Timothy Walz

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4245, the Veterans' Electronic Health Record Modernization Oversight Act of 2017. When I first came to Congress back in 2007, as a veteran myself, one of the questions we asked was--Electronic medical records had been out there for quite some time. The VA was a pioneer in their VistA System, on VistA, on managing health, and it is not just a database. As Dr. Dunn knows well, these are important diagnostic tools and they have to be right. But the thing that every veteran for 20 years was saying was: Why do we have one medical record in the Department of Defense, so when we leave the Army, the Navy, the Marines, or the Air Force, we drop off a cliff--we all carry around a paper file they print out to us--and then we try to get back into the VA and it is an entirely different system that doesn't talk to one another? It seems pretty self-evident that from the time you raise your hand until the time you are buried with honors, it would make sense that we had a joint electronic medical record. That was the genesis of this. I am proud to say that it was a long road, but we had the signing of the Cerner contract. What this piece of legislation does is--and I want to be very careful about--we do this many times here, we pass a piece of legislation, pat ourselves on the back, and send it away, only to watch it die a horrible death in the executive branch, not be implemented correctly, or not provide our oversight. This simply says--and Dr. Dunn was exactly right--this is a $16 billion 10-year project. I want to be clear, though: that is our current projection. Everyone in here knows that if we get a 10 percent delay and a 10 percent cost overrun, we will probably be relatively happy with that. That is over a year, and it will be a nearly $2 billion addition. That money will have to come from somewhere. It will slow down implementation. We saw reports early last week that there were serious concerns in the pilot program that are out there. So what this does--and I, once again, thank the chairman and the majority staff for recognizing this is our responsibility. We will not shirk that here--it asks them to report to us. It let's us stay on top of this before it becomes a crisis. Because every single one of us here knows that it is coming some day--that we are going to hear about misinformation, something dropping through, a cost overrun--and this just gives us that added security. This is a project that cannot fail. I have witnessed in my time in Congress too many IT failures, specifically at the VA: a contract is signed, it is going to happen, and it is a good thing. It has the potential to, as again the gentleman said, revolutionize how we deliver care. But it has the potential to go in the wrong direction if we are not doing our constitutional right of oversight. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think this is, once again, the legislative branch, as it was meant to be, taking back its oversight responsibility. We are going to authorize this and we are going to appropriate the funds. I think it is only prudent that we have another layer of oversight to make sure that this huge, huge project, nearly unprecedented, upgrade in integration of electronic health records of anywhere in the world, happens correctly. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for taking the time to tell us about Sergeant Major Hendrix. This is exactly the point I'm making: If you want to exemplify what this Nation is about, we are a Nation of people, we are a Nation of patriots; and when they rise above it, like Ray Hendrix did, I think it is appropriate. Of all of the things that we do on this floor, I make a case that these namings are a pretty important piece of what we do. So I thank the gentleman for this, and encourage my colleagues to enthusiastically support this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those supporting H.R. 3946, which does name the VA community-based outpatient clinic in Statesboro, Georgia, the Ray Hendrix Veterans Clinic. I would like to say at this time, I often hear from people, and they talk about things going on here. And they say: Oh, yeah, they are naming another post office, or VA clinic. That is right, we are. Today, we are naming a VA clinic after someone who gave their life serving this Nation, coming back doing the things that build our community, and I think, when people think is this just an exercise we go through, I would encourage, Mr. Speaker, for everyone, when they go by one of these buildings and they see a name on the side of it and wonder what it is after--we can now google those things pretty easy. I will guarantee you, every time you google that name, you will come away amazed at what your fellow citizens did, what they gave to this country, and in this case, you heard it from the gentleman, about Ray Hendrix's service, 42 years in uniform, back in that, and I will guarantee you that Statesboro, Georgia, is a better place because of what Sergeant Major Ray Hendrix did. So I don't think these are things to fill time. I think these are things that we honor what is right about the country. We honor people that put country first, and it is very obvious to me, having never met Ray Hendrix, or until this bill was brought forward, I sure wished I had known him, and I would have loved to have been in a unit where Sergeant Major Hendrix served because it is obvious that he cared. With that, I strongly support this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's Veterans Opioid Abuse Prevention Act. It was about 10 years ago to the day that we stood on this floor when I had a piece of legislation, one of the first ones I authored as a Member of Congress, the stepped-care pain management for the prescription of opioids in the VA, and I remember delivering a speech right here that if we don't do something about what is happening with the overprescription, we are going to be in a situation of crisis, I think, were the terms that I used. At that time, we started talking about multiple approaches to pain management. At the time we brought it up, the VA did not even want to consider things like acupuncture and yoga, and now we are at a situation where the gentleman is exactly right. Even with that, moving forward, according to the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, between 2010 and 2015, the number of veterans addicted to opioids rose 55 percent to a total of roughly 68,000. This represents about 13 percent of all veterans currently prescribed opioids. Various published studies have found that there is a significant increased risk of suicide among our veterans and the general U.S. population when opioid use disorders are apparent. H.R. 3832, as amended, will require VA to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a State-based prescription drug monitoring program in order to further reduce opioid misuse and dependency. By requiring VA to partner with the prescription drug program, the VA can better ensure veterans are receiving the most appropriate treatment available while significantly reducing the likelihood of abuse. We have an ethical responsibility to do everything we can in this country to reduce the opioid epidemic, certainly amongst our veterans. It is a step in the right direction to prevent the overprescription of opioids to veterans so that we can start preventing those veterans becoming addicted in the first place. I stand in strong support of this. Mr. Speaker, as stated, this is a good piece of legislation, smart move forward, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman's commitment to this issue. I appreciate the work that has been spent to continue to evolve to get this right, because I do think there is, obviously, no disagreement in the scourge and the horrific crimes committed against servicemembers that we must deal with and the treatment of those victims afterwards. With that, I encourage my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of high-quality, accessible treatment options for survivors of military sexual trauma. I want to thank the gentleman. His concern is exactly in the right place. It is focusing our attention on this issue. There are some things in the bill, though, that I would like to point out, and these concerns have been shared by some of the veterans service organizations. I do this in the spirit of the gentleman is exactly right on what needs to be done. This is about a process of trying to improve upon a piece of language. The VA was unable to submit views on this bill because of timing on how it was brought up. For this reason, I would like to read just a few quotes from a statement the VA submitted on this bill to reflect the concerns shared by our staff and the VSO community. These are VA quotes: ``Aspects of the bill could jeopardize patient safety and well-being and create the ethically problematic situation of VA condoning and supporting a substandard level of care for program participants.'' ``It is possible some veterans would even choose to leave VA care entirely to avoid the study.'' While I certainly appreciate the effort, I am of the belief that this study could misallocate VA's limited resources to define a problem to which the RAND Corporation and the National Academy of Sciences have already offered potential solutions. I am supporting today's amendment in the nature of a substitute but warning against future efforts to erode the high quality of care that VA is providing. In order to better reflect VA's position on improving access to military sexual trauma, I am excited to work with our VSO partners on legislation that would implement some of the recommendations made in previous assessments and increase access to high-quality care. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us in drafting legislation that continues to heal military sexual trauma victims. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, again, I too, would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Representative Smucker, and Representative Emmer for their tireless work for care of veterans not just in Minnesota, but across the country. I also thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please join me in passing H.R. 1972, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1972, but I would once again like to note we are here again with the most productive committee in the United States Congress, the most bipartisan committee, the most open, and it is fitting, going into Memorial Day, that the question of the shared commitment to this Nation's veterans is never in question. So I am grateful. I would also like to extend thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), for his work on this piece of legislation, bringing it to light and continuing to carry this until we got it to the floor. This committee has heard from veterans across the country that have experienced harassment from debt collectors or experienced adverse credit reporting through no fault of their own. The bill simply requires VA to waive any of those copayments due by a veteran when VA makes an error that causes significant delay in notification of the copayment. It is a very simple solution to a problem that can significantly impact nearly every aspect of a veterans' life. This can add unnecessary stress for veterans when they are trying to pay their medical expenses and make ends meet. Veterans shouldn't be hung out to dry when the VA is at fault. This legislation would mitigate the harm a delayed copayment notification could create for a veteran. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this bill being brought up today by the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Lieutenant Colonel Joey L. Errington's change of command and pending retirement from the United States Army I want to recognize him and his family on their nearly 30 years of service to the Nation. Originally from Rush City, Minnesota LTC Errington enlisted in 1989 as a 13B, Cannon Crewman. He was selected for the Green to Gold Program at Clemson University and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Field Artillery in 1997. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery Basic Course, the Field Artillery Career Course at Fort Sill, OK, and the Command and General's Staff Course at Fort Leavenworth, KS. He holds a Bachelors of Science in Agricultural Education from Clemson University and a Masters of Arts in Educational Leadership from Webster University. During his tenure led our soldiers at echelon from the platoon to Battalion. LTC Errington is relinquishing command of the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas this morning. His previous assignments include the III Corps, G3 Chief of Training at Fort Hood, TX. He also served as the Deputy Brigade Commander, Executive Officer, and Fire Support Officer for the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS as well as the Battalion S-3 for the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery; LTC Errington was the Assistant Professor of Military Science at Saint John's University, College of Saint Benedict's, and Saint Cloud State University in Minnesota. He was the Battalion Fire Direction Officer, S1, and Charlie Battery Commander for 4th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. LTC Errington also served as a Task Force Fire Support Officer, Platoon Leader, and Company Fire Support Officer for 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery at Fort Riley, Kansas. LTC Errington's decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Badge, the Meritorious Unit Citation, and the Presidential Unit Citation. He is married to the former Alison Adams of Hermantown, MN and they have three children--Brooke who is going to start college at Kansas State University in the fall, Billy, and Becky.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, to the chairman, I am not writing his eulogy here, but I would say that is a pretty impressive resume of accomplishments, going back to the Forever GI Bill, appeals reform, Clay Hunt Suicide, as just a few, and then this piece of legislation. The gentleman's work and tenacity for veterans, Mr. Speaker, is second to none. His dignity and respect for all Members of this House in the process is legendary. And for giving this space today for us to talk about and debate on this floor our shared values, compromise disagreements, but always with the goal that we are in this together, that is created by an atmosphere of leadership. It is created by an atmosphere of respecting our democratic process. It is understanding that this is not about gotcha, who is this and who is that. It is about looking at what is possible. So I congratulate the gentleman for putting together a piece of legislation that serves so many veterans. It has the support of so many folks, and allowing me on this last opportunity to express those long- term concerns to make sure we don't undermine that, I am forever grateful for that. I appreciate the comments and the gentleman from Michigan talking about the capacity inside the VA, too. We have got incredible providers there serving veterans every day, and many of them veterans themselves. I know his commitment to making sure they have the resources necessary to do their job. It is a priority. I think the concern that I am showing on the budget gap is just to make sure that we don't pick one over the other or where veterans care is. And, as I said, again, if it were left on the shoulders of the chairman to ensure that would happen, I would sleep well at night. I just worry that when we don't codify these things, when we have the uncertainty in the VA right now, that is where my concern came from, but not from this process, not from an openness, not from a commitment, and not from the gentleman's willingness to get this thing across the finish line. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), my good friend, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), my good friend and a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who also served a very long time in the California Senate serving veterans there.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), my good friend, the ranking member of the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), my good friend, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing inspiration to everybody in this body and across the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the chairman's description of how this process was done was absolutely 100 percent accurate. The sense of bipartisanship that went into the writing of this bill, the sense of purpose in shared values on caring for our veterans, the sense of dignity and respect that was given to the minority side in dissenting opinions both from the chairman and his staff was exemplary and what we should all expect out of our leadership. This is a piece of legislation that has components of it that have literally been with me or been on my mind or things that I have tried to effect for literally two-thirds of my life--24 years in that uniform and 12 years here. Much of this, I am proud to have been part of the original authors with the chairman in writing that, and it brings me to a strange position today. I am rising personally in opposition, and I say that this will be my last opportunity to vote on the Choice Act. I will be leaving this Congress after this term, and after many positive things--and I have said it time and time again. The leadership that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) is showing will probably not be parallel in terms of care for veterans in the way that he has approached this. This piece of legislation is critically important--the caregivers piece in it, the piece on dealing with VA assets and how we look at capacity going forward, and, of course, Choice. And I would like to say--and especially to my friend, Sam Johnson-- very few words need to be said about Sam Johnson. We served on the POW/ MIA Commission in dealing with finding the lost remains of our warriors and dealing directly with the Russian Government. And when Sam Johnson's name is mentioned anywhere around the world, people stop and listen. So it is appropriate. I thank the chairman for naming that, and, of course, with Senators Akaka and McCain. My concerns on this. This is not a symptom of the VA Committee. The VA Committee did exactly what it was supposed to do. The chairman did exactly what he was supposed to do. The VSOs did exactly what they were supposed to do. But I think this is my last chance to voice, how do we ever get to the point where we look at long-term stability. How do we ever get to the point--three times we had to do--and the chairman is right. I have no doubt that this body, because of the care for veterans on both sides, will do whatever is necessary when we run short, and we will. And next May, when we hit the discretionary spending caps and things had to be made, I have no doubt, under the chairman's leadership, we will find a fix, or whoever sits in that chair will try and find that fix. I thought, and still believe to this day, this was our opportunity to look at that long-term care--the issue that was going to be the stability of VA care. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill is going to cost $47 billion over 5 years. There is not an American taxpayer that would not pay every penny of that to go to care of veterans. This is not about trying to figure that piece of it out. Paying for veterans care in the community is going to cost $22 billion on that. I agree that reforming Choice Programs, consolidating the VA's seven other community care programs is needed. And I agree transferring this funding of the Choice Program to discretionary funding so the VA can budget for the increased cost and all healthcare is paid by that fund. We must ensure the high cost of community care, though, does not force the VA to cut other critical veterans services. It is unfortunate that we have chosen to solve this problem on the mandatory side by exempting VA care from statutory PAYGO, but we are not going to do that in the future on the care in the community. It is not a problem that is going to occur years from now. Everybody in here who is coming back--and the voters will tell you if you are or not--is coming. The cost of community care is so expensive, we will not get through fiscal year 2019 without a similar exemption on the discretionary side. This bill fails to address how VA will fund all of its other programs once this transfer occurs. The Bipartisan Budget Act deal raised VA's caps by $4 billion to improve VA infrastructure. This increased discretionary funding responsibility for community care is going to undermine that deal, forcing VA to cut its own programs and use money designated for VA infrastructure to fund community care. That is a choice we can make, and it is a choice that has to be made. I am just suggesting today that with the good will, the smart policies, the leadership that was here, maybe we should have gone for the whole one on this. I will take the critique that looking for the perfect and throwing away the good is a fair critique. I am just not sure, in a Congress with a $21 trillion deficit and a discretionary spending budget that could be eaten up across there, when is that hard decision ever going to be made? It could mean that care provided in VA hospitals and clinics, construction and maintenance of those facilities, veterans homelessness programs, and VA research will have to see cuts under the way the law is made to make sure community care is funded. It could cause cuts to programs across the Federal Government, including programs that help veterans with job training, employment assistance, or veterans treatment courts. Even the expansion of eligibility for caregiver assistance for all veterans of all generations--a key part of this bill supported by everyone here--could face cuts if VA hits those spending caps. Now, all of us here, it is the job of this committee to be the authorizing committee, so don't get me wrong. I am not going to put the pressure where the White House was or to the appropriators, but the fact of the matter is, after this vote, the Caregiver Support Program has zero dollars in it. No dollars in it. They are going to have to come from somewhere, and a budget that the chairman has rightfully told us has increased fourfold in the last 10 years, we are going to have to come to grips with that. I am not suggesting you cut it. I am just suggesting that we budget honestly on this so we don't run into this nightmare scenario that is coming in May of 2019. There are concerns over long-term sustainability without qualified leadership in place to successfully implement the program. Here is what I am worried about. If this committee and even this Congress were responsible for implementation, but once it leaves here, it goes to the executive branch, I, as the ranking member of the House VA Committee, am not quite sure who to call up there right now in this transition. We have been 40 days without a VA Secretary. We don't have one, that I know of, scheduled to go in front of the Senate for confirmation at this point in time. So we are willing to capitulate the authority, the ability to give this over there, and decisions that are going to affect generational care in the VA to somebody yet to be placed. That leadership piece scares me. But again, some of it is relieved because I know you have got leadership in this House. I know you have got a chairman who cares, wants to get this right, I trust, to carry that oversight out. The problem is, administrations come and go; secretaries comes and go; Members of Congress come and go. That is why we do statutory requirements on spending. That is why this is now discretionary spending. That is why there are caps in place that cannot be violated, and decisions will be made where that is going to come from. Also, a shortage of 33,000 health providers in the VA and a $10 billion backlog to fix needed facilities that have ``D'' or ``F'' life conditions, that we should be doing more to address that internal care. I agree. These reforms are needed. I agree that these programs were debated in a logical, a fair, and open manner. We got much of what needed to be done in this. We got much of what is good. The chairman took this process--exactly what should be expected of us. My responsibility, as the final time that I will stand here to talk about how we fund Choice and how we get going for long-term sustainability, is to ask us to just put in--and we had a couple of amendments that could do this--ask us with some capacity to be able to fix that cap piece in this and look for that long-term sustainability. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Georgia. We are going to see some camaraderie down here. I agree with the gentleman on this. And I thank Mr. Lamb for pointing out clearly what needs to be done to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. This is one of those cases, and I think this is important on the rule, because, Mr. Speaker, we may know it in here, but for Americans who are watching this, the rule is how we have this debate. And this is an honest debate. To be absolutely clear, there is no one in this Chamber who disagrees on the care for veterans. How we get there is what is different. On these amendments that Mr. Lamb was proposing to offer or other things that we would like to bring up to fix this, we should debate it here. Dr. Roe, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, did this. He had an open rule. I brought up my amendment, it was debated, and I lost. That is democracy. I understand that. But it is the conversation that brings our Members in that gets us to consensus. So, by structuring a closed rule--for the American people watching this, we already know what the score is of this game. We already know what is going to happen ahead of time. It is in this deliberative body that we should be having a detailed debate on this very proposal and then voting it down. I think we say it because of time; we say it because of constraint; we say it because we want to control the flow of what happens here. Well, maybe the American people don't want that flow a little bit. We should have this debate, and I will accept losing an argument. What I cannot accept is five people up in a room up on the third floor here making something out of order that is clearly in order, and whether it is accepted or not should at least be debated. So I don't disagree with the gentleman's assessment. He is right about us trying to find common ground. There is going to be a lot of support on this piece of legislation when it comes up, but I think not having an open rule and an honest debate is selling us short from getting toward a more perfect bill--not perfect, a more perfect bill. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank the thousands of foreign national employees who work for United States Embassies overseas supporting our Foreign Service and promoting democratic ideals throughout the world. Many Americans may not know exactly what the Foreign Service does both at home and abroad, but I can assure you that our diplomats are out every day promoting the interests of the United States, our constituents, our businesses, and our values. Last August, I invited Ambassador Barbara Stephenson, president of the American Foreign Service Association, to Minnesota Farm Fest, a trade and policy forum that brings together about 40,000 people out on the rich soils near Redwood Falls, Minnesota. Her message was simple yet important: the work our Foreign Service officers do throughout the globe has a direct and substantial impact on the citizens of this great Nation--in that case, promoting export markets and food safety throughout the world so that the world's greatest producers of food and fuel and fiber are able to find those markets and able to grow our economies. But what often goes unnoticed are the thousands of foreign national employees who work at U.S. Embassies in support of our diplomats as they build and strengthen democratic institutions, create and sustain markets for American products, and promote democracy in some of the most hostile, austere environments in the world. These dedicated professionals are called LESes among the Foreign Service, Locally Engaged Staff. And that is exactly what they are. They are engaged locally in a way that is simply not possible, even for the most expert of American diplomats. They are that engaged because they are from the country they work in. And it is this understanding that only people native to a country can have, which makes them critical to the success of our diplomats and America's mission overseas. I would like to tell you about one such unsung hero of the State Department's mission in Havana, Cuba. Olexis Lugo was born in Havana, Cuba, in 1966, and worked for the U.S. Interests Section, and later, the U.S. Embassy in Havana for more than a decade. Lugo, as he was known to diplomat colleagues, was a driver in the embassy's motor pool and supported countless missions with U.S. diplomats. More than a driver, Lugo aided diplomats in understanding the nuances of Cuban culture, and provided critical insight that helped our diplomats do their jobs effectively. And more than that, Lugo was a friend and confidant to all of the U.S. diplomats posted in Havana, and a friend to America. This past year, Lugo suddenly passed away in Havana, but his legacy will live on in the American lives he touched and the ideals of democracy and freedom that he helped support. I hope when it comes time to talk about our Foreign Affairs budget, we will remember our diplomats and the folks from foreign countries, like Lugo, who are working hard for the American people to keep this world safe for democracy.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no further speakers, I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Long Island--he clearly understands this issue--for his passionate work on this, and we are grateful for it. I, too, would like to add my voice to this, to the chairman for once again proving to America that this Congress can work, that there are bipartisan solutions to issues that we care about in serving our constituents and our veterans and others. It is something that we are very proud of here. It doesn't always come easy, but his leadership somehow finds a way to bring us to the table. We get it done, and I am grateful for that. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing S. 324, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his compassionate words on the tragic loss of three dedicated, selfless servants in care of our veterans. I very much appreciate that, and it is a challenging time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 324, the State Veterans Home Adult Day Health Care Improvement Act. I want to thank Senator Hatch for introducing this innovative and bipartisan bill. S. 324 directs the VA to enter into an agreement with each State home to pay for medical supervision model adult healthcare for a veteran for whom the home is not receiving VA nursing home payments. Ensuring that veterans have access to appropriate affordable geriatric and long-term care is becoming increasingly important. In 2017, approximately 9.8 million veterans, or 46 percent, were 65 years or older. In addition, VA's own Enrollee Health Care Projection Model indicates a further demand on long-term care and support services is coming as the Vietnam-era cohort ages, with most having gone beyond age 75 by 2026. At present, VA is required to cover the cost of nursing home care in the State Veterans Home for any veteran in need of such care due to a service-connected disability or with a service-connected disability rated 70 percent or more. However, there is increasing demand for VA to offer geriatric and long-term programs for veterans in noninstitutional settings that would allow them to receive the services and support they need to remain in their homes--their preferred venue. Adult day healthcare programs provide veterans in need of supportive services with companionship, peer support, recreation, and certain healthcare services, while allowing them to stay and maintain their independence. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Health last year, the National Association of State Veterans Homes claimed that there are a number of State homes across the country interested in providing medical model ADHC services; however, the current basic ADHC per diem paid to the State Veterans Home by the VA is not sufficient for most homes to cover the cost of this program. As a result, only 3 State Veterans Homes out of 153, nationwide, provide this program. This legislation would correct that imbalance, allowing veterans who would otherwise qualify for more costly VA nursing home care the ability to stay in their home longer, at a reduced cost. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.