Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, as you know, the allocation provides $73.3 billion for the FY14 Military Construction-VA bill, which is $1.4 billion above the FY13 and $1 billion below the request. In my opinion, the allocation is what we could have expected had the Republican leadership addressed sequestration.

Madam Chairman, I know some folks will say that title 2 of this bill is exempt from sequestration and that is why the bill received a decent allocation, but I just want to point out that the funding in the bill largely mirrors the administration's request which does not reflect sequestration, even for the portions of the bill that were not exempted. I think that we all agree that we need to address the sequester, and I hope that we do it in the near future, because if we don't, the long-term effects will be devastating to our economy.

With that being said, I'm pleased to join Chairman Culberson as the House takes up the FY14 appropriations bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies. The MilCon-VA bill is critically important to the strength and the well-being of our military, our veterans, and the families who sacrifice so much to defend our country. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I find it quite fitting that we are debating this bill immediately after observing Memorial Day last week.

Working with Chairman Culberson and the members of our subcommittee, we have crafted a bill that will address the funding needs for military construction and family housing for our troops and their families, as well as other quality-of-life construction projects. In addition, it will provide funding for many important VA programs, as well as agencies like the Veterans Court of Appeals and the American Battle Monuments Commission.

The bill before us today touches every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. In addition, the bill also will impact military spouses, their children, and every veteran that participates in VA programs.

I want to commend the chairman for his work. Together, we sat through numerous hearings, gaining valuable insight to the workings of all the agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Also, we would like to thank our subcommittee members and recognize them for their hard work on this bill. I believe that the minority was treated fairly during this process, and I want to thank the chairman for ensuring this bipartisan result.

Chairman Culberson has already provided the funding highlights in the bill, and I will not repeat them all, but I would like to point out a few items that I believe are extremely important.

The bill before us today includes $797 million for the renovation and replacement of 17 Department of Defense schools. I believe that providing the funds for the DOD schools will help our servicemembers' children get a quality education in safe facilities and will give our servicemembers peace of mind.

I'm pleased that the bill includes $151 million for the third increment of the Landstuhl Medical Center replacement in Germany. As you know, a large portion of the serious casualties from Afghanistan are treated there, and I'm pleased to see that we are making this important investment.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at $63.1 billion, and overall, the subcommittee recommendation meets the discretionary budget request in all areas of administrative expenses, research, information technology, and facilities.

In addition, the bill contains $55.6 billion in advance appropriations for medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities at the VA, which is $1.1 billion above the amount included in FY13. Madam Chairman, I strongly believe that advance funding provides timely and predictable resources for the veterans' health care system, and I'm so glad that we have been able to do it now for this 5th year in a row.

Now, I know that a lot of Members of this body are deeply concerned about the claims backlog and the electronic health records challenge. Trust me, the members of our committee, especially Chairman Culberson and I, have spoken directly with Secretary Shinseki about these issues numerous times, and I believe that our bill provides the resources and the accountability needed to address these two problems:

First, the bill funds the general operating expenses for the VBA, which will support 20,851 claims processors, which is 94 more than FY2013, and all 94 new claims processors will work disability claims;

Second, the bill fully funds the Veterans Benefits Management System at $155 million and the Veterans Claim Intake Program at $136.4 million.

These two efforts should speed up the VA's efforts to take old claims that are filed on paper and convert them into digital files that are easily searchable by claims processors, thus speeding up the claims process.

Second, we include a monthly reporting requirement every 30 days for the VA to provide Congress with several statistics, such as the average wait time at each regional office, rating inventory that has been pending for 125 days, rating claims advocacy, and month-to-month updates in changes in those statistics.

Third, we require a report on the VA's expedited claims initiative that was announced just a few weeks ago. This report should give the committee and the Congress insight into whether or not the Secretary's new initiatives are having positive results.

Finally, the bill directs the VA and the Department of Defense toward one integrated electronic health record system in bill language, and it restricts the availability of funds for the development of a system that meets the requirements of being single, joint, common, and integrated with open architecture and is the sole system used by both the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense. This initiative would ensure that veterans get their records to the VA electronically, thus reducing the number of claims filed on paper and speeding up the claims process.

Now, the committee's action--and I want to make this point clear--the committee's action and this bill do not mandate the adoption of a particular system, only that it be a single system that is used by both Departments. I don't think that we should get into the business of picking the software, but I do believe that by mandating a single system between the Department of Defense and the VA, that veteran claims in the future will not continue to fall victim to the slow inefficiencies that we're dealing with today.

Madam Chair, I believe that we have a strong, bipartisan bill that supports our military, their families, and our veterans. I would hate to see the hard work of our committee up-ended by contentious partisan riders intended to serve in scoring political points instead of those that serve our Nation. I also believe that the most important parts of this bill are the resources and accountability provided to assist the VA in tackling this outrageous claims backlog.

So I say to my colleagues that our committee strongly shares the deep commitment of this body to fixing the claims backlog issue. We looked at numerous approaches and further believe that our bill has found the optimal approach in dealing with this pressing concern of our veterans.

Before I close, Madam Chair, I would like to recognize the staff for all of the hard work and time that they've put into this bill. From the minority committee staff, I would like to thank Matt Washington, as well as Michael Reed and Adam McCombs from my personal staff. From the majority committee staff, I would like to thank Donna Shabazz, Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, and Tracey Russell.

I would also like to thank Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Rogers, the chairman and the ranking member, who served so valiantly and who are so diligently trying to seek the well-being of our servicemen and -women, their families, and our veterans.

At this time, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I'd like to join my distinguished chair in opposition to this amendment.

I certainly appreciate and understand the gentleman from Georgia's commitment to reducing the deficit. The deficit is something that is undermining the economic foundation of this Nation. It is like a cancer that is eating away at us, and we have to do all that we can to reduce that deficit and get us on track to a balanced budget.

However, I suspect that this amendment, while well intentioned, may be penny-wise and pound-foolish because NATO, this account from which these funds will be taken, supports a strategic alliance that has helped to protect the American people.

Just over the last decade, NATO has been our strategic partner in the war against terrorism in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in our efforts to protect the American people and to protect us abroad.

We simply cannot afford to turn our backs on our allies who have stuck with us and who have supported us in our efforts to protect this world from the bad actors in the war against terrorism. And as a result of that, I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, while understanding and commending him for his commitment toward deficit reduction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Again, I certainly understand and commend the gentleman for his commitment and his passionate support for reduction of the debt and the deficit, and I think that we on this side of the aisle join him in that quest. However, again, I submit that this amendment is probably one that is penny-wise and pound-foolish. We have an alliance with the countries in NATO. Those countries have been our staunch supporters in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our efforts in Afghanistan; and, of course, each of those NATO countries has a developing presence of al Qaeda just as we in the United States. So it's very, very important that we maintain that strategic alliance.

This amendment would cut our share of the responsibility for NATO which we share with the other member countries. And I think that since we are deriving a mutual benefit that we should have a mutual responsibility to support, this joint support, and I think that it would not be wise for us to withdraw our aspect of that support. We should assume our responsibility with our allies for the mutual support and the mutual benefits.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. The gentleman's amendment would require that no less than $35 million goes towards traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder research from the Medical and Prosthetic Research account. I want to bring to the attention of this House that $32 million was already included for this purpose.

I do have some concerns regarding the amendment. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and I agree that PTSD and traumatic brain injury are the two major problems that the VA needs to focus on. Tens of thousands of veterans have suffered traumatic brain injury. Most are mild concussions that get better within a few months, but serious ones and multiple concussions can raise the risk of dementia and other problems. The gentleman points that out rightly.

With the tight budgets that we are facing, I am concerned, however, where the reduction would come from. For example, this account also provides for the research for prosthetics, for women's health, and for gulf war veterans illness. So I just want to make sure that the gentleman is aware that his amendment could cause shortfalls in other areas of research that are vital to the health care needs of our veterans.

I do assure the gentleman that the subcommittee and the committee will work hard to try to make sure that traumatic brain injury and PTSD are adequately addressed with our resources available for funding research there.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, after returning home from the war, veterans are now fighting for jobs back home. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last year's unemployment rate for veterans was 12.1 percent, a significantly higher figure than the 8.7 percent unemployment rate for nonveterans. Even more staggering is that 19.1 percent of young veterans between the ages of 20 and 24 are unemployed.

All veterans, because of their service, have basic skills, and the only thing that they're missing is formal job training to match their abilities with the specific needs of an employer. This is another issue on Secretary Shinseki's plate. I believe that anything that we can do to help veterans gain employment we should do.

I thank the gentleman for raising this issue, and I support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a subject on which we need to tread very, very, very carefully. As we all know, the VA announced that it's mandating the use of overtime for claims processors at the 56 regional offices as part of a ``surge'' aimed at eliminating the disabilities claims backlog.

This effort is the latest in a series of measures that the VA has adopted in recent months in response to sharp criticism and to the cajoling by Members of this Congress and the public over the number of claims pending from veterans seeking disability compensation. That number, which was over 900,000 earlier this year, had fallen to 843,000 as May 13, with more than two-thirds of those having been pending for over 125 days. I believe that Secretary Shinseki should and I believe that Secretary Shinseki is using every option available to him to make progress in eliminating this backlog.

Furthermore, the overtime measure is on top of the VA's recent announcement that it's giving priority to claims that have been pending for longer than a year. I believe that the increased overtime initiative coupled with the expedited claims initiative will provide more veterans with more expedited decisions on their claims and will help us to achieve our goal of eliminating the claims backlog. I believe that this overtime initiative correctly shows that the Secretary's commitment is there to end the problem of the backlog. And so I think we should tread very carefully in this regard.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment reflects the apparent obstruction of the Department of Defense on the electronic health record issue; and let me explain to you how we got here.

The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act directed the two Departments to develop a single electronic health record system that will follow a servicemember from the time he or she enlisted in the military to the time they exited the VA care, by 2009.

However, after a number of management, oversight, and planning snags and snafus, and the cost estimates that grew from $4 billion to now nearly $12 billion, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and VA Secretary Eric Shinseki decided to alter their plans to focus on making that current electronic health record system more interoperable.

Just recently, Secretary Hagel, the Department of Defense, made the decision to modernize the Defense Department's electronic health record through purchase of commercial software. A recent memo released by the Department of Defense makes no reference to the integrated electronic health records; and it seems more of the same go-it-alone, stovepipe approach that has been favored by the Pentagon in the past.

In addition to the Department of Defense's memo, it also made no mention of the congressionally mandated role of the Interagency Program Office set up to run the integrated electronic health records project and staffed by more than 300 personnel from both Departments.

Finally, by going the commercial route, I believe the Department of Defense has opened up its latest electronic health records scheme to protest and subsequent delays.

With all these issues I laid out, some still want to think that the Department of Defense should be free to do whatever it pleases.

Mr. Chairman, paper is a problem, and we cannot keep letting servicemembers leave the Department of Defense with paper records. Please know that this situation will be addressed further as we move through the process.

And we support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is timely. I think it is necessary.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I stand today also concerned about the policy on Guantanamo Bay detention facility. And as I listened to my colleague and as I consider the speech from the President last week, it is very, very clear that there needs to be additional debate on this subject. Also I understand that the House Armed Services Committee will be holding discussions on this very important issue in the coming days as they begin marking up the National Defense Authorization Act.

And so I say to my colleagues that this issue deserves a more vigorous debate but that this is not the proper venue to hold that debate. As I stated in my opening remarks today, this bill was crafted and brought to the floor as a result of bipartisan work and compromise due to the committee's commitment to our servicemembers, their families and to all of our veterans.

This is a deeply, deeply controversial issue that I believe requires much more in-depth discussion than we can have here today. And I respectfully submit that this appropriations bill is not the appropriate venue for discussion and action on this very, very controversial policy. Today is not the time, and this bill, I submit, is not the place.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Georgia that the claims backlog is absolutely unacceptable.

I think the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, the chairman of our subcommittee, and yours truly as the ranking member of the subcommittee have met with and have criticized and have done everything that we could possibly do to try to bring to the attention of the Veterans Administration and the Secretary of the need to have this backlog addressed, and I do think we address that in this bill; but I must rise in opposition to this amendment.

When I talk to veterans, the number one issue that they always have is the claims and claims backlog. The number one issue being worked on by my staff in southwest Georgia is VA claims and the claims backlog. I believe that what we have done in this bill will finally do something about the backlog.

Now let me just put a pin right there for a moment. The backlog, while inexcusable, does have some basis.

Just a couple of years ago, this Congress, in an effort to support our Vietnam era veterans, made it possible for the Agent Orange claims to be covered by the VA even though that had been an ongoing issue for the two decades that I've been a Member of Congress. As a result of that, there was a great surge of VA claims by Vietnam veterans, which added to the backlog. Add to that the returning veterans from Iraq and now from Afghanistan, which has added even more to that backlog, resulting in the now almost 850,000 claims when, 2 years ago, before the Agent Orange claims, we had just about eliminated that backlog.

I think that, even though there is some justification, the backlog is inexcusable, but in this bill that we are debating right now, we've done something about the backlog:

First, the bill fully funds the general operating expenses by the VBA, which will support 20,851 claims processors, which is 94 more than in last year's bill, and all 94 of these new claims processors will work disability claims. The bill fully funds the Veterans Benefits Management System at $155 million and the Veterans Claims Intake Program at $136.4 million. These two efforts should speed up the VA's efforts to take old claims that are filed on paper and convert them into digital files that are easily searchable by the claims processors, thus speeding up the claims process;

Second, we include a monthly reporting requirement for the VA to provide Congress with several statistics, such as the average wait time at each regional office, the rating inventory that has been pending for 125 days, rating claims accuracy, and month-to-month updates of any changes in those statistics;

Third, we require a report on the VA's expedited claims initiative that was announced just a few weeks ago. This report should give the committee insight into whether or not the Secretary's new initiative is having a positive result.

I believe that we should let the measures in this bill take effect before we turn to these more drastic measures. I understand the frustration that the gentleman feels and that is felt by most of the Members of this Congress, and I understand the frustration that is felt by our veterans and even by the Secretary, who is quite frustrated. I am open to all reasonable methods to solve the problem, but I believe that we should avoid measures like this as it is unnecessarily punitive, and I believe that the measures that we have put forth in this bill will adequately get results, accountability, and ultimately meet our objective of eliminating the claims backlog by 2015.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we are all outraged in regards to the claims backlog and the incidences of poor quality health services and safety. The current claims backlog is, as we have said over and over today, unacceptable. There is no question that the VA has failed to successfully deliver one of its key missions--to provide timely ratings of disability.

Given this failure, it is hard to imagine how VA leaders responsible for disability claims rating and the claims processing transformation could warrant high performance ratings and substantial bonuses. It is also clear that some VA health facilities have had serious issues that put the health, safety, and well-being of veterans at risk. This, too, is unacceptable. Where these failures have occurred, it is hard to imagine how the VA leaders of these facilities could have received high performance ratings and substantial bonuses.

However, this amendment will not provide any solution in the short term, and in the long term it may have adverse consequences and compound the very problem that it attempts to address.

Many VA workers are compassionate and hard workers. The previous amendment that was adopted, which was adopted by this body by voice vote, referenced models from the private sector by cutting pay, reducing the pay by 25 percent until the backlog is reduced. However, if you follow that same model from the private sector, bonuses are the converse of that so that when those backlogs are reduced, and if there is exceptional work that goes in to reducing that backlog by those responsible at the VA, then appropriate bonuses could be granted.

This amendment, I submit, would make the VA a less attractive option than other agencies when it comes to recruiting and retaining quality executive leaders, and it will not have the very talent it needs to solve the problems that it faces today, like the claims backlog and the health care deficiencies.

Furthermore, the SES pay and bonuses are governed by title 5 of the United States Code and administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Any change to title 5 to address VA would then also apply to all other Federal agencies. Attempting an across-the-board, one-size-fits-all fix will penalize those dedicated VA executives who are working hard, and well, to find solutions to the VA's problems.

So I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, that's the Rothfus amendment, not because we don't have the challenges and the obligation to eliminate this backlog and to do it forthwith, but because I think we are going a little bit too far in attempting to create a disincentive for people, not solving this backlog.

I think that recruitment and retention of people in the VA, talented people, talented executives who can effectively solve the challenges that we face, like eliminating the backlog, will be undermined if this amendment should become law.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I respect my good friend, but I am totally baffled by the comparison of Davis-Bacon to Jim Crow laws. I think it's totally inapplicable. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept, and it's a fair one. What the Davis-Bacon Act does is protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages on government contracts.

The act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for some of the work. It requires that every contract for construction to which the Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics.

Mr. Chairman, the House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this, and it's my hope that we stop attacking the working class and defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more important matters.

Davis-Bacon wages actually save construction costs. A study of more than 4,000 new schools, some built with prevailing wage and others not, found that there were no significant differences in construction costs associated with prevailing wage requirements. A repeal in Davis-Bacon wages has consistently been shown to increase costs because of the poor construction resulting in repairs, revisions, and project delays and consequently substantial cost overruns all as a result of the increase in employing unskilled, unqualified workers on projects.

For example, when President Bush suspended Davis-Bacon wages during the Hurricane Katrina building efforts, construction costs went up due to the dramatic increase in the employment of unqualified workers.

Opponents of the prevailing wage claim that the government can save billions by eliminating them. But they ignore how the Davis-Bacon Act has proven to increase workforce productivity and result in cost-effective projects. For example, a study of 10 States when nearly half of all highway and bridgework in America is done showed that when high-wage workers were paid double the wage of low-wage workers, they built 74.4 more miles of roadbed and 32.8 more miles of bridges for $557 million less.

Repealing Davis-Bacon wages dramatically decreases the economic benefits to the local community. For example, studies have shown that Davis-Bacon wages generate more than two times the amount spent on the construction project itself in the local community since the workers spend part of their income in local businesses and pay local taxes, all of which recirculates throughout the economy.

Driving wages down will not help to balance the Federal budget. A Florida analysis such as the Bluegrass Institute study fails to take into account the spin-off economic benefits of maintaining prevailing wages. Davis-Bacon improves the skill level and the training of all of the workers. Opponents of prevailing wage regulations assume that repealing the law and lowering wages will not erode training nor lead to an exodus of skilled workers.

They are wrong, because it has that exact effect. Davis-Bacon increases training opportunities for all workers, both union and nonunion.

Finally, a Davis-Bacon wage is usually not a union wage. The Davis-Bacon prevailing wage is based on surveys of wages and benefits paid to various job classifications of construction workers in the community without regard to union membership. According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of the prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. A union wage prevails only if the Department of Labor survey determines that the local union wage is paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in the job classifications.

Let me just say that we have in the past avoided including divisive language in our bill, and it is my hope that we can stop attacking the working class and we can defeat this amendment.

I urge all of the Members in this House to vote ``no.'' Davis-Bacon is good law, it produces good results, and it is cost effective for the taxpayers of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source