Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

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, and I am not opposed to it. It supports the VA home loan program, 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 gentleman's amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports funding for medical services for the treatment of PTSD, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because this is yet another attempt at trying to privatize veterans' healthcare. Veterans have consistently made it clear that they prefer to get their healthcare at the VA. That is where they are the most comfortable. That is where they are served by people who have served in the military, as well. It is a culture and an environment that ensures that veterans are seen and treated by people who understand what they have been through. Multiple studies, in fact, have shown that non-VA care generally is of lower quality and higher cost. In fact, since the enactment of the MISSION Act, which was designed to shift patients from the Veterans Health Administration to the private sector, costs have exploded. Between fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2024, costs for medical community care have grown by over $21 billion, or almost 140 percent. My colleagues across the aisle often lament that government spending is out of control. I agree that we shouldn't balance our budget on the backs of our veterans, but we can take reasonable measures to ensure that the care that we provide our veterans is not only of high quality but is cost effective. We should not be kicking into overdrive to privatize the healthcare that our veterans receive. They wish and prefer to have their healthcare provided for them at the VA. This amendment would lead to an expansion of privatization. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, what the gentleman's amendment does is it encourages the privatization of in-home healthcare that we provide to our veterans. The difference between providing care to our veterans from the VA and providing privatized home healthcare is one can ensure that, within the VA system, the veteran is cared for, oftentimes by another veteran or by someone who is accustomed to treating veterans and understands the unique and specific needs that they have. Moving toward more and more privatization makes it so that veterans are less likely to be treated soon, more likely to be treated with care that is more expensive, and more likely to be treated by someone who really doesn't have experience in caring for a veteran. Madam Chair, none of those things are positive, so I urge opposition to that amendment for that reason, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), had a better idea on this one. It is noncontroversial, and I do not oppose it because it supports the reduction in the backlog of veteran casework, which we are all committed to doing. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial. I am not opposed to it because it supports the construction of State extended-care facilities, particularly for those who served in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. We need to take care of those valiant soldiers. Madam Chair, for that reason, I do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, it is not the place of Congress to be pushing for increased use of specific experimental treatments. The VA is currently in the midst of a multiyear clinical trial to collect data on this treatment for potential use in treating post- traumatic stress disorder, but they do not yet have sufficient data one way or the other regarding this treatment. If this treatment is safe, effective, and appropriate for expanded use, then the healthcare experts at the VA should be the ones to expand the treatment for wider use. There is a deliberative process for expanding the use of emerging healthcare treatments, and we should let that process play out. This specific treatment actually involves insertion into the neck of an individual and could be potentially dangerous. We should make sure that we are waiting out the results of the studies that are being done before trying to impose a decision from the House floor. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, the leadership of this committee has been committed consistently to making sure that safe and effective treatments are able to be provided to the VA, to our veterans who get their care from the VA. It is just important to make sure that the care that they are receiving is efficacious and that it is safe. It would be helpful if the sponsor of the amendment understood the sites that are offering this treatment are part of the study that is being done. There is not a new study being proposed. We are not adding time to this, but there is a process for expanding the use of emergency healthcare treatments, and that is the responsibility of the VA to manage. Let's let them complete that process and then you could go fully forward assuming that it proves to be efficacious and safe. I realize that we have a horrific problem with PTSD, and we certainly are dedicating vast resources to make sure that we can address suicide prevention. Unfortunately, the Republican bill cuts the VA by $6 billion, so that commitment is not quite the same. Making sure that we are providing safe, efficacious treatments for our veterans and that we do not impose those decisions from the House floor is important. That is why I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it, particularly as a cancer survivor myself. It supports the study of various cancers in military aviators, and it is an important amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, would the gentleman yield for the purpose of a colloquy?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There wasn't opposition. Procedurally, we rise to claim time in opposition and then say we are not opposed to the amendment. It is just procedural.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That way I have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It encourages the VA to address emergency care coverage for veterans. I thank the gentlewoman for introducing it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, the amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. The gentlewoman should know that Mr. Carter and I, and our entire subcommittee, have worked for years to help address the issues that we share your concerns on, particularly privatized military housing. The conditions under which our servicemen and -women and their families live have to be pristine. The response time for those who are responsible for taking care of it needs to be dramatically improved. We have added funding in this bill at the DOD level to make sure that DOD doesn't have a hands-off policy and just leaves all the decisionmaking to the privatized companies. The DOD has a layer of accountability now, as well. I thank the gentlewoman for raising the issue because this is important for us to provide good housing and safe roofs over the heads of our servicemembers and their families. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's debate on this amendment was spoken like a man who is refusing to acknowledge that the fastest growing group of veterans served by the VA is women. In March of last year, the VA announced it was updating its 1959 mission statement to read: ``To fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for those who have served in our Nation's military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors.'' That was a way to make the VA a more inclusive and inviting place and to acknowledge that it is not only men who have served in our military, nor is it only men who are served at the VA. The VA's previous mission statement read: ``To fulfill President Lincoln's promise `to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan,' by serving and honoring the men and women who are America's veterans.'' The VA is a place where all veterans should feel welcome, included, and cared for. The previous mission statement did not adequately reflect the modern-day veteran population by only honoring men's service. As I said, today, women are the fastest growing group of veterans. It is about time that they are reflected in the VA's mission statement, and I am pleased that the VA made this important and meaningful change. What we are doing here now is, again, wasting time debating a poison pill, culture war amendment that was put to bed and excluded in the FY24 conference report. This was language that was removed last year. We are going to have it removed again. Essentially, what we are doing here is distracting from the fact that the Republican majority has proposed a bill that cuts $6 billion from the VA. Forgive me if I really think it is disingenuous for the gentleman to suggest that they care more about caring for our veterans when they are cutting $6 billion out of our bill and, instead, focusing on the adaptation of the VA's motto to be more inclusive of the fastest growing group of veterans that are treated at the VA, which is women. We should be focusing on that funding, actually meeting the Fiscal Responsibility Act targets, and increasing nondefense discretionary and defense discretionary by 1 percent, which the Republican majority reneges on in this bill, not debating petty partisan riders. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.