Veterans Cemetery Benefit Correction Act
Floor Speech
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing inspiration to everybody in this body and across the country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WALZ. Brownley), my good friend, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WALZ. Kuster), my good friend, the ranking member of the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations.
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak as a cosponsor of the VA MISSION Act. I appreciate the work of Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz in putting this bill together. This bill is almost unanimously supported by the veterans service organization community.
I am proud to cosponsor this legislation because it will enact needed reforms to the Veterans Choice Program and finally extend benefits to family caregivers for veterans of all eras.
I am pleased that the committee retained provisions that Senator Sullivan of Alaska and I fought for that would recognize the unique access issues for States that lack a full-service VA hospital. While I will continue to fight for improved and expanded facilities at our Manchester, New Hampshire, VA Medical Center, it is important to recognize that we have unique challenges in New Hampshire where we do not have a full-service hospital.
I also want to speak to this: the provisions that expand the caregiver benefits provided to post-9/11 veterans to veterans of all eras are necessary and long overdue.
I have heard repeatedly from Granite State veterans of eras prior to the global war on terror that the differences and benefits are simply unfair. The way these benefits are currently structured essentially pits veterans against veterans. That is unacceptable.
I thank Chairman Roe for working with us on finding a way forward for family caregiver benefits. I am sure thousands of Granite State veterans will agree.
While this bill embodies the kind of bipartisanship for which our committee is well known, it is not perfect. As the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I believe it is important to acknowledge parts of the bill that will need continued oversight. I remain committed to ensuring that the VA follows through in a manner that befits the veterans they serve.
Number one, the asset infrastructure review portion of the bill is promising, but I have concerns that it will be insufficient to accomplish its goals. The VA is in desperate need of improved facilities and a realignment of facilities to better serve veterans' needs.
In my own State of New Hampshire, the veterans of the North Country must rely on the Veterans Choice Program, rather than have ease of access to services they would prefer. I am encouraged by the continued work to improve our existing facilities, but Granite State veterans need more, and I hope this bill will further empower the VA to expand services in Manchester and across our State.
Recent experiences has shown that the VA's ability to accurately assess the needs of the veterans' population is in doubt. I remain committed to ensuring that the VA can paint an accurate picture of veterans' needs, especially veterans living in rural America. Too often, our veterans in rural America have seen promised infrastructure expansion stripped away from them. I urge the veterans service organizations community to continue to work with us to keep the VA honest.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WALZ. Esty), my good friend, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source