Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 -- (House of Representatives - July 31, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me begin by saying to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that I salute his focus on the importance of increasing the funding for State extended care facilities, long-term care for America's veterans. That is exactly why, as the chairman of this subcommittee, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with our other subcommittee members and with Mr. Wamp, the ranking member, to increase by 94 percent above President Bush's request of funding for this program, 94 percent above the President's request. So I have no problem with the intent of what he is trying to accomplish, because we've been working on this very issue for months this year, and the bill product is proof of the success of that effort.
The reason I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment is that it would take funding out of the very account that is needed to address one of our veterans' and veterans service organizations' highest priorities in the entire VA budget, and that is to reduce the unconscionable backlog of veterans who are waiting to have their claims processed, including a backlog for combat wounded veterans to have their benefit cases considered.
Right now, there are nearly 400,000 veterans waiting to get their claims processed. What this amendment would do is take enough money out of that budget that would require the VA to cut 250 claims processors. Maybe that sounds like a rounding error to some, but to America's veterans, to 390,000 of them to be exact who are waiting for the processing of their benefits they earned by service and even by their sacrifice to our country, that's a significant cut, and it would do great harm to one of the highest priorities of our veterans service organizations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'd like to finish first.
So I wish the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and that we would continue to work in good faith as we already have this year, and that's evidenced by the 94 percent increase above the President's request for these.
I cannot go along with cutting funding that could lead to the loss of 250 claims processors that would link them to an already 6-month delay. For 6 months our veterans are having to wait to get their claims considered.
Our servicemen and -women, Mr. Chairman, didn't delay when Uncle Sam sent them to combat. They went to all parts of the Earth and into harm's way when our country asked them to do so. They didn't ask for a 6-month delay. For the National Guardsmen, the 500 I met last Sunday afternoon in my hometown of Waco, many of whom are going back to Iraq for their second and third tours of duty, they didn't wait 6 months when their country called on them to duty, and I don't think it's right to ask 390,000 veterans to wait 6 months.
We desperately need to get that waiting time down, and I think, though well intended and for a good cause--and it is well intended and it is a good cause--that this amendment that I have strongly supported could do harm to 390,000 veterans. That's why I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
If I have some time remaining, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, the gentleman talked a few minutes ago about how we've worked together; and I think 10 minutes ago was an example of that where I accepted the gentleman's $7 million amendment.
On this one, I think the gentleman's explanation about all the problems that have occurred are the perfect reason why I have real concerns about an amendment that already has technical problems in it, an amendment that could deal with up to $150 million coming out of minor construction projects, which are so important for our VA hospitals and clinics, I think this just isn't the right way to handle an amendment of that magnitude.
I think the gentleman knows me well; and I will work with him and Mr. Wamp in all good faith and see, as we go to conference, if there are places we can find reasonable funding sources for solar applications. But taking $150 million, for example, would be 15 percent of the VA's minor construction project. And the very intent of that funding is to prevent in the VA system what Americans were outraged at in the Army hospital system at Walter Reed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think anyone who has listened to this debate over the last few minutes at 10:30 at night understands this isn't about partisanship at all. But I think what the American people would object to is going from $150 million to $75 million to whatever other number that we might pull out of our hat this late in the evening on a measure that wasn't considered for 1 minute in the 19 hearings we held covering over 100 hours.
I salute the gentleman, my friend and colleague. I salute the gentleman for his goal of trying to encourage the VA, and I want to encourage the Department of Defense as well, to use solar energy, to lessen our energy costs and our dependence upon foreign energy supplies. That is a worthwhile goal.
But, Mr. Chairman, appropriation bills are about setting priorities. And let me tell you my priority, and I'm proud to defend this priority. My priority is that I never want one American veteran to ever have to live in the unconscionable conditions that Army soldiers had to live in at Walter Reed Annex 18 last year. The American people were deeply offended by what they saw.
So our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis in good faith to see that we plus-up the minor construction accounts in the VA to provide the kind of renovation so that we don't see that kind of nightmare occurring in the VA system that occurred in the Army medical system. And despite the worthiness of the gentleman's goals, even though it's so late at night and talking about sums such as $150 million, the fact is that loss of money for minor construction could cause the VA to have to cancel 25 to 30 significant construction projects to help provide better care, more modernized facilities for our veterans. So that is why I object to this amendment.
And I do look forward to working with the gentleman. If he wants to work in good faith, that will be my commitment to him. But it ought to be on a carefully thought-out process, weighing not only the pluses of his laudable goals but the minuses of where he would take that money from. That's the right way to handle the American taxpayers' dollars.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source