Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, let me say that I am delighted to have the opportunity to work with Chairman Dent of the subcommittee as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full committee.
Madam Chair, as you know, this bill has a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship. We are pleased with several aspects of the bill. For example, the bill maintains tough but fair reporting requirements for VistA modernization, which closely tracks the VA's development of its electronic health record.
The bill continues to prioritize the elimination of the veterans claims backlog by fully funding the fiscal year 2016 requests: $18.3 million for a centralized mail initiative which consolidates inbound paper mail from regional offices to a centralized intake site, as well as $140.8 million for the Veterans Claims Intake Program to scan and convert paper claims into a digital format. I believe that these are all positive steps to making the VA function better.
Furthermore, Chairman Dent has avoided including contentious legislative riders, which is very much appreciated. Unfortunately, however, the chairman was forced to write a bill under the majority's fiscal year 2016 budget resolution, which chose to lock in the Budget Control Act levels and to use gimmicks to boost defense funding. Because of the budget resolution's failure to provide relief from these budget caps--which were established in 2011 and later adjusted in 2013--the chairman was forced to make some tough choices due to the allocation that he was given.
While military construction is provided $7.2 billion, an increase of $593 million above 2015, it is still $1.2 billion below the budget request. In an effort to avoid the defense budget cap, the bill shifts $532 million to the overseas contingency operations funding stream, even though the fiscal year 2016 budget request did not include an OCO request. This is a gimmick, purely a gimmick to boost defense spending by pumping up the OCO budget, which is not limited by the budget law.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at $68.7 billion, and while it is $3.6 billion above fiscal year 2015, the enacted level, it is also $1.4 billion below the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The inadequate fiscal year 2016 allocation again forced the chairman to slice the request for military construction by $582 billion. That is hospital construction.
Furthermore, the bill includes language that directs that only replacement, safety, and security projects can receive budgeted funding. This is troubling language, and it eliminates all national cemetery projects for fiscal year 2016 and puts several other projects in jeopardy.
The majority claims they reduced the construction account because the half-built Veterans Affairs Denver hospital project is drastically over budget and riddled with mistakes.
I certainly agree that the VA needs to be held accountable for the poor job in managing the Denver hospital project; however, no funds for the Denver hospital were allocated within the MILCON-VA bill.
Additionally, I am not aware of any similar issues with any of the other requested projects in the bill for FY12, including replacement, clinic construction, seismic improvements, or cemetery construction.
I believe the majority's budget caps and resulting inadequate allocation--not the problems in Denver--led to cutting construction in half. I am concerned that, if the reduction stands, it will further contribute to the gaps in access, utilization, and safety that were already identified in the VA's annual Strategic Capital Investment program process.
Madam Chair, this committee can no longer afford to function under the Budget Control Act caps. The reductions to VA will cause gaps in access, utilization, and safety and could lower the standard of care due our veterans.
Madam Chairman, as I pointed out during the MILCON-VA markup, the FY 2017 advance funding will consume $4.6 billion of the nondefense discretionary cap next year, so this problem will only get worse. Certainly, the Department of Defense cannot be the only winner.
Using the FY 2016 budget levels will produce a long summer and an early fall, with no real progress on the FY 2016 bills. If so, it is inevitable that a continuing resolution or a series of continuing resolutions will be needed to keep the government open and running in place long past the new fiscal year starts on October 1.
We cannot continue to govern in this fashion. I believe that it is well past time to be strategic about how we handle our Federal budget, and now, we need to take the next step toward a more responsible budget process so we can eventually stop lurching from one crisis to the next.
I believe that Chairman Dent crafted the best bill he could with the allocation he was given. I also believe that this is the first step in a long process, and I am concerned about the impact these reductions to the VA construction account could have, and we believe they will have to be addressed before the process.
To that end, I am prepared to offer an amendment to the bill restoring the full funding of the request so that we can, in fact, do justice by our veterans and do what is necessary for our military construction without using budget gimmicks. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to do that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, the amendment that I am offering should be supported by every Member of this House. Very simply, it would restore the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill to the full amount requested by the administration and to the full amount deemed necessary by the affected agencies.
Last night, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one of the largest veterans service organizations in the United States, put out a letter calling this year's MILCON-VA bill ``bad for veterans.'' They oppose the bill.
The Independent Budget group, which consists of the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, expressed serious concerns with this bill. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America also expressed their serious concerns with this bill. In their letter, they called on Congress to provide the entire $1.5 billion that was cut from the budget request for the VA, which this House should do immediately.
Without this necessary funding, much-needed investments in veterans health care will be shortchanged, and important services will be compromised.
I understand that House rules make it difficult to add money to a spending bill's allocation, but I sincerely hope that we don't hide behind that as an excuse.
We should be doing the right thing on behalf of our Nation's veterans. We have the power to do it. We need to pass a law to change the law which limits us and puts this cap on what we can do to take care of our veterans and our military construction. This amendment addresses that, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to demonstrate to the veteran community that the message has been received.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to respond. I support the gentlewoman's efforts to highlight the importance of women's health. The VA women's center has been underfunded for the last few years. As the gentlewoman correctly pointed out, their most recent working group recommends that they fill two statistician positions that have not yet been filled due to lack of budget.
Without these positions, it is challenging for the VA to get good data about female veterans, so many programs are shaped using faulty assumptions. I believe that these positions are very important for the VA when it comes to providing care for our female veterans. I support these efforts, and I urge all Members to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I believe we need to set the conditions for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo. It is in the United States national security interests to do so. Guantanamo has become a rallying cry. It serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and it increases the will of our enemies to fight while decreasing the will of others to work with America.
Part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced idea that the facility would be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the
United States Supreme Court. As a result, the continued operation of this facility creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and our enemies alike that the United States selectively observes the rule of law.
There is no reason that we should impose upon ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo. Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or of terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody.
For these reasons, I believe that the time is past due to take the actions needed to initiate the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think sometimes people get confused about the role of Guantanamo Bay naval facility's mission. There is a joint task force on detainee operations, and there is the actual facility.
No one has ever floated the idea of closing the base and giving it back to Cuba, so when the detainee mission ends, which it will, we will still need to have this facility. It is the southernmost military facility of the Department.
I don't support detainee operations, but I do support the regular mission of the Guantanamo Bay naval facility, and therefore, I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer.
Just recently, in Georgia, Governor Deal signed legislation that immediately legalized the use of medical marijuana to treat serious medical conditions. Georgia became the 36th State, plus Washington, D.C., to legalize marijuana extracts to treat diseases.
I believe that we should not limit the Veterans Health Administration in providing optimal pain care for our veterans. If medical marijuana is legal in the State, then the VA should be able to discuss that treatment option and allow the veteran to make his or her own choice.
I believe that the VA's published policy guidance related to the use of medical marijuana by veteran patients has become outdated. I believe supporting a veteran's right to use alternative methods to deal with pain is the right thing to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we are all outraged with regard to the claims backlog and the incidences of poor quality health services and safety. The current claims backlog is unacceptable.
There is no question that the VA has struggled to successfully deliver one of its key missions: to provide timely ratings of disabilities. However, the VA has reduced the backlog by 44 percent.
Should we ignore that?
It is also clear that some VA health facilities have had serious issues that put the health, safety, and well-being of our veterans at risk. This, too, is unacceptable. Where these failures have occurred, it is hard to imagine how 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 fact, may have long-term consequences and compound the very problems that it attempts to address. This amendment 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 that it needs to solve the problems that it faces today, like the claims backlog and the healthcare deficiencies.
Furthermore, 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 to do 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. This is nonsense. I urge all Members to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I think that the concerns raised by the gentleman in offering the amendment are perhaps well taken from time to time. But I think this amendment is punitive. I think it is counterproductive. And I think it is going to make it much more difficult to get the results that the gentleman is seeking.
Because of that, I think that the amendment should be defeated. It is a bad amendment. And I think it would be bad for morale for the Department. And I think it would be bad generally for the public. I urge opposition and a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think we are all very, very disturbed by what has happened with Denver, and we are also disturbed about the practices of the construction office. But I just wanted to take this opportunity to maybe kind of clarify what has happened in response to try to mitigate the situation.
In January, Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson announced the restructuring of the Office of Construction & Facilities Management, having them report directly to the Deputy Secretary through the Office of Management.
The VA also initiated an administrative investigative board in January to find the truth and to document the misconduct on the project. Secretary Gibson has included the VA Office of General Counsel in the review, and the administrative investigative board is expected to complete its review and make recommendations to the Deputy Secretary this month.
Additionally, the U.S. Corps of Engineers is conducting a separate review of the VA's Construction office to evaluate the structure and the processes so that changes can be made in the future.
I just thought that the Record ought to be set straight that everyone is disgusted with the way that these projects have been handled and that we are taking steps, and the Department is taking steps, to make sure that this bad situation is corrected.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak to this amendment. The VA Green Management Program is a sustainability program that integrates energy and water conservation, environmental compliance, vehicle fleet management, sustainable building design and operation, greenhouse gas management, and climate change adaptation.
Since its inception in 2007, the VA Green Management Program has reduced VA's energy costs from $504 million in 2010 to $459 million in 2014, despite significant growth in mission. Additionally, the Green Management Program has put in place energy performance contracts requiring no appropriated funds that will save VA over $9 million annually. Other significant achievements include it reduced VA energy use per square foot by 21 percent since 2003, reduced VA water consumption per square foot by 28 percent since 2007, increased VA's vehicle fleet to 55 percent alternatively fueled vehicles, and reduced VA-generated greenhouse gases 12 percent since the 2008 baseline.
In the absence of the Green Management Program funding, a number of programs, processes, and projects will not be carried out. These activities save taxpayers significant amounts of money; improve indoor and outdoor environments at VA facilities for the benefit of veterans, for visitors, employees, and surrounding communities; and help assure the VA compliance with Federal laws, with regulations, with executive orders, Presidential memoranda.
I would urge Members to oppose it. I am happy that the gentleman has withdrawn the amendment. I think his concerns are well placed, and I join the chairman in agreeing to work with him to see if we can't address those specific concerns in his location.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I believe that this amendment really serves no purpose but to erode collective bargaining rights for civil service Federal employees, and it may violate collective bargaining agreements that have been negotiated between workers and these agencies.
The VA employs some 342,000 people, and to complain because 200 of them spend their time representing and making sure that the conditions of employment within the scope of employment of their coworkers under collective bargaining agreements are maintained, I believe, is just punitive.
Federal unions are legally required to provide representation to all members of a bargaining unit, whether or not the workers elect to pay voluntary unions dues. Representation for employees working their way through administrative procedures is a cost-effective process for administering and adjudicating agency policies.
The alternative to official time is for government agencies to pay for costly third-party attorney and arbitrator fees. Eliminating official time would increase cost, time, and effort for the agencies, the workers, and the taxpayers.
Official time is essential to maintaining workplace safety. Union representatives use official time to set procedures to protect employees from on-the-job hazards. Official time is also used to allow employees to participate in work groups with the management team to improve the processes.
Under current law, official time may not be used to solicit membership, to conduct internal union meetings, elect union officers, or to engage in any partisan political activities. The notion that official time is used for these purposes is just false.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I think that it is punitive, and it has no purpose but to erode collective bargaining rights for civil service Federal employees.
I think that is not consistent with the laws of the United States of America.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that many of the employees--as a matter of fact, I think the number is 34 percent--at the Department of Veterans Affairs are, indeed, veterans.
They are people who, in fact, put their lives on the line and have given and served and sacrificed for this country. Of course, they are now continuing to work for their colleagues and their coworkers on the job in their capacity as bargaining representatives in the VA.
I would point out that, under the law, they have the right to do this. The law supports them in doing this. We should not interfere with that because too many of them--34 percent--are, in fact, veterans.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept and 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 Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar 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 because it makes good sense, it saves the taxpayers money, and it is useful.
Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this, and it is my hope that we stop attacking the working class and defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more important matters.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this, as we have repeatedly year after year.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Again, let's avoid including divisive language like this. This is a policy rider that is unnecessary. We have defeated it over and over again.
Davis-Bacon saves the government money. It requires quality work and quality labor be done on Federal contracts, and it pays a fair day's wages for a fair day's work.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' and reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source