits does not interfere with self-defense, but rather, it is seeking to protect and avoid injuries and deaths from suicide and accidents, which are rising when a veteran who is not competent to handle much of their own personal business and a court has determined that, we know there is a greater risk when they are handling a firearm. We know that suicide is more likely. We know that killings take place, and this amendment would make that more likely. Madam Chair, I underscore my strong opposition to this amendment and urge Members to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment would completely eliminate funding in this bill for the NATO Security Investment Program during a time when we should be investing in much-needed infrastructure projects. I point out to my colleagues that worldwide in U.S. military infrastructure, 30 percent of our military infrastructure is in fair or poor condition. We should be investing in these much-needed infrastructure projects. Cutting funding for the NATO Security Investment Program is not only bad policy from a national security perspective, but it is also not sound long-term fiscal policy. The deterrence that NATO provides now is a small cost to avoid future conflict. As I stated last year during debate on this issue, regardless of your stance on overall defense spending levels of various NATO countries, it is simply not true that the United States is paying more than its share of this direct contribution program. This amendment does not recognize the cost-effective benefit the NATO Security Investment Program provides to the United States. The U.S. contributes less than 16 percent of the funding for the NATO Security Investment Program, but 44 percent of the locations for which projects are selected benefit U.S. posture locations. If the U.S. contributed at the same cost share relative to national wealth that our allies do, our cost share would be 47 percent, rather than the under 16 percent that we actually pay. The United States' contributions to NATO represent only a small portion of our defense spending, but the strength of the NATO alliance is an outsized and irreplaceable part of American national security. This amendment would not even reinvest the funding into other priorities. It simply cuts $434 million. As I stated in my opening statement, this bill is already a cut of $718 million for military construction compared to the enacted level from last year. This amendment would take the bill further in the wrong direction and, if enacted, would leave military construction funded over a billion dollars less than in fiscal year 2024. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I think the sponsor of the amendment has shown pretty clear evidence that she has no idea what the NATO Security Investment Program is actually funding. We are talking about funding that is provided to build infrastructure that takes care of our troops who are overseas so that we can make sure that we invest properly in infrastructure for a vast array of training facilities, of national security facilities, of hangars that contain our airplanes, military aircraft that costs billions of dollars. Everything about what the amendment does actually makes our own servicemembers, who are fighting overseas to defend our national security interests and to defend our country, less safe. I am not sure if the sponsor of the amendment has traveled to see our military infrastructure around the world. I have. Oftentimes, when we go as MILCON-VA Subcommittee, I have traveled with Judge Carter to see some of our infrastructure. The appalling conditions in which much of this infrastructure exists make it so that our servicemembers are less safe. I have been in hangars in which the doors don't close because they are rusted, and the jury-rigging that our servicemembers have to do to close the doors of some hangars to protect our very expensive equipment that protects our national security interests would straighten my hair, and that is not easy, Madam Chair. We have a responsibility to make sure that the infrastructure that we fund is in pristine, well-kept condition. What the sponsor of the amendment would do is decimate our ability to do that. That is irresponsible. It is unpatriotic. We should not support this amendment. Members should vote against it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. CBO has reviewed this amendment and has indicated that it would have significant budget authority and outlay effects in this year. Translate that into English. It means that it would cost a lot of money. The bill already cuts $6 billion from the VA over the last fiscal year. Furthermore, veterans can still receive their travel reimbursements online, which simplifies the current process and the need for hard-copy and in-person submissions, which is cumbersome and unnecessary. I believe we should let the VA manage this process in a way that is efficient and cost-effective. This amendment micromanages the VA on something that is really not appropriate for us to be doing in this bill, and so I would urge its opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), my neighbor slightly to the north and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, as I said, I rise in opposition to this amendment, particularly because CBO says that the cost of actually implementing this would be astronomical, and the majority is already cutting $6 billion out of this bill, so I don't understand how they would expect VA to pay for what this proposal would require. We are micromanaging the VA when we should be allowing them to manage this process in a way that they think is most efficient and cost-effective. I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial. I do not oppose it. It supports community-based outpatient clinics and mobile medical units. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment is bewildering to me. I understand and agree with the frustration toward the deficiencies in housing for our servicemembers, including unaccompanied housing, but a GAO report last year highlighted the horrible conditions of some military unaccompanied housing and inadequate oversight from the military services. While the services are taking some steps to address these deficiencies, our subcommittee has remained focused on a bipartisan basis of addressing this issue. Privatization of unaccompanied housing is not a universal answer to these problems, and it should not be a first option. While the services are exploring pilot projects for unaccompanied barracks, the feedback that our subcommittee has heard in hearings this year is that the services do not view privatization as an answer to this problem in all or even most cases. We don't have to look far to see how privatization can go horribly wrong. Privatized family housing has resulted in persistent, unacceptable conditions for many military families, including houses with mold, improperly addressed lead paint, untimely maintenance, and companies which have not been responsive to their concerns. Why? Because even the fines that are levied once these private companies are held accountable are just a rounding error for these multinational corporations who really don't have to worry about whether they can afford the accountability that is meted out from their neglect. Oversight of privatized family housing remains a major issue to this day. Even when privatization may result in better housing conditions now, it is not a solution if companies don't properly maintain these facilities for the full life cycle like they have neglected to do for family housing. Sure, if you have a private company build a private barracks now, it is pristine and new, and has nothing wrong with it, but with the neglect that is the track record of these private companies, down the road we are going to end up potentially in the same boat. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. There may be specific instances where privatized unaccompanied housing can be part of a holistic plan by the services to address the deficiencies of unaccompanied housing, but it is not and should not be the whole solution. That is where this amendment takes us. We should not repeat the privatized housing horror stories of the past or waste untold millions more in critical taxpayer dollars on privatized housing schemes. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, the difference between the gentlewoman's approach and ours is that we believe that the services should continue to be able to take a measured approach to whether or not using privatized unaccompanied housing is appropriate and whether or not, as the gentlewoman's amendment would do, encourage the services to go to privatization for unaccompanied housing. We see the track record that is unfettered. Going forward on privatizing housing has not gone well, and it has been expensive, costly, and it has also contributed to the problem that we are having with retention of our servicemembers. We have heard testimony over the last few years from servicemembers who have been in neglected privatized family housing, and it has caused many of the servicemembers to throw the towel in and just say: You know what? I wanted to make a career out of being in the military, but obviously the services don't care about me and don't care about my family or exposing my children to lead paint, mold, and other really serious problems. We are not at a point where we should be encouraging privatization of housing. We should allow the services to take a measured approach to pursue privatized unaccompanied housing when they think it is appropriate and make sure that there is appropriate accountability in place, which this amendment doesn't ensure. I would urge Members to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I will address the tail end of the previous colleague's comments that represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the way privatized military housing works. The privatized companies aren't taking over housing that the government built. They actually enter into a contract with the military, and they build the housing brand new themselves. The problem is that for decades, they have neglected it. They have neglected the housing. They are terrible about follow-up on maintenance and making sure that the housing is well cared for. They are leaving people in mold, filth, vermin, and lead paint, and it is unacceptable. Let's just be clear that the gentleman's reference to privatized companies coming and rescuing government housing that has declined is not correct. The privatized family housing program and the barracks are new construction that the privatized companies build, and then they neglect taking care of it and neglect taking care of our servicemembers, which is why we need to be careful about our approach in the future to privatized family housing and privatized housing for unaccompanied servicemembers. This amendment is not controversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports medical care for veterans who reside in U.S. territories and Freely Associated States, which both Mr. Carter and I have gone together to see and to communicate about. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I really would invite the gentlewoman from Virginia to take a tour of some of our privatized military family housing where she would have an opportunity to see that it is not better. We have established some layer of oversight at the military service level, but we have really decrepit conditions that still exist. There are some beginning improvements, but there are millions of dollars in fines that privatized military family housing companies have had to pay because of their neglect. Like I said, encouraging more privatized housing for our unaccompanied servicemembers should be done in a selectful, choiceful way, not just encouraging it to occur across all of our services. This amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports mental health care programs with an emphasis on suicide prevention. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It assists veterans with disabilities and mental health and substance abuse challenges. We support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.